animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Tell me again how to justify an animal being transported without food, water, or rest for 52 hours?
.... 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.
Why? What's wrong with "feelings"? Also called "empathy" and various other synonyms? We can also use words like compassion to inform our discussion. Is it somehow wrong or illogical to include these words in our discussion? If so, why? Is it somehow 'unintelligent' or 'illogical' to consider the experience of animals? Can we not apply our own intelligence, which includes empathy, in consideration?
Nothing is wrong with feelings, but they make very poor evidence. Your feelings one way are no stronger motive to change than another person's feelings to remian with the status quo. People do not have the same feelings and their feelings are stronger to them than yours are to them.
Quote:
Is the intelligence that these words denote and connote devoid of something? Is empathy and compassion and other such words that point to the experience that we have .... null and void? If so, why do they exist at all?
Can we only apply them to the human animal?
Accurately, yes and not even in all cases then. Some people are incapable of understanding the plight of others because they only have their own experiences from which to draw and their feelings are stronger than the feelings of those telling them otherwise. Now when hard evidence is included that can change, but without evidence it is not easy.
Quote:
"you have to be able to explain how such a change is justified based on real scientific evidence not feelings."
Quote:
He said ....
"Apart from the evidence of suffering ..... animals arriving dead, downers, etc .... which we have all seen plenty of evidence for. Such evidence has been given for the last 20 years or so, or whenever it was that undercover operations began. We can look it up, and I am thinking it's been about 20 years or so since it has been recorded with the available technology. Before the technology was available and before we became organized to undertake the task, we had the written word. (For instance, we had Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" (1906) which was a rather horrific portrait of the turn-of-the-century American meat-packing factory. A grim expose that led to government regulations of the food industry).
If Upton Sinclair had the technology we have today, and exposed the industry via Envirolink, and other forms of internet wonder, how would you, Wayne, deal with his expose? Would you demand that he provide you with "scientific evidence" that abuses were occurring?
That is just the evidence you are lacking in the change of this regulation. You have NO evidence of suffering due to the current regulation which can be removed with new legislation. Downers do not happen in just the time of transport. Other than that what evidence do you have of ANY significant change due to the regulations being rewritten?
Quote:
Actually we require animal products fora natural diet, it would therefore not be a "taste" any more or less than another food source.
Quote:
Our natural diet was our ancestral diet. I think that's what you mean.
No, I mean our natural diet, the one we can eat without having man-made supplements added to allow us to live while eating that diet.
Quote:
But our ancestral homes did not require real estate agents. Times have changed. Circumstances have changed. Our ancestors hunted and gathered as required. Our ancestors did not set up systems of mass transportation of the animals they hunted, nor did they subject their food to the horrific conditions that Upton Sinclair described so many years ago, and which has been a harbinger of much worse conditions for animals to come. Even Upton Sinclair could not have imagined what was to come. Nobody could have imagined such conditions for animals, yet they are now living it. We are now living it.
No, they "more humanely" stabbed, beat, choked, drown, or caused their prey to fall to its death.
Quote:
And yet, you defend it.
No, I point out you have no basis for change other than YOU want others to change.
Quote:
Why? Probably because you don't like me.
No, I dislike ineffective arguments that have to resort to misrepresentation to try to gain support.
Quote:
I'm a pain in the ass.
Just in your use of the "quote function"
Quote:
But this is not about me. It's not about you either. (So relax).
I am. I have a nice comfy chair with a cat that wants to type for me and right now three dogs trying to figure out how they can all get petted at the same time by my tow hands.
Quote:
We are collectively examining our practices and why we allow for them.
Yes, and collectively you have nothing to show that would be improved sufficiently to justify the change.
Quote:
We could probably not have imagined that piglets would have their testicles removed without anesthetic.
Why could we not do that? We did not use anesthesia on human infants for centuries when they were circumcised. The key is having the facts as to why and comparing the cost to the benefit.
Quote:
We never would have imagined that it would be "industry practice" to bash the heads of newborns against pavement. efficiency? r whatever, right?
Your alternative would have been quicker? Shown to be less painful? Or just more appealing to your senses?
Quote:
It's okay to have "feelings" about it. How could we not? Would you like me to provide the studies which link empathy to intelligence? I can do that for you.
No, I would rather see the studies that show how reducing travel time documents specific improvements in the animals you claim are suffering.
Quote:
Have a look at the position of the American Dietetic Association .... "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes ...."
Well planned means to have sufficient supplements to off set the losses you would normally incur with such a diet. Without the significant amounts of supplements available this statement would not be made.
Quote:
And it goes on. But you have read it before as it has been posted here many moons ago & you have already contested it in your way.
You mean by pointing out the artificial support required to make it actually work? Yes. That does not mean people cannot choose to follow those diets, because they can, but they have to do more planning than others do with their diet.
Quote:
The Canadian official dietary association has revealed the same.
O
What we are doing to animals and how we are doing to animals is unprecedented in human history. Upton Sinclair would be even more appalled. Perhaps he thought his expose might bring some awareness. It did for some. But now, 100 years later, when animals are even a greater product in the market, served up in even a greater manner, with even greater economic dividends, reason is harder to come by.
I know all of those by-products of animal use are horrible, like some of the supplements the vegetarian and vegan diets require. Odd that doing away with animals would also do away with that healthy vegan and vegetarian diet as well.
Quote:
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?
There MIGHT be anything, it is up to those who wish to make the change to show there IS something and that they proposal will improve it sufficient to warrant a change. I am still waiting for the evidence of the existence much less the evidence of the improvement.
Quote:
Wayne says: "Might be" is the problem. There "might be" a lot of things, which is why evidence makes a huge difference.
Yes, that is correct.
Quote:
52 hours would have appalled Sinclair
.
No he would not. See how easily one opinion counters another without any way to support either one?
Quote:
Some of us are also quite appalled.
Some of us are appalled that other are appalled seemingly because they merely want to be appalled.
Quote:
Wayne says: It seems none are looking for evidence and none are trying to change the law, but they are just rambling on about it.
Quote:
C'mom Wayne. I think some of us are very concerned. We are not rambling and the rambling/evidence is already there.
We have actually been discussing the evidence. Join us please.
You have shown NO evidence that indicates travel time causes any issue therefore neither have you shown there would be any improvement by shortening the travel time. Change for the sake of change is not a very good position yet you hold it now.
Login
Register
FAQ
