EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:26 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:33 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
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?

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?

I might go on about about this but why are they in the dictionary? Are they like junk DNA? Are they a weakness that we must overcome? Have they been studied in a laboratory? Can we measure them? What is there length and width? Can we put them in a petri dish?

Quote:
"you have to be able to explain how such a change is justified based on real scientific evidence not feelings."


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?

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


Our natural diet was our ancestral diet. I think that's what you mean. 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.

And yet, you defend it.

Why? Probably because you don't like me.
I'm a pain in the ass.

But this is not about me. It's not about you either. (So relax).

We are collectively examining our practices and why we allow for them.

We could probably not have imagined that piglets would have their testicles removed without anesthetic. We never would have imagined that it would be "industry practice" to bash the heads of newborns against pavement. efficiency? r whatever, right?

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.

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 ...."

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.

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.

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?

Wayne says: "Might be" is the problem. There "might be" a lot of things, which is why evidence makes a huge difference.

52 hours would have appalled Sinclair. Some of us are also quite appalled.

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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:09 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
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" :-s

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.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:22 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
IF you really want support to change the regulations you need to do these things for each species being transported. .

1> Show what suffering is caused by the current regulation. This has to be DIRECTLY related to transport time not the lack of enforcement of other regulations.

2> Do not try to use information from another species to confuse the issue.

3> Show that suffering would be lessened by the new regulations over the old regulations.

4> Show the cost of the new regulations would not be prohibitive compared to the old regulations if the new regulations were enacted.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 2:49 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-pipp ... 37274.html


In the ‘Globe and Mail’, a pork industry spokesperson noted that “the regulations followed by farmers are developed alongside animal-welfare experts and overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.” All of this is technically true, but examining the statement in light of this trial gives us an opportunity to explore the way in which the law can be manipulated to serve ends that are not animal-friendly.

If I make my own rules—and let’s just say that the industry has a large role in setting the rules that are followed—it’s usually easy to follow them. If you’re allowed to transport pigs for 36 hours without giving them water, what does it mean to say you are “following the rules?” The question is not whether you’re adhering to the rules, it’s whether the rules themselves allow for abusive conduct. That’s what I think is really on trial here: how our law allows conduct that leads to the suffering of animals in transport to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-pippus/pigtrial-interview-with_b_11737274.html


In the ‘Globe and Mail’, a pork industry spokesperson noted that “the regulations followed by farmers are developed alongside animal-welfare experts and overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.” All of this is technically true, but examining the statement in light of this trial gives us an opportunity to explore the way in which the law can be manipulated to serve ends that are not animal-friendly.

If I make my own rules—and let’s just say that the industry has a large role in setting the rules that are followed—it’s usually easy to follow them. If you’re allowed to transport pigs for 36 hours without giving them water, what does it mean to say you are “following the rules?” The question is not whether you’re adhering to the rules, it’s whether the rules themselves allow for abusive conduct. That’s what I think is really on trial here: how our law allows conduct that leads to the suffering of animals in transport to happen.


I like the attempt to claim an illegal act is not a criminal act, which is patently false. If one violates a criminal statute is is by definition a criminal act. If it were a civil statute there could be such a statement made, but a violation of criminal law is a crime. One may try a defense, but in the US ignorance of the law is not a defense. I am not sure about Canadian law.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:00 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-pippus/pigtrial-interview-with_b_11737274.html


In the ‘Globe and Mail’, a pork industry spokesperson noted that “the regulations followed by farmers are developed alongside animal-welfare experts and overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.” All of this is technically true, but examining the statement in light of this trial gives us an opportunity to explore the way in which the law can be manipulated to serve ends that are not animal-friendly.

If I make my own rules—and let’s just say that the industry has a large role in setting the rules that are followed—it’s usually easy to follow them. If you’re allowed to transport pigs for 36 hours without giving them water, what does it mean to say you are “following the rules?” The question is not whether you’re adhering to the rules, it’s whether the rules themselves allow for abusive conduct. That’s what I think is really on trial here: how our law allows conduct that leads to the suffering of animals in transport to happen.


