View Single Post
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>> Animals on concrete.

>
>>>> It has benefits.

>
>>> Only to the producer.

>
>> Also to the livestock.

>
> No.


Yes.

>> Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and disinfect and provide a
>> more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc.

>
> They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including
> crippling, if animals are kept on them continually.


Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand -- live 14-20 weeks, which,
generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled.

<...>
>>>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect.

>
>>> Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded.

>
>> They're not overcrowded.

>
> They are.


No, they have plenty of room.

>> It would still be necessary for sanitation and hygiene.

>
> No.


Yes.

> Many keepers of companion animals


PETS. They're called PETS, Karen.

> and small-scale farmers


Most farms aren't small-scale. You can bitch and moan about the "good
old days" all you want, but that won't change the fact that consumers
benefit immensely when agriculture, like any other successful industry,
benefits from economies of scale.

> demonstrate it is not, by using bedding for their
> animals.


Niche producers can cater to those with sensitivities such as yours
(well, not yours, _per se_, since yours are pretty out there), but they
cannot reach the economy of scale that most consumers find more appealing.

>>>> 2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's
>>>> environmentally-friendly.

>
>>> Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals
>>> kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount
>>> which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways.

>
>> It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or
>> one-thousand birds have been raised on it.

>
> After the manure has been removed with the dirty bedding.
> It only becomes a problem when very large amounts of manure
> are produced.


And even then, there's a variance depending on the local conditions of a
certain farm. I concede some farms are too big given their surrounding
environments. I also concede some states and counties should toughen
environmental regulations so that very large farms face severe penalties
for polluting. I also think they can be given incentives to increase
their capacities for treating the effluents from their farms.

>>> Traditional farms

>
>> The images I linked to ARE traditional farms.

>
> Nope.


Yes, they are traditional farms.

> I looked at them. They are not.


They're far more typical of traditional farming than what prevailed on
British farms during WWII -- as you foolishly suggest was "normal."

> Take a look
> at some of the pictures in James Herriot's books
> on life in rural Yorkshire to see what traditional farms
> looked like as recently as the 1940's.


The 1940s aren't recent, nor were the conditions in Yorkshire similar to
what you'd find in the US during or after WWII -- remember, rationing in
the UK continued through 1954 (July 4th, no less).
http://tinyurl.com/dl4vk

>> You have romantic, idyllic notions that may prevail in communities
>> with lots of New Age-y airheads (SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far
>> from reality.


Established by your silly comparison.

>>> used animal waste as fertilizer for their
>>> crops.

>
>> That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm.

>
> I.e., where traditional farms still exist.


Subsistence farming isn't traditional, except in impoverished regions.
It also isn't exactly profitable (by definition):
Subsistence farming is a mode of agriculture in which a plot of
land produces only enough food to feed the family working it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_farming

>>> It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory
>>> farms create massive environmental pollution.

>
>> Not universally,

>
> usually


Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive
farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and,
increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to significantly
reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional waterways.

>> and not to the scale of environmental degradation which has already
>> occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering erosion).

>
> Ipse dixit.


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-67786

> Who says agribusiness monocropping is ecologically
> sound either?


Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases
are "agribusiness" -- and perhaps more so considering the inflated
premiums they charge. The point is, vegans don't distinguish between
agricultural models. They generalize and say that eating meat is bad,
but refuse to get into consuming specific foods that reduce animal harm.
Eating certain kinds of meat causes less animal harm than eating a
generalized diet consisting of commercially-grown grains and legumes,
and this extends to claims about veganism being better for the
environment. The effect of consuming such grains and legumes mitigates
any "good" done for animals by merely not eating them; many more die,
the environment is degraded, etc.

> You frequently accuse vegans of being unethical by claiming
> they are simply not as bad as others.


It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Vegans ultimately start from the
position that they're better, and when shown the errors of their
assumptions, they start playing a counting game.

> Here you have used the
> same argument: factory farming is O.K. because it is not as bad
> as agribusiness monocropping.


I haven't used the same argument. I'm saying it's ironic that global
veganism would require significantly more monocropping than currently
exists -- more dead animals, more pollution, etc. Everything vegans
promote would give them more of what they don't want in the first place.

<...>
>>> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information

>
>> You mean DISinformation.

>
> No,


Yes. They promote distortions. They do not tell the truth. They have an
agenda. They're not unbiased.

> Send them a donation


No.

>>> They cannot even breed by themselves,
>>> because their breasts are too big.

>
>> Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred
>> white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a
>> penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to
>> their breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended)
>> would have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if
>> they reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long
>> before they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20
>> weeks; they become sexually mature in a year.

>
> My point exactly. You support my argument that the turkeys
> have been deliberately crippled and deformed for human
> convenience.


No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur.
Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before
they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in proportion
to the rest of their anatomy.

> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable*
> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species,
> such as reproduction.


Why not?

> No animal should be slaughtered before
> even reaching maturity.


Turkeys are mature when slaughtered; they're just not sexually mature.

>>>> those two farmers slaughtered all their
>>>> sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy?

>
>>> "Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should
>>> find that a convincing argument.

>
>> Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider
>> any unintended consequences of their specious positions.

>
> Any action can have unintended consequences.


Look at the unintended consequences of leftist policies:
War on poverty - more poverty.
Compulsory public education - kids can't read or write.
Comprehensive sex education - more teen pregnancy.
Raise taxes on the rich - less tax revenues.
Amendment against gestation crates - sows get slaughtered.
Etc. -- I could go on.

You're not concerned about the results. You're concerned only about
having "noble" intentions even if they turn out to be meaningless
gestures that only give you more of what you say you don't want.

>> The amendment in question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The
>> amendment's consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results,

>
> Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig
> production starting up.


Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to move
operations into Florida in the first place.