On 5 Aug 2006 09:26:32 -0700, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 4 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snip...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far
>> >> >> > more brutal
>> >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures"
>> >> >> > ??
>> >> >> > WHat
>> >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > e.g. a
>> >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag?
>>
>> We know that you're trying to encourage this sort of image when
>> people think of chicken farming:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/zknxw
>>
>> but this is reality:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/er56m
>>
>
>Thanks for the pics! The second one (as you point out) is clearly the
>reality of most chicken farming today, and certainly much uglier.

No it's not, and we both know it. Even though you won't admit it,
we both know it would be much worse if the birds feared for their
lives as your Chicken Run impression dishonsestly suggests they do.

>Disgusting.

Your dishonesty is what's disgusting, not a house full of birds eating,
drinking, and lounging about.

>> which is nothing like the dishonest distortion of reality your Kafkaesque
>> fairytale image was intended to create. The question is always ever
>> present when "discussing" animal farming with "aras":
>>
>> Why do you lie?
>>
>
>Sorry, I'm not following.. what point of mine do you dissagree with?

First it was your original attempt to create the dishonest impression
that chicken farming is like the Chicken Run image, and now it's
still that (even though you've somewhat admitted to the original
dishonesty you will never fully admit much less apologise for it)
plus your dishonest insistence that reality is much uglier than your
original attempt at dishonesty.

>> >> >> >==================
>> >> >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help.
>> >> ====================
>> >> It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally ignorant
>> >> is obvious.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to warn me
>> >that you didn't have anything to say.
>>
>> He did have something to say, and you gave the clear impression
>> that you didn't know what he had in mind: "what on earth did you
>> have in mind".
>>
>
>He did finally tell me.. it was the poisoning of animals by
>insecticides used to raise monocrops.

Did he fail to point out the crushing, and suffocating, and being shredded,
and dis-membered, and being exposed to and eaten by predators, and having
entire habitats destroyed, etc?

>In my opinion, that is not much
>more gruesome than e.g. your pic#2 of the asian-american boilers..

It sure is to some of us, myself included.

>but
>I apologize for encouraging this "which is morally worse" kind of
>discussion that won't go anywhere.

I'm really surprised you could get even this far thinking about it.
Usually veg*n/"ar" types try to deny it entirely, and/or change the
subject in various ways in their attempts to crawl away from their
own contributions to the deaths that everyone contributes to.

>> >> > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and inhumane
>> >> > deaths"
>> >> > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with]..
>> >> >
>> >> > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral
>> >> > analysis of
>> >> > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what you
>> >> > had in
>> >> > mind.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine
>> >> > harvester
>> >> > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky and
>> >> > meet its
>> >> > mother.
>> >> ================================
>> >> So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they die
>> >> a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded,
>> >> sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an animal
>> >> die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over a
>> >> few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain?
>> >>
>> >
>> >E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony at the end
>> >then live my entire life in agony with a quick end.
>>
>> An entire life in agony hasn't been discussed. Beef cattle spend most
>> of their lives grazing in pastures--much of it with their mothers--and then
>> get to spend the last few months gorging on grain in feel lots. The people
>> I've talked to who have actually been around feed lots say the animals
>> love it, so you're lying about an "entire life in agony"...in fact so far we
>> have examples of none at all. So now the question has arisen AGAIN!
>> as it always seems to do with you "aras":
>>
>> Why did you lie this time?
>>
>
>What was my lie? I hadn't even brought up beef.

But you were responding to the issue of raising beef by dishonestly
suggesting life for beef cattle is an "entire life in agony with a quick end."

>> >> Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable land
>> >> > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something else?
>> >> =========================
>> >> Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat
>> >> destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in the
>> >> way of a good brainwashing, have you killer?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >THat was my point.
>>
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> Here we see plowing:
>> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>>
>> and here harrowing:
>> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>>
>> both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
>> and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
>> kills in similar ways:
>> http://tinyurl.com/k6sku
>>
>> and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
>> kept in mind:
>> http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5
>>
>> Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
>> it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
>> them to predators:
>> http://tinyurl.com/otp5l
>>
>> In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
>> by flooding:
>> http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3
>>
>> and later by draining and destroying the environment which
>> developed as the result of the flooding:
>> http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3
>>
>> Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
>> as much suffering and death. ·
>> http://tinyurl.com/q7whm
>>
>> >But then, you'd never agree with someone in this
>> >forum, would you killer.
>>
>> Would you, killer?
>
>Certainly would! I know e.g. a few hundred black angus in VT that are
>environmentally and morally vastly superior foodstuffs to most any
>large-scale veggies for exactly the reasons you point out.

It's very unusual to see any sort of veg*n admit that...in fact it's a
first for me. Maybe I should keep it as an example for when later
you decide to disagree with yourself about it.

>When my own
>health and taste is also a factor however I prefer equally low
>footprint small farm veggies.
>
>Thanks - shevek