Beach Blunder wrote:
<...>
>>> Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
>>> blind to the obvious evidence.
>>
>> Evidence like this?
>> http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
>> http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
>> http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
>> http://tinyurl.com/be2km
>> http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
>> http://tinyurl.com/95a85
>> http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
>> http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
>> http://tinyurl.com/byac3
>
> And I suppose those look to you like traditional, healthy family farms.

I didn't address what they look like, dummy. But since you're keen to
know, I think they look like modern farms. I have no objection to modern
farming. I think even "traditional, healthy family farms" today look
more like this than whatever idyllic notion lingering in your brain cell
from a field trip to a farm in 1945.

> Animals on concrete.

It has benefits.

1. Easier to clean and disinfect.
2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
environmentally-friendly.

> Believe me,

No. **** no.

> they only take their own self-serving
> pictures in the best possible light.

One of those pics was taken on vacation (Israeli farm:
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb). A couple other were from ag departments,
iirc, and one from a feed company. Those pics show the norm. Why don't
you take a trip to a turkey farm, Bob, and see for yourself?

> As evidenced by my posting

Your posts are evidence of nothing but your senility, you old geezer.

> of your factory farmed turkeys versus what a
> real turkey looks like. There is no comparison.

Domestic turkeys are *real* turkeys. Wild turkeys are somewhat
different, but consumers want more breast meat than wild turkeys have.

>>> The reasons some laws have been
>>> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.
>>
>> Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
>> legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
>> blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
>> few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
>> state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first
>> place (ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
>> importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
>> passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
>> amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
>> legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
>> initiative.
>
> It was passed because some people do care about how animals are treated

No. It passed because enough voters were duped by emotive appeals about
gestation crates rather than the facts -- like how only two Florida
farms even used them. The amendment had NOTHING to do with caring about
animals but EVERYTHING to do with the authoritarian zeal of animal
rights activists.

> and wanted to make that statement.

A completely *meaningless* statement -- the measure isn't substantive in
addressing how animals are treated in Florida. It addressed conditions
that were found at just two farms. Even though the amendment won't go
into effect until 2008 (iirc), those two farmers slaughtered all their
sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?