"Kevan" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote
>
>>>
>>> I am specifically singling out large factory farms.
>>
>> So you are OK with smaller farms? Where do you draw the line?
>
> I am personally an abolitionist.

That position seriously affects your ability to judge objectively what is
cruel and what is not.

>However, to be pragmatic and non-violent,
> I'm willing to discuss each case on its own merits. Though I singled out
> factory farms, some Mom & Pop farms can be just as cruel.

My experience with small farms tells a different story. In the province of
Ontario, Canada where I grew up and lived on some small farms, cruelty is
not an issue. Most of the meat industry was supplied by small farms which
raise animals and sell them to slaughterhouses or feedlots.

>>> Life for animals on
>>> those farms is indeed a living hell.
>>
>> Define that. What makes it a living hell?
>
> Veal crates?

Veal is not raised in crates any more, afaik, and that was a tiny segment of
the meat industry.

> Battery cages?

Those are being replaced more and more by free-range farming. I haven't
bought anything but free-range eggs or beef for years.

> Hog confinement?

That's also changing.

> Look at the videos and the
> conditions of the animals.

Looking at videos is good if one is trying to appeal to emotion. Reading
reports is better if one is looking for objective information.

>>> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>>> inhumane to many of the animals rendered,
>>
>> What do mean by "mechanized slaughter"? Afaik, killing is done by
>> humans.
>
> In a mechanized setting. Humans also build cars, but it's a mechanized
> process.

The fruit, vegetable and grain industries are far more mechanized than
animal farming, much to the detriment of indigenous animals. That's the
legacy of vegan foods.

The truth is, you're just another propagandist. You concocted the term "mass
mechanized slaughter" because it's scary sounding, and vegans are all about
appealing to emotions, not reason.

>>>as even your link shows.
>>
>> It shows a very low instance of measurable problems. Certainly when
>> compared to death in the wild like starving, drowning, freezing to
>> death, or being disembowelled alive by a predator, not to mention
>> being poisoned by herbicides or chopped up in a threshing machine,
>> dying in a slaughterhouse offers a much higher probability of a death
>> free of suffering.
>
> Factory farms and mass slaughter are fundamentally different from natural
> dangers and threats.

Yes, they are far more gentle.

> Those should be excluded from debate.

Because they don't feather your nest.

> Modern animal
> agriculture has as its sole purpose making monetary profit,

That's false, all animal farming, modern and ancient, has had as it's
primary goal to produce food. Profit is an essential component of it, as it
is of every aspect of commerce. Do YOU work for nothing?

> to eke
> financial gain from animal suffering.

False, the motive is to eke financial gain by producing a product that
people want.

> Nature has no profit motive.

What do you have against profit? The concept of profit is what makes the
world economy work.

>>> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
>>> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did
>>> it come from factory-supplied paperwork?
>>
>> Grandin's teams are independent and the audits are done without prior
>> warning. All the info is on the site. www.grandin.com.
>
> I noticed she designs slaughterhouses. Not exactly an unbiased observer.

Why? Her designs are aimed at eliminating stress to animals.

> Also, her stats are from only a few slaughterhouses in one state. I don't
> think it's a very generalizeable study.
>
>>
>>> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>> slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>>> you should try to view some.
>>
>> I find it a little suspicious that you are so skeptical when reading
>> statistics like those I provided, yet you are willing to accept photos
>> as conclusive evidence that the entire industry is frought with abuse.
>> Of course there are instances of harm and abuse, that is anecdotal
>> however, not necessarily indicative of the whole industry. Could it be
>> that what you really believe is that all animal use should be
>> discontinued?
>
> You didn't provide all that great a statistical example. I evaluated it
> based on accepted means of analysis, and I didn't take any unfair shots.
> If
> you find a better one, I'll evaluate it on its merits, too. I am open
> minded about science.
>
> Abolition of factory farming is my ultimate goal.

I thought your ultimate goal was abolition of all animal farming.

> Animal use is another
> matter. We have symbiotic and near-symbiotic relationships with many
> animals that I not only accept but embrace.

Of course, like the relationship with the countless animals that thrive
living off crops then are decimated by 'cides, ploughing, harvesting, etc..