I like the attempt to claim an illegal act is not a criminal act, which is patently false. If one violates a criminal statute is is by definition a criminal act. If it were a civil statute there could be such a statement made, but a violation of criminal law is a crime. One may try a defense, but in the US ignorance of the law is not a defense. I am not sure about Canadian law.


The charge against her is "mischief" which is a very broad, catch'all charge. The crown would have to prove that she damaged the use, enjoyment and operation of property. The crown would have to prove that the value of the pig was lost through damage. The damage would have had to be done "willfully" so they have to prove that Anita was aware that giving water to a thirsty pig would be de-valuing someone's property.

Should be interesting how this case unfolds, but I would guess it will be very difficult for the crown to prove she willfully did so, especially since both the driver and the farmer said that no pigs were ever turned away or deemed unsafe because they were given water. AND, many more pigs have been given water since this particular charge was brought against Anita.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:17 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-pippus/pigtrial-interview-with_b_11737274.html


In the ‘Globe and Mail’, a pork industry spokesperson noted that “the regulations followed by farmers are developed alongside animal-welfare experts and overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.” All of this is technically true, but examining the statement in light of this trial gives us an opportunity to explore the way in which the law can be manipulated to serve ends that are not animal-friendly.

If I make my own rules—and let’s just say that the industry has a large role in setting the rules that are followed—it’s usually easy to follow them. If you’re allowed to transport pigs for 36 hours without giving them water, what does it mean to say you are “following the rules?” The question is not whether you’re adhering to the rules, it’s whether the rules themselves allow for abusive conduct. That’s what I think is really on trial here: how our law allows conduct that leads to the suffering of animals in transport to happen.


I like the attempt to claim an illegal act is not a criminal act, which is patently false. If one violates a criminal statute is is by definition a criminal act. If it were a civil statute there could be such a statement made, but a violation of criminal law is a crime. One may try a defense, but in the US ignorance of the law is not a defense. I am not sure about Canadian law.



The charge against her is "mischief" which is a very broad, catch'all charge. The crown would have to prove that she damaged the use, enjoyment and operation of property. The crown would have to prove that the value of the pig was lost through damage. The damage would have had to be done "willfully" so they have to prove that Anita was aware that giving water to a thirsty pig would be de-valuing someone's property.

Should be interesting how this case unfolds, but I would guess it will be very difficult for the crown to prove she willfully did so, especially since both the driver and the farmer said that no pigs were ever turned away or deemed unsafe because they were given water. AND, many more pigs have been given water since this particular charge was brought against Anita.


Defense attorneys only give the information that makes their client look good, since that is the majority of their job. The REST of the code indicates:

obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

She did obstruct, interrupt, and interfere with the lawful use and operation of the pigs in question.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ajnc-trial

Toronto resident Anita Krajnc, 49, was arrested on 22 June 2015 after clashing with the driver of a tractor-trailer carrying pigs to an Ontario pork processing plant.

One cannot clash with a driver without interrupting or interfering with his duties, the incident probably obstructed as well.

And so much about the BS of hours upon hours of transport starving and making these pigs suffer from thirst too. A little over an hour transport time is hard to present as such abuse, but then again the truthfulness of an activist is not always a high priority. Even the "hot" temperature BS is easily checked in the official records.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story ... s-putting/

Krajnc, who pled not guilty to the charge on Wednesday, Aug. 24. The charges stem from a June 22, 2015 incident in which she offered water from a bottle to a pig bound for slaughter. The pig was one of roughly 190 that were being transported roughly 110 kilometres from Van Boekel Farms in Norwich, Ont. to Fearmans Pork Inc. in Burlington.

The maximum temperature listed for this date was 79 degrees F between noon and 6 PM.

