EnviroLink Forum

Just wondering if there was a reason or if it were just spam. Spam will be deleted per the instructions of the board management.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Spam should be deleted. Of course.

But quoting my own prior posts is not spam, which is, I suppose, why they have not been deleted. Quoting my own (and your) prior quotes is the way I am conversing with you. Not exactly chronological, I know, but linear is not the only way. Sometimes it is constructive to circle back and back again, and then go forward, and then circle back (with the hope than we can again go forward).

For instance, will reiterate this particular exchange ..... "The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather. Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.

And your reply was: "Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering, which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions."

Is it really spam or is it simply circling back on a part of the total conversation that has not been adequately addressed? Is 52 hours in freezing weather 'unspecified suffering'? While it it is legal, it is undocumented? HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE UNDOCUMENTED ..... if it is legal? And your response, "if there is transport there must be suffering"?

Noooo. Transportation MUST happen, but 52 hours without food, water, or rest? Would an assumption about those animals welfare legalities/allowances be too emotional for you?

How presumptuous, really, is it, to 'kinda-sorta' presume that there might be suffering for an animal to be legally allowed to be transported in freezing weather without food, water or rest for 52 hours?

Might one not be acting and thinking and behaving in a very rational context to object to such laws? Who do you presume you are talking to?

You are conversing with a logical human being, and logical human beings make allowances for emotions since the intellect and emotions are usually (hopefully) well connected. I have stated the facts of Canadian transport laws. I may circle back again to statement you have previously made on this thread. And if/when I do, it will not be spam.

No, it was due to their being discussed. At this point one has been deleted and the other may still be.



But is says nothing new and is frankly a little confusing.



A better way would be to indicate which portion of the prior discussion was of interest, not just post the same thing twice.





Yes, as you have not specified what the suffering is nor have you provided any documentation of said suffering on the animals as a group. Do you believe keeping them in a barn in freezing weather causes suffering after some unspecified time?



The suffering you claim, yes. The transport time is not applicable until there can be shown what suffering occurs and when. It falls back to your apparent assumption that transport equals suffering because you believe you would be uncomfortable in such a situation, which is an emotional belief.



It there were sufficient documentation of actual suffering it probably would not be legal.



Yes, as you seem to intermix the two as you did above with the documentation questions.



Assumptions are poor points to use in changing established regulations. One can always assume anything but such decisions require facts and evidence.



Given the rest of the facts, yes, it is. What is the "magic number" and why? 52 hours causes the assumption of suffering so go to 26 hours and cut the assumed suffering in half. Then you can assume that is too much and cut it in half again and again because the goal seems to be that transport is what you want banned because it also would cut the numbers of animals raised for food.



Not given the evidence presented.



Some one who has not given any evidence to support a proposal that hogs are suffering in a video or in the general transport. Who you are or are not does not matter, but what you have to show as evidence does.



That could be a point of debate as well.



Yes, and no evidence as to why they should be changed, which would be the really important thing to do unless they do not need to be changed.



That will remain to be seen since it will depend on how it is done. I would not suggest merely posting a previous post again especially more than once. There was some question the first time, but I doubt if a second would have any question.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, it was due to their being discussed. At this point one has been deleted and the other may still be.

Delete away. Sorry I am not following your rules and format. Not my main concern. Here is my concern:

Let me be simple then. Thousands of animals in transport. Most in stress. Evidence already given. You still waiting for it.



It's legal. What documentation is required when it's part of the matrix? Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and rest. How can you say the suffering is not specified?

What documentation do you require? Canadian law? Just gave it to you.
Let's start fresh.

Tell me again how to justify an animal being transported without food, water, or rest for 52 hours?

If I repeat the question, will you delete it?

Is it really spam or is it simply circling back on a part of the total conversation that has not been adequately addressed? Is 52 hours in freezing weather 'unspecified suffering'?



Implicit as it is? Evidence? A petrie dish or what would you like? I have been specific. You keep saying I have not. Weird.


"nor have you provided any documentation of said suffering on the animals as a group.

Individuals? Or must they be a group? A group in a petrie dish, or just one? How would they all fit in a lab?

?

Why do you ask? Keeping them in a barn without food or water? Or just keeping them in a barn? Unspecified time? Why unspecified?

No, you have NOT given evidence of "most in stress" which is why you have no made any points. You claim they are in transit for X amount of time without evidence of the effect being stress other than your assumption that you would not like it.



That is actually happens, which is called documentation. Document the effect on the animal for the different lengths of the transport and show what percentage of the current transport is of that length.



They CAN be transported, there is nothing presented to show how many are transported for any specific length of time or what the effects on the animals are at that level of transport. Transport cannot just be assumed to be suffering.



I have told you REPEATEDLY and I just repeated it again.



Really?



It is legal to do so. Now it is your turn to show the data that would cause the law to be changed. If it is just that you assume there is suffering there is no reason to repeat the discussion as it will be circular again.



No, but if you copy the complete post it may be.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Repeated posting of a previous post is spam.



What animals, you have jumped from hogs to cows to chickens, what the specific suffering is for the length of transport, documentation of the percentage of suffering at the levels currently used and at what you propose the levels are to be in the future.





No, you have not.




Individual examples are called anecdotal ans do not provide evidence of the system.



Percentages are determined in that manner and it will be percentages upon which any decision should be made.



You don't. You make broad assumptions and expect people to believe you.... and when they do not you ask about "petrie dishes"




Because that relates to what you have been saying.



With food and water for the present.




You have not given what the "acceptable" time limit for transport is so it is unspecified.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

"A better way would be to indicate which portion of the prior discussion was of interest, not just post the same thing twice."





specified what the suffering is.
Yes, as you have not

Haven't I? I thought I said something about 52 hours without food, water and rest.

nor have you provided any documentation of said suffering on the animals as a group.

