****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:44:36 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevan Smith > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People don't
>>>>deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
>>>>calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
>>>>Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not good
>>>>business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
>>>>untrue. Check out this site
>>>>http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
>>>>reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing steadily
>>>>over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
>>>>reported.
>>>
>>>I am specifically singling out large factory farms. Life for animals on
>>>those farms is indeed a living hell. They definitely do not thrive, and
>>>they are often unhealthy.
>>
>>Utter bullshit. In the aggregate, large-scale producers spend more per unit on preventive care to ensure healthier herds, flocks, etc., because their tighter margins are affected by the price they get for quality. While you may be able to find occasional instances of shoddy producers, they're exceptions to the rule. You're far more likely to find unhealthy animals on smaller farms, where there's less financial risk from one animal making the rest unwell because (a) there are fewer animals and (b) the profit margin per animal is (usually) greater.
>>
>>
>>>Sick and diseased animals do make it into the
>>>human food chain that way.
>>
>>Bullshit, and you should use the phrase "human food supply" instead of referring to the food chain in this context.
>>
>>
>>>Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>>>inhumane to many of the animals rendered, as even your link shows.
>>>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?
>>
>>It's not inhumane. The links you were provided showed isolated instances, while the general rule is that animals are well-treated.
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>>slaughterhouses available on the internet.
>>
>>Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.
>>
>>
>>>Since seeing is believing,
>>
>>Gullible ****. Those are isolated instances, and many of those videos were used to prosecute bad operators.
>
>
> It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
> that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
> decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar".

No, ****wit. It has nothing to do with it.


> Even when
> they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against them,
> and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
> opposed to "ar".

No, ****wit, you ignorant ****. You'll get no
agreement from Mr. Chupacabra on that point.

NO ONE who is in favor of "decent AW" (one of your more
vomit-worthy spews) must be opposed to "ar" at all,
****wit. One favors humane treatment for animals *IF*
the animals exist. One does not favor the existence of
the animals in order to "get the privilege" of
practicing "decent AW".

You have been shown to be illogical and wrong, ****wit.
Stop.