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/cana ... &year=2015

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:52 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


In the ‘Globe and Mail’, a pork industry spokesperson noted that “the regulations followed by farmers are developed alongside animal-welfare experts and overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.” All of this is technically true, but examining the statement in light of this trial gives us an opportunity to explore the way in which the law can be manipulated to serve ends that are not animal-friendly.

If I make my own rules—and let’s just say that the industry has a large role in setting the rules that are followed—it’s usually easy to follow them. If you’re allowed to transport pigs for 36 hours without giving them water, what does it mean to say you are “following the rules?” The question is not whether you’re adhering to the rules, it’s whether the rules themselves allow for abusive conduct. That’s what I think is really on trial here: how our law allows conduct that leads to the suffering of animals in transport to happen.


I like the attempt to claim an illegal act is not a criminal act, which is patently false. If one violates a criminal statute is is by definition a criminal act. If it were a civil statute there could be such a statement made, but a violation of criminal law is a crime. One may try a defense, but in the US ignorance of the law is not a defense. I am not sure about Canadian law.



The charge against her is "mischief" which is a very broad, catch'all charge. The crown would have to prove that she damaged the use, enjoyment and operation of property. The crown would have to prove that the value of the pig was lost through damage. The damage would have had to be done "willfully" so they have to prove that Anita was aware that giving water to a thirsty pig would be de-valuing someone's property.

Should be interesting how this case unfolds, but I would guess it will be very difficult for the crown to prove she willfully did so, especially since both the driver and the farmer said that no pigs were ever turned away or deemed unsafe because they were given water. AND, many more pigs have been given water since this particular charge was brought against Anita.


Defense attorneys only give the information that makes their client look good, since that is the majority of their job. The REST of the code indicates:

obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

She did obstruct, interrupt, and interfere with the lawful use and operation of the pigs in question.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ajnc-trial

Quote:
That is what is in question! Did she? The pigs were still "operational"

"Veldjesgraaf testified that it wasn't unusual for Krajnc and other animal rights activists to offer water to the pigs, and the Fearman's Pork slaughterhouse has never turned away the animals he hauls there because of it."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pigs-given ... -1.3041496


Toronto resident Anita Krajnc, 49, was arrested on 22 June 2015 after clashing with the driver of a tractor-trailer carrying pigs to an Ontario pork processing plant.

One cannot clash with a driver without interrupting or interfering with his duties, the incident probably obstructed as well.

Quote:
So did she obstruct the operation of the pig or the truck? And f the driver hadn't clashed with her, would she have obstructed the operation of the truck? This is what will be decided in court and since the charge is so flimsy she has been charged with "mischief". ALSO the driver admitted in court that Anita's actions DID NOT interfere with him doing his job.


And so much about the BS of hours upon hours of transport starving and making these pigs suffer from thirst too. A little over an hour transport time is hard to present as such abuse, but then again the truthfulness of an activist is not always a high priority. Even the "hot" temperature BS is easily checked in the official records.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story ... s-putting/

Quote:
Being in transport for 36 hours is not BS, it's actual Canadian law. Nobody said these particular pigs were near maximum time for legal transport just that they were thirsty.


Krajnc, who pled not guilty to the charge on Wednesday, Aug. 24. The charges stem from a June 22, 2015 incident in which she offered water from a bottle to a pig bound for slaughter. The pig was one of roughly 190 that were being transported roughly 110 kilometres from Van Boekel Farms in Norwich, Ont. to Fearmans Pork Inc. in Burlington.

The maximum temperature listed for this date was 79 degrees F between noon and 6 PM.

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/cana ... &year=2015[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:54 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Being in transport for 36 hours is not BS, it's actual Canadian law. Nobody said these particular pigs were near maximum time for legal transport just that they were thirsty.


Right, just as the addition of chickens and cattle thrown into the discussion was to confuse, so was the UNRELATED extreme time frame. Everything was a MANUFACTURED situation here, including the "thirst" of the animals in the video, which I pointed out was not indicated. The reason it was not indicated is they had just left the farm an hour or so before and since it was not in the "sweltering heat" as claimed they were not thirsty and were just checking on what was being presented as I first thought. I hope they do not use that same approach with the jury as it may backfire.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
As fir the title of the thread, I would say that he knew what was going on and saw something dishonest in the people around his truck which should rightfully concern him. I think the charges were not appropriate because they should have been stronger, but if that is what the charges are, she is guilty and should be sentenced accordingly.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:57 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As fir the title of the thread, I would say that he knew what was going on and saw something dishonest in the people around his truck which should rightfully concern him. I think the charges were not appropriate because they should have been stronger, but if that is what the charges are, she is guilty and should be sentenced accordingly.


She may be charged with "mischief' in the meddling of animals being transported in some discomfort. We will see what that discomfort is, beyond transportation. Obviously, the transport is reasonably disputed, and the treatment of animals upon delivery may also be called into question. Because bacon.

Bacon is obviously delicious, and even trendy.

As for survival, very necessary. Otherwise, just tasty and trendy. And jobs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:03 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As fir the title of the thread, I would say that he knew what was going on and saw something dishonest in the people around his truck which should rightfully concern him. I think the charges were not appropriate because they should have been stronger, but if that is what the charges are, she is guilty and should be sentenced accordingly.


She may be charged with "mischief' in the meddling of animals being transported in some discomfort.


"Some discomfort"? What discomfort did they suffer in that short drive exactly? It was not too hot according to the weather data. It was not too cold or wet either. They were not deprived of food or water for an extended period. According to the news reports she WAS charged and lied through their teeth to the reporters, who did not bother to check the facts.

Quote:
We will see what that discomfort is, beyond transportation.


Beyond transportation? Transportation was the only aspect of the video and now because they were caught misrepresenting that whole thing they are going to try to make up something else? That is was lawyers do when trying to defend their clients, but it does not make it any more factual than the last attempt


Quote:
Obviously, the transport is reasonably disputed
,

"Reasonably"? No, it is disputed but given the way it was disputed there is nothing reasonable about it. IT is not an attempt to make the transport better, but to end the transport and use of the animals for food. A very dishonest approach which is taken far too often. Now it appears ALL of the things said about how the Canadian transport regulations should be more like the European transport regulations was just a big smoke screen designed to lie to the people who did not know the facts of the matter. That too is FAR TOO COMMON with groups like this. If there were issues with the Canadian transport regulations they have lost any independent support for changing them when this set of misrepresentations is included.

Quote:
and the treatment of animals upon delivery may also be called into question.


Everything will be called into question, I am sure. The problem is there seems to be no facts behind the questions other than a personal agenda.

Quote:
Because bacon.

Bacon is obviously delicious, and even trendy.

As for survival, very necessary. Otherwise, just tasty and trendy. And jobs.


Yes, and it seems to be the most factual portion of the presentation of this situation.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:52 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As fir the title of the thread, I would say that he knew what was going on and saw something dishonest in the people around his truck which should rightfully concern him. I think the charges were not appropriate because they should have been stronger, but if that is what the charges are, she is guilty and should be sentenced accordingly.


She may be charged with "mischief' in the meddling of animals being transported in some discomfort.


"Some discomfort"? What discomfort did they suffer in that short drive exactly? It was not too hot according to the weather data. It was not too cold or wet either. They were not deprived of food or water for an extended period. According to the news reports she WAS charged and lied through their teeth to the reporters, who did not bother to check the facts.

Quote:
We will see what that discomfort is, beyond transportation.


Beyond transportation? Transportation was the only aspect of the video and now because they were caught misrepresenting that whole thing they are going to try to make up something else? That is was lawyers do when trying to defend their clients, but it does not make it any more factual than the last attempt


Quote:
Obviously, the transport is reasonably disputed
,

"Reasonably"? No, it is disputed but given the way it was disputed there is nothing reasonable about it. IT is not an attempt to make the transport better, but to end the transport and use of the animals for food. A very dishonest approach which is taken far too often. Now it appears ALL of the things said about how the Canadian transport regulations should be more like the European transport regulations was just a big smoke screen designed to lie to the people who did not know the facts of the matter. That too is FAR TOO COMMON with groups like this. If there were issues with the Canadian transport regulations they have lost any independent support for changing them when this set of misrepresentations is included.

Quote:
and the treatment of animals upon delivery may also be called into question.


Everything will be called into question, I am sure. The problem is there seems to be no facts behind the questions other than a personal agenda.

Quote:
Because bacon.

Bacon is obviously delicious, and even trendy.

As for survival, very necessary. Otherwise, just tasty and trendy. And jobs.


Yes, and it seems to be the most factual portion of the presentation of this situation.


Exactly!
Will you die?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21215
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Exactly!
Will you die?


Yes, all known living creatures die, so it is fairly certain that I will as well. The big question is whether your movement will ever tell the truth? :-k

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:51 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
As for the title of the thread, I would say that he knew what was going on and saw something dishonest in the people around his truck which should rightfully concern him. I think the charges were not appropriate because they should have been stronger, but if that is what the charges are, she is guilty and should be sentenced accordingly.


She may be charged with "mischief' in the meddling of animals being transported in some discomfort.


"Some discomfort"? What discomfort did they suffer in that short drive exactly? It was not too hot according to the weather data. It was not too cold or wet either. They were not deprived of food or water for an extended period. According to the news reports she WAS charged and lied through their teeth to the reporters, who did not bother to check the facts.

She will probably be charged with "mischief". In other words, she will be let off for a minor transgression. It was not "too" hot, but very likely uncomfortable & the pigs very likely thirsty. They drank greedily, obviously in need of what was given.

Quote:
We will see what that discomfort is, beyond transportation.


Beyond transportation? Transportation was the only aspect of the video and now because they were caught misrepresenting that whole thing they are going to try to make up something else? That is was lawyers do when trying to defend their clients, but it does not make it any more factual than the last attempt

It was the aspect of the video the activist were drawing attention to. But they don't have to make up anything else. The facts will speak for themselves, and those facts are actually part of the defense. In other words, yes! You are correct, the issue and case will definitely involve more than the transportation issue. It will address the entire issue, from transportation, to slaughter, and all the ugly "realities" in between. You have read the details of the case, have you not?

Quote:
Obviously, the transport is reasonably disputed
,

"Reasonably"? No, it is disputed but given the way it was disputed there is nothing reasonable about it. IT is not an attempt to make the transport better, but to end the transport and use of the animals for food.

Oh please ..... there is a massive movement that is becoming informed of, and moving away from, mass corporate means. This may be a 'vegan" issue for many, but for many more it is a question of basic rationality. To incarcerate animals in this way is neither rational nor logical. The food system, in its entirety, is incoherent .... but to include animals in this mass production and consumption? Tsk. OF COURSE it's more than just transportation, although transportation is a large issue to be tackled and challenged.

Quote:
A very dishonest approach which is taken far too often. Now it appears ALL of the things said about how the Canadian transport regulations should be more like the European transport regulations was just a big smoke screen designed to lie to the people who did not know the facts of the matter. That too is FAR TOO COMMON with groups like this. If there were issues with the Canadian transport regulations they have lost any independent support for changing them when this set of misrepresentations is included.



The people who did not know the facts of the matter? What, like Europe has a much more humane system of transportation? Their actions have galvanized many, and have educated the majority who had NO IDEA of what is involved in their luxury food.

Quote:
and the treatment of animals upon delivery may also be called into question.


Quote:
Everything will be called into question, I am sure. The problem is there seems to be no facts behind the questions other than a personal agenda.


So you DO know that everything will be called into question and that was the point? And you pretend that this action will threaten the yak burgers of the world? Or that calling on a more sane, rational treatment of animals ... animals .... will threaten your well being?

Will you die? Of course we all will, but it is the living that matters and the quality of life while living is taking place.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group