Have i not said that animals can be transported for both 36 and 52 hours?

I thought I said something about 52 hours without food, water and rest.



That could be a point of debate as well.

You may well debate it, but animals can still be in transport for 52 hours, whether you like me or not.
You may either like or dislike me for stating them.

Yes, and no evidence as to why they should be changed, which would be the really important thing to do unless they do not need to be changed.

I'm sorry. Are you actually saying that an animal can be transported for 52 or 36 hours without any form of sustenance because it is "legal"?

No evidence as to why an animal, a being who has preferences and is able to mourn the loss of it's offspring, should be considered? Because bacon?



That will remain to be seen since it will depend on how it is done.

This is how it is done.
Emphasis.
Reiteration.

I would not suggest merely posting a previous post again especially more than once. There was some question the first time, but I doubt if a second would have any question.[/quote]

But I will do it again if it seems necessary. I may repeat what you have said again. There are a few reasons why. But again, even if i dare being accused of spam, "Are you actually saying that an animal can be transported for 52 or 36 hours without any form of sustenance because it is "legal"? "

Tell me again how to justify an animal being transported without food, water, or rest for 52 hours?


It is legal to do so.


Exactly.

So no food, water, or rest is the suffering you dislike. What exactly is the point it becomes suffering? Are there physical indicators that appear after X amount of time? What does the frezzing weather have to do with these causes of suffering?



You have but you have not shown how one or the other causes suffering. I would understand discomfort at these points, but you claimed suffering. I am still waiting for some documentation of said suffering. As I said you seem to equate transport with suffering but there is nothing to support your belief presented to convince anyone else to follow that belief.



How is that suffering? Does it cause injury that can be readily identified? What is the manifestation of this suffering.



I believe that applies more to you than I because I am still trying to get to the suffering part.



No I am saying that it is legal and should remain so unless there is some evidence to support it being changed.



Considered for what? You are giving a circular argument at best and at worst no argument at all.



But I will do it again if it seems necessary. I may repeat what you have said again. [/quote]

If it is done as the last time it WILL be deleted.



It is up to you to present an valid argument to CHANGE that law if you want it changed. If not it is legal and apparently working as well as other transport laws based upon the percentages indicated.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes, and if you wish to change the law you have to be able to explain how such a change is justified based on real scientific evidence not feelings and beliefs. There are many components that go into such a change and all stakeholders should have the right to question the date or to provide data to support their positions. This means the industries will have a say as well.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The industries will do what they do because they are making money. I am not as interested in changing the law as I am in changing public/individual perception of what is needed to live a life without such misery, exploitation and violence. We are causing undue suffering to animals because of industry spin. Industry requires money, jobs, etc. It's part of the economy to insist that we must eat protein in the form of animals. So we do this.

How presumptuous, really, is it, to 'kinda-sorta' presume that there might be suffering for an animal to be legally allowed to be transported in freezing weather without food, water or rest for 52 hours?

What is the "magic number" and why? 52 hours causes the assumption of suffering so go to 26 hours and cut the assumed suffering in half.

Yes. That would be MUCH better, at least by half. Why not? Europe is doing 12.

... the goal seems to be that transport is what you want banned because it also would cut the numbers of animals raised for food.

Of course I don't want transport banned. I never, ever said so! I don't choose to eat meat which doesn't mean my parents don't like their steak. This is an animal welfare issue, not an abolitionist one. And clearly, this is an issue to be addressed.

Even my friends and family would like better conditions while they barbecue.

"Might be" is the problem. There "might be" a lot of things, whcih is why evidence makes a huge difference.



And increase the costs for the industries because you would feel better in your assumption?



Europe is much more populated and the countries are much smaller, thus there are significant differences in distances and resources available. Also zero dividied by two is still zero.



But we can assume that can we not? If you want to cut it in half why not cut it in half again? Or again?




Animal welfare usually deals with evidence but abolition usually deals with perceptions and assumptions.



And how much more would they pay for that barbecue as a result? Would they continue to barbecue as often or would economics have an impact?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No. It'a there. Whose looking for any sort of evidence when 52 hours is legal anyway?



Ohhh no. Increase the costs for the industries? I would feel better, and so would the general public, if they actually knew what what going on. Most don't know the actual state of the industry.

Europe is much more populated and the countries are much smaller, thus there are significant differences in distances and resources available. Also zero dividied by two is still zero.



But we can assume that can we not? If you want to cut it in half why not cut it in half again? Or again?

Yeah. Sure. Of course.



Animal welfare usually deals with evidence
Exactly. Laws.

but abolition usually deals with perceptions and assumptions.
And?



And how much more would they pay for that barbecue as a result? Would they continue to barbecue as often or would economics have an impact?[/quote]

Economics would have an impact and they would probably barbecue less but their lives would not suffer as a result. Would yours?

Even my carnivorous friends and family would be willing to pay more for the privilege of eating animal protein when they know they could be eating protein from other sources. It's not hard. It's just habit.

Apparently, smoking is hard to quit too.

Actually we require animal products for a natural diet, it would therefore not be a "taste" any more or less than another food source.






It seem none are looking for evidence and none are trying to change the law, but they are just rambling on about it.



But you have no idea what is going on in the industry or you would have evidence instead of assumptions.





No, there were no laws in the beginning but there was animal welfare.



You seem to be dealing with perceptions and assumptions and not evidence.



Economics would have an impact and they would probably barbecue less but their lives would not suffer as a result. Would yours?[/quote]

Some would but you do not care about such facts.



People are Omnivores which means we can eat more than just meat or vegetables but naturally need both.



And what is it you are smoking then?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein