Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Please provide me with some extensive material that shows a majority part of society believed this or that the majority of our politicians of that time did so. Also, the societies in the South surely did not hold that opinion.
I am really waiting and looking forward to this because you have made me feel I have missed something in my educational upbringing.
I have a feeling after I peruse your sources and info on this I will be saying to you, "I hate to break it to you, but ..."
Remember, I want to see sources with a majority of decision makers or the populace having stated that reason like you said for abolishing slavery.
They may have mused on that thought, but that was not the final impetus for deciding to sweep it away. In fact, the South worried that it would destroy their economies and way of life which was supported on cheap labor.

Im suprised that you have so much faith in your government education, if only as an animal rights activist considering that its the same government that legalises the crueltys you are so against.
Im not sure what country you were brought up in(please tell me), but theres a trend in government education of any country, for example;

The americans are brought up and told that they are the best country out there. The american government though is the same government that is currently killing tens of thousands of people in iraq, and told the american public that the vietnam war is right.

The english are brought up with the notion too, that they are the best country out there. The english government is the same government that expresses what a great man churchill was and how evil sadam is for killing the kurds, despite that fact it was churchill who first mentioned the idea of gassing the 5000 kurds.

The japanese are brought up with the notion that they are the best country out there, despite being reasponsable for the Nanking massacre and refusing to openly educate its youth about the facts.

etc etc etc...
Most people dont even know about their countrys attrocitys, crimes or acts of wrong, most countrys are more than willing to educate their people about other countrys negative actions. Most countrys only admit their own actions if it means that denying them will lose them power/populity on the whole/in the long term or in the situation that they actually sorted out their wrong doings in some way or another.
We are all educated about the slave trade in africa, and how we were wrong to do it.

Now for some info/facts on why a large part of the slave trade was ended because of economy issues(given that its difficult to sift through the giant bulk of slave trade info, which is why i may take a tad to get you your desired amount);

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4742049.stm

If you read carefully and look at things logically, you'll notice "Slavery was the world's first global industry but before globalism and corporations it was actually run by a few hundred families."
Slavery does not create many jobs, but we all know that jobs are good for the economy- the romans never abolished their slave trade because they actually believed it would be bad for the economy.
If the government had continued to legalise slavery it would have lost control of its people and its trading relations with other countrys would have been damaged- in essense, the government was forced to stop the slave trade- most of the people may have been against the slave trade due to reasons of morality, but morality was not even considered as far as the government was concerned, but rather control over its people and profits. As long as slavery was popular amoung the masses, it was worth the money, when it started to threaten the governments control over the people, i.e people started having mass riots, the financial and power benefets of slavery no longer warrented being worth the effort.
I guess one example of a government not dealing with its slave trade even if it has plenty of reasons concerning morality why it should deal with its slave trade even today is Niger;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4327497.stm

Why is it in denial? Because currently slavery is good for its economy with little or no resistance.

Im sure you were never told in your government education that there's more slavery now in the world than what there ever was during the height of the slave trade;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204675.stm

Statistics that although we abolished the slave trade, we are in as much denial that it still goes on as the people in Niger are;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3589646.stm



(Slavery is a problem around the world and very difficult to measure. The following examples are listed in geographical order and not in terms of the magnitude of the problem.)

1. US: An estimated 20,000 people are trafficked into the US annually - many are forced into prostitution.
2. Dominican Republic: Campaigners say hundreds of thousands of Haitians are rounded up near the border and made to work on Dominican sugar plantations.
3. Brazil: Up to 25,000 people are said to be working as slave labourers - most of them clearing Amazonian forests.
4. Mauritania: Despite its abolition in 1981, chattel slavery is still strong - up to 1m people are allegedly held as "inheritable property".
5. Sudan: Campaigners say northern militias continue to take women and children in slave raids in the south.
6. Europe: Tens of thousands of women and girls are cheated, abducted and forced into prostitution right across Europe.
7. UAE: Every year hundreds of boys are reportedly trafficked from South Asia to the UAE and other Gulf states to race camels.
8. Pakistan: Men, women and children are bonded into forced labour in agriculture and industry, campaigners say.
9. Burma: Forced labour is reportedly used on a growing number infrastructure projects.
10. Thailand: Thousands of girls are sex slaves for tourists.
... .... .....

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Oh, yes, I loved meat. I am sure I still do in some cases (however, the smell of McD`s makes me nausious now), but pleasure is no reason to indulge in an act that causes and perpetuates pain, suffering, exploitation, tyranny, and oppression.
You just don`t ask someone to give up meat. I have never said to anyone, "Would you please give up meat because of all the bad things associated with it." There is no meaning to approaching someone like that. You talk about the miserable conditions they endure and ask them if they feel comfortable supporting an industry that does those things. The question about giving it up comes naturally to them if they carry the information in their head and think of it. Some are not moved by that. Some are. Some are partially moved. Some are moved by the health benefits of going vegetarian that seem to strike a cord with them.
Well, ... it is not natural for me to defecate in the toilet but I do, controlling the urge to go in the woods like a bear or just whenever I like. I go against what nature is telling me and hold it in until I think there is an appropriate place and time to do so -- i.e. I have modified my natural feelings to let loose based on the construction of society and the rules that go with that. I control the urge.

Yeah i know its not natural to defecate in the toilet, but it is natural for you defecate- we evolved bums after all for that etc.
It is natural for us to eat meat, we evolved canine teeth and special molars, we evolved a stomache that was designed to cope with digesting meat, we evolved hunter instincts like the instinct to scan the horizon(left to right in the majority of cases for people) when looking for food/prey etc.
Yes you can control/supress an urge not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean its healthier or natural. Its well known that people do best on a diet of red and white meat, vegetables, fruit, fish/water critters and animal by products like milk etc- we have been living off this diet since the dawn of farming, which in most countrys, dates around 6000yrs ago more or less(although some countrys devoped it much earlier while others not at all or much later).

So, if people hunted for their food, would you still see that as animal opression?

[strongvoicesforward]

Im suprised that ....

TP, I asked you for some info that explicitly said "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons. Those links did not state that. In fact, the first one explicitly stated it was ended due to moral reasons.

I think you were trying to imply that destabilization of society through protests would cause economic loss and therefore that is why it was abolished. However, did it say that somewhere in the links? If so, please point it out. You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim."

I would say that if slavery was ended out of fear of social unrest due to protests, that if the decision to end it was done on reasons other than moral grounds, it was then done so on grounds for the regime to survive. But, I will not state that forcefully. But, you have forcefully stated that it was done so out of "economic reasons." Now, please show that in very direct terms. If that were the reason and the main reason, it would not have to be drawn at through presumptions. It would have been stated quite clearly by very articulate persons of those times. Where are those statements in the majority of leaders and social activists?

[strongvoicesforward]

Yeah i know its not natural to defecate in the toilet, but it is natural for you defecate- we evolved bums after all for that etc.
It is natural for us to eat meat, we evolved canine teeth and special molars, we evolved a stomache that was designed to cope with digesting meat, we evolved hunter instincts like the instinct to scan the horizon(left to right in the majority of cases for people) when looking for food/prey etc.
Yes you can control/supress an urge not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean its healthier or natural. Its well known that people do best on a diet of red and white meat, vegetables, fruit, fish/water critters and animal by products like milk etc- we have been living off this diet since the dawn of farming, which in most countrys, dates around 6000yrs ago more or less(although some countrys devoped it much earlier while others not at all or much later).

My support for AR is one of being against oppression, exploitation and tyranny. One may say that is the moral argument. I am aware of the health benefit and environmental argument, but those are not the ones I champion.

Perhaps another ARist who is lurking in may want to put forth those reasons. Perhaps not. However, in modern society we do not need meat consumption to survive. If it were so, then all vegegtarians/vegans would never live too long.

[strongvoicesforward]

So, if people hunted for their food, would you still see that as animal opression?

I would see it as unecessary in today`s modern world. To cause pain and suffering to an animal, to violate its autonomy when it is not needed for survival for sustenance is cruel.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

TP, I asked you for some info that explicitly said "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons. Those links did not state that. In fact, the first one explicitly stated it was ended due to moral reasons.
I think you were trying to imply that destabilization of society through protests would cause economic loss and therefore that is why it was abolished. However, did it say that somewhere in the links? If so, please point it out. You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim."
I would say that if slavery was ended out of fear of social unrest due to protests, that if the decision to end it was done on reasons other than moral grounds, it was then done so on grounds for the regime to survive. But, I will not state that forcefully. But, you have forcefully stated that it was done so out of "economic reasons." Now, please show that in very direct terms. If that were the reason and the main reason, it would not have to be drawn at through presumptions. It would have been stated quite clearly by very articulate persons of those times. Where are those statements in the majority of leaders and social activists?

I cannot give you links that explicitly say "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons just as much as i cannot give you links that say "slavery was ended due to moral reasons" because it says the slave trade was stopped mainly due to moral reasons- you cannot say slavery was entirely ended due to reasons of morality alone as you cannot say that president bush went to war with iraq entirely due to reasons of morality.
You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim" just as much as you have accused me of doing- besides, we live in a politically correct world, it would be wrong to even suggest that slavery was ended partly due to economic reasons ?
Besides, i think we are seriously getting off-topic now; when it comes down to it, i think comparing the slave trade to farm animal oppression is a really bad example, that was my point.
Strongvoicesforward, i think your idea of hunting being cruel on the whole is wrong- you should re-examine your interperatation of what is "cruel".
Its not cruel to shoot a pheasant in the head, instantly blowing its brains out and killing it in seconds.
Honestly though, have you ever been to an organic free-range farm for any decent period of time or lived on one? Its just i have the feeling you are damning somthing you have never seen first hand or experienced.

[strongvoicesforward]

I cannot give you links that explicitly say "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons...

That`s right, you can`t. Thanks for admitting such but you threw it out to me as if you were schooling me on the subject. Such a brazen statement in the positive should be backed up with what you were basing it on. Since slavery was a major issue in the last 200 years when we have had a large press and personal biographies and recorded government speeches, such a statement or near statement should not be hard to find.

just as much as i cannot give you links that say "slavery was ended due to moral reasons" because it says the slave trade was stopped mainly due to moral reasons-

TP, you are reaching now. You are playing semantics. Is hair splitting going to be your defense against the fact that slavery was indeed ended because of moral reasons. You know, there will always be at least one person who does not agree with something -- does that then mean everything must be qualified with "mainly." If so, then skies the limit on what we state and always lead some room for doubt. "Mainly Jim Jones was responsible for killing the people of his cult in the jungle." I mean after all, he didn`t actually mix the kool aid himself. Come on, TP, stop playing with semantics and lay responsibility where it should be laid.

...you cannot say slavery was entirely ended due to reasons of morality alone as you cannot say that president bush went to war with iraq entirely due to reasons of morality.

Did I say there was no grey area? You were the one who said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons" without qualifying it. I never would say that about Bush's motives. Why are you rhetorically attributing that to me?

Just admit an honest mistake and accept that "slavery was ended on moral reasons." Whether you put "mainly" in there or not I don`t care. The point is it is a far cry from your unqualified statement on the matter as to why slavery was ended.

You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim" just as much as you have accused me of doing- besides, we live in a politically correct world, it would be wrong to even suggest that slavery was ended partly due to economic reasons

Well, then why did you mention it? Besides, it is wrong! Outright wrong. You posted all those sights and made a presumption that governments ended slavery because of economic reasons based on the violence that may flare up. However, that was no way explicitly said. You jumped to that conclusion. I merely suggested that if it were not done out of morality, it may have been done so out of fear for the survival of the regime -- but, I clearly stated that I would not defend that idea for I believe it was done so out of morality. My suggestion about "regime survival" was merely showing you how your sources could be presumed to be another reason and not "economic."

[Tokis-Phoenix]

That`s right, you can`t. Thanks for admitting such but you threw it out to me as if you were schooling me on the subject. Such a brazen statement in the positive should be backed up with what you were basing it on. Since slavery was a major issue in the last 200 years when we have had a large press and personal biographies and recorded government speeches, such a statement or near statement should not be hard to find.
TP, you are reaching now. You are playing semantics. Is hair splitting going to be your defense against the fact that slavery was indeed ended because of moral reasons. You know, there will always be at least one person who does not agree with something -- does that then mean everything must be qualified with "mainly." If so, then skies the limit on what we state and always lead some room for doubt. "Mainly Jim Jones was responsible for killing the people of his cult in the jungle." I mean after all, he didn`t actually mix the kool aid himself. Come on, TP, stop playing with semantics and lay responsibility where it should be laid.
Did I say there was no grey area? You were the one who said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons" without qualifying it. I never would say that about Bush's motives. Why are you rhetorically attributing that to me?
Just admit an honest mistake and accept that "slavery was ended on moral reasons." Whether you put "mainly" in there or not I don`t care. The point is it is a far cry from your unqualified statement on the matter as to why slavery was ended.
Well, then why did you mention it? Besides, it is wrong! Outright wrong. You posted all those sights and made a presumption that governments ended slavery because of economic reasons based on the violence that may flare up. However, that was no way explicitly said. You jumped to that conclusion. I merely suggested that if it were not done out of morality, it may have been done so out of fear for the survival of the regime -- but, I clearly stated that I would not defend that idea for I believe it was done so out of morality. My suggestion about "regime survival" was merely showing you how your sources could be presumed to be another reason and not "economic."

("sigh" this is entirely off-topic since you didn't want to answer my other question by the way)
...Im sorry but you are asking me that i must be wrong just because you presume that all slavery was ended entirely out of morality? Can you find a reputable source that says all slavery was ended entirely out of moral reasons? Because that is what you were/are implying to me, i merely disagreed with you.

[strongvoicesforward]

Besides, i think we are seriously getting off-topic now; when it comes down to it, i think comparing the slave trade to farm animal oppression is a really bad example, that was my point.

Well, I don`t think it is a bad example and I will not embrace oppression in any of its ugly forms. Those against ARists want us to give up that but we won`t because when animals are shackled as a beast of burden or used to profit from, they are being oppressed as slaves were. They are being denied their freedom as slaves were. They are being forced to work for the profit of another as slaves were. Sorry, it will remain on the table unless you can explain why the slavery and oppression and tyranny and exploitation of humans is also good or acceptable.

[strongvoicesforward]

("sigh" this is entirely off-topic since you didn't want to answer my other question by the way)
...Im sorry but you are asking me that i must be wrong just because you presume that all slavery was ended entirely out of morality? Can you find a reputable source that says all slavery was ended entirely out of moral reasons? Because that is what you were/are implying to me, i merely disagreed with you.

Look at the 2nd para above where I address your hair splitting and semantics. I clearly said there will be some who do not agree on everything. However, that does not warrant the use of qualifying statements all the time with "mainly."

Yes, you disagreed with me, but you made a very bold statement as if you were schooling me. You did not qualify your statement. You were far from what is viewed by most. You said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons." You finally admitted to it was wrong. Or I am sorry, you haven`t ,have you? Will you retract that statement or not?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Well, I don`t think it is a bad example and I will not embrace oppression in any of its ugly forms. Those against ARists want us to give up that but we won`t because when animals are shackled as a beast of burden or used to profit from, they are being oppressed as slaves were. They are being denied their freedom as slaves were. They are being forced to work for the profit of another as slaves were. Sorry, it will remain on the table unless you can explain why the slavery and oppression and tyranny and exploitation of humans is also good or acceptable.

So do you see me as against animal rights activists? Just curious.
Do you see yourself as living a life of opression because you have to work to earn money to live?
Slavery and opression as things that imply a seriosuly negative way of life.
You believe animals that are farmed live a life of slavery and opression.
Throughout this thread i have tried to explain to you that in cases of good farms, the animals are very happy.
You seem to entirely ignore this fact, somewhat implying they would be better off living in fear of predators their entire life, ridden with mites and fleas, constantly fearing starvation etc etc...
You dont seem to have ever had much real experience or contact with good free range organic farms- i was brought up on one so i would know.
I will give you an example of animals being happy in their farm enviroment.
One day in one of the cow feilds next to the woodland and other feilds, during the night in a storm, the old gate to the feild fell off its hinges.
The cows could have left the feild anytime they wanted, but when i discovered them the next day, they were just eating grass in the feild.
If the animals were unhappy with their life of "opression and misery", then surely they would have escaped- as you said, an animal moves away from discomfort, no?
What do you have to say about this true little farm story?

edit: Another situation i can tell you of is the chickens.
We kept chickens on the farm purely for their eggs and meat.
The only things the chickens were given was a roof over their heads, bedding and food & water- they had no pen that kept them together, they were allowed to go where ever they wanted.
We killed chickens chosen for their meat by ringing their necks, which kills them pretty much instantly, and when done the right way, is painless because of the way it severs the spinal cord. On quite a few occasions we ringed various chickens necks in front of the other chickens, so its entirely plausable they were aware we killed them from time to time.
They could have run away any time, the farm was sounded by miles upon miles of countryside. But they never left the farm. They always stayed in the garden, in the farm yard or close to the chicken sheds.
If they were unhappy with their lives of "opression", surely they would have just left the farm?
Even with the eggs, the hens always layed in the same place as long as you didn't take all the eggs out of the nests when you collected them.

As to the cows, the only times they actually broke out of their feilds was to go into my mums garden(which happened numerous times) to eat the apples and pears that had fallen off the trees in the summer and autum time, but we sorted that out by simply chucking all the excess fruit into their feilds and they never broke out after that- i think they just got bored of eating grass and hay all the time from time to time .

I think you are in denial, either that or you have had too many opinions shoved down your throat from people who dont really know what they are talking about/have never experienced the things they are damning. Since you seem to be a person of evidence, surely these incidences are proof that not all farm animals lead lives of opression and misery/slavery, as you put it?

[strongvoicesforward]

Honestly though, have you ever been to an organic free-range farm for any decent period of time or lived on one? Its just i have the feeling you are damning somthing you have never seen first hand or experienced.

And what if I told you I had grown up in the rural areas of the countryside and have seen many farms been on them and in fact grew up on one myself, family owned and had friends of those fathers who worked in those long white non-discreet windowless factory farms and heard their stories and in addition to having relatives who at one time or another worked in a slaughterhouse? Where will your argument be then? What will you ask then?: "SVF, have you gone to every single one of them in the U.S. blah blah blah...?"

In debating in a forum like this, we will never be able to verify to a degree of satisfaction what our personal experiences were. How do I know you grew up on a farm? How could you prove it? Do you think I am going to spend time and money to go and track you down and have you guide me around to the neighborhood of your childhood to confirm with the old folk there that you had grown up on a farm? Vice versa for me with you. Therefore your personal stories in text here mean little as a point to consider. We can both fling these little stories back and forth to cancel one another`s out.

However, there are a great many number of articles on the horrors of factory farms with many accounts talking about them. Very few factory farms let visitors in to see the operations. Why not if they aren`t ashamed of them?

Furthermore, since I am not going to fling unverifiable personal stories around, it is not necessary to experience everything first hand in order to comment on the data and information that has been brought forth.

[strongvoicesforward]

So do you see me as against animal rights activists? Just curious.

I don`t see you opposing AR. I merely see you not championing them. I see you as an AW which is fine also. I welcome AWists because they bring relief to the animals while they await liberation.

ARists always welcome AWists up until the point AWists begin denegrating the the efforts of ARists. I talked a little about the relationship between the two with my replies to MeAndRoo above.

At times, AWists tend to waste recourses of time in attacking ARists instead of just staying focused on the tasks facing them with improper treatment of animals. However, ARists very seldom go out of their way to denegrate the actions of AWists because we know it is the animals that suffer when those who care about animals feel it is necessary to take away from their time to focus on each other by attacking each other.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

And what if I told you I had grown up in the rural areas of the countryside and have seen many farms been on them and in fact grew up on one myself, family owned and had friends of those fathers who worked in those long white non-discreet windowless factory farms and heard their stories and in addition to having relatives who at one time or another worked in a slaughterhouse? Where will your argument be then? What will you ask then?: "SVF, have you gone to every single one of them in the U.S. blah blah blah...?"
In debating in a forum like this, we will never be able to verify to a degree of satisfaction what our personal experiences were. How do I know you grew up on a farm? How could you prove it? Do you think I am going to spend time and money to go and track you down and have you guide me around to the neighborhood of your childhood to confirm with the old folk there that you had grown up on a farm? Vice versa for me with you. Therefore your personal stories in text here mean little as a point to consider. We can both fling these little stories back and forth to cancel one another`s out.
However, there are a great many number of articles on the horrors of factory farms with many accounts talking about them. Very few factory farms let visitors in to see the operations. Why not if they aren`t ashamed of them?
Furthermore, since I am not going to fling unverifiable personal stories around, it is not necessary to experience everything first hand in order to comment on the data and information that has been brought forth.

Geez, you dont need to get so agressive/defencesive, i was merely asking.
... ... ....
Anyhoo...
You are avoiding my question, and besides, if i wrote an account on farming on an internet site, and it was positive, would you believe it then? Or would you rather believe the many accounts of cruel farming you search for and read?

My point is, is that pretty much every time i have asked you your opinions on farming, you say its opression/slavery against animals. So i eventually decided after much discussion to give you a couple of examples that happened to me that led me personally to believe that not all farming is animal opression/slavery and misery and all that etc.

I cannot prove my life story to you and whatnot, but im just saying that i do have experience with farming because i was brought up on one, because thats what happened. You dont have to believe me, just like you dont have to believe anything you read on the internet- i believe you are simply choosing not to believe me/ignore my opinions, because you are currently stuck in a state of mind that you choose to be in.

By the way, its easy to get into a battery farm- all you have to do is apply for a job there. No qualifications needed and only a bare understanding of the language english is all you need to have to get into most farm jobs.
Asking though that "can i come into your farm because i want to pictures of your animals" is like going into Walmart and saying "can i have a look around your basement/store rooms to take pics of your stock?"- its obvious why any buisness is not going to let you in if you go around it that way etc.

Honestly though, what do you think about the storys i gave you to consider- sway your opinions at all, or do you still believe all farming is a form of animal slavery etc?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I don`t see you opposing AR. I merely see you not championing them. I see you as an AW which is fine also. I welcome AWists because they bring relief to the animals while they await liberation.
ARists always welcome AWists up until the point AWists begin denegrating the the efforts of ARists. I talked a little about the relationship between the two with my replies to MeAndRoo above.
At times, AWists tend to waste recourses of time in attacking ARists instead of just staying focused on the tasks facing them with improper treatment of animals. However, ARists very seldom go out of their way to denegrate the actions of AWists because we know it is the animals that suffer when those who care about animals feel it is necessary to take away from their time to focus on each other by attacking each other.

Talk about an ego- do you really honestly believe you are superior to everyone else/the majority of people because of your thoughts/actions? You have a lot to learn...

[strongvoicesforward]

Do you see yourself as living a life of opression because you have to work to earn money to live?

What!? I just have to ask a ridiculous question, but: Are you trying to equate my being able to choose a profession in any place with the ability to quit anytime I wish without fear of being beaten and slaughtered with a farm animal which is confined, has no choice, and lives at the discretion or ignorance of a being other than itself? If so, I would say you need some serious tutoring in analogical construction.

Slavery and opression as things that imply a seriosuly negative way of life.

I`m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are missing a "verb" here or the sentence is badly constructed. I just can`t comment on it unless you mean a simple statement that, "slavery and oppression are bad." In that case we agree.

You believe animals that are farmed live a life of slavery and opression.
Throughout this thread i have tried to explain to you that in cases of good farms, the animals are very happy.

And throughout this thread I have tried to explain to you that in cases of good plantations and slaveowners, the slaves were very happy.

But, I will not presume to know the minds of the slaves for they are now so far removed to me from history. Now, how can you get inside the head of a dairy cow, a battery hen chicken, a warehouse chicken, a cattle feedlot, a pig raising unit -- into the minds of animals as they stand in line at the slaughterhouse hearing their kind go screaming before them with the stench of blood in the air, the chicks who have their beaks saudered off to prevent canibalization due to overcrowding, the piglets who have their teeth clipped off to prevent cannibalization.

Now, you get back with me with a large number/majority of ethologist studies on the happiness of animals that state animals are happy on the 'good' farms like you have asserted or that even the 'good' farms from the animals' point of view are the majority. And be sure to tell me how happy the animals are as they go through the stresses of transport to slaughter and their wait in the line at the slaugherhouses.

You seem to entirely ignore this fact, somewhat implying they would be better off living in fear of predators their entire life, ridden with mites and fleas, constantly fearing starvation etc etc...

TP, you seem to ignorant of the fact that if it weren`t for human consumption of cows, pigs, or chickens as we know them today, they would not exist to even worry about predators or any of the other hardships of a natural life. Perhaps you are referring to canned hunts. Well, they are still hunted there, just they have no way to escape. And I doubt the ranch owners are going out to de-tick them.

I would still rather have my freedom for 50 years and die unpredictably when that was up rather than have a hundred years of enslavement and exploitation at a master`s whim to end in amusing someone for entertainment or culinary pleasure. It is quite clear you value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life (not really guaranteed) rather than freedom and quality of life to anyone who can justify it for benefitting another. Again, your argument is the archaic one of slavery and oppression wrapped up smugly as if you know what is best for the ones you want to keep under and profit from. I guess the spirit of Jim Crowe really does still live.

[strongvoicesforward]

...surely these incidences [TP had listed some unverifiable experiences from her childhood on the farm -- SVF] are proof that not all farm animals lead lives of opression and misery/slavery, as you put it?

It proved nothing because it is all unverifiable. I have already explained why cute personal little stories that are unverifiable prove nothing. I too can list counter stories that say the opposite -- like the time when my father decided it was time to cut the sacks (the vein in the scrotum) of our pigs. Talk about a deafening sound of pain and shrill to stand the hair on your skin. Those pigs didn`t look too happy then. I`m glad that doesn`t get done to me.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

What!? I just have to ask a ridiculous question, but: Are you trying to equate my being able to choose a profession in any place with the ability to quit anytime I wish without fear of being beaten and slaughtered with a farm animal which is confined, has no choice, and lives at the discretion or ignorance of a being other than itself? If so, I would say you need some serious tutoring in analogical construction.
I`m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are missing a "verb" here or the sentence is badly constructed. I just can`t comment on it unless you mean a simple statement that, "slavery and oppression are bad." In that case we agree.
And throughout this thread I have tried to explain to you that in cases of good plantations and slaveowners, the slaves were very happy.
But, I will not presume to know the minds of the slaves for they are now so far removed to me from history. Now, how can you get inside the head of a dairy cow, a battery hen chicken, a warehouse chicken, a cattle feedlot, a pig raising unit -- into the minds of animals as they stand in line at the slaughterhouse hearing their kind go screaming before them with the stench of blood in the air, the chicks who have their beaks saudered off to prevent canibalization due to overcrowding, the piglets who have their teeth clipped off to prevent cannibalization.
Now, you get back with me with a large number/majority of ethologist studies on the happiness of animals that state animals are happy on the 'good' farms like you have asserted or that even the 'good' farms from the animals' point of view are the majority. And be sure to tell me how happy the animals are as they go through the stresses of transport to slaughter and their wait in the line at the slaugherhouses.
TP, you seem to ignorant of the fact that if it weren`t for human consumption of cows, pigs, or chickens as we know them today, they would not exist to even worry about predators or any of the other hardships of a natural life. Perhaps you are referring to canned hunts. Well, they are still hunted there, just they have no way to escape. And I doubt the ranch owners are going out to de-tick them.
I would still rather have my freedom for 50 years and die unpredictably when that was up rather than have a hundred years of enslavement and exploitation at a master`s whim to end in amusing someone for entertainment or culinary pleasure. It is quite clear you value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life (not really guaranteed) rather than freedom and quality of life to anyone who can justify it for benefitting another. Again, your argument is the archaic one of slavery and oppression wrapped up smugly as if you know what is best for the ones you want to keep under and profit from. I guess the spirit of Jim Crowe really does still live.

So you agree that some farm animals might be happy? Then why do you want to ban every farm, good and bad?

I have never implied that i was with battery farming or agreed with any of it, so please, do not imply it.

I also find it very insulting that you say i "value the philosophy of exploitation and depriving freedom and longevity of life"- you know this is not true, that is, if you have actually registered anything i have said in this thread in your brain.

You are also seriously stupid/ignorant if you honestly beleive that no farm-related animals would exist to experience the hardships of natural life if we didn't farm them.

[strongvoicesforward]

Geez, you dont need to get so agressive/defencesive, i was merely asking.

TP, focus on the argument. I assure you I am quite calm. What part demonstrabably made you feel I was aggressive to you or defensive. I was merely replying to you and I don`t think I capitolized a sentence screaming at your or throwing expletives toward you, did I??? If so, please point it out to me. Perhaps you need to reign in the tenor of your inner dialogue voice between us.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

It proved nothing because it is all unverifiable. I have already explained why cute personal little stories that are unverifiable prove nothing. I too can list counter stories that say the opposite -- like the time when my father decided it was time to cut the sacks (the vein in the scrotum) of our pigs. Talk about a deafening sound of pain and shrill to stand the hair on your skin. Those pigs didn`t look too happy then. I`m glad that doesn`t get done to me.

You cant prove that any of the animal rights stuff you read on the internet is true, yet you seem more than willing to accept it.

If you only believed things that you could personally prove were true, i doubt you would even be here talking to me about this.

You are just refusing to acknowledge anything i say that does not conform to your personal opinions. You have shown no sign of actually considering anything i have said, or even trying to look from another persons point of veiw that isn't your own.
Somtimes i even wonder if you are actually in this thread to come off with a better understanding of what we are talking about, as far as i see it im practically talking to a wall anyway here.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

TP, focus on the argument. I assure you I am quite calm. What part demonstrabably made you feel I was aggressive to you or defensive. I was merely replying to you and I don`t think I capitolized a sentence screaming at your or throwing expletives toward you, did I??? If so, please point it out to me. Perhaps you need to reign in the tenor of your inner dialogue voice between us.

To be honest i was just thinking we were in a debate, or a conversation, not an arguement, as you put it.
Do my opinions honestly piss you off that much that you think we are in an arguement?

[strongvoicesforward]

You are avoiding my question,...

Please repeat it. It could be that I just missed it by mistake as I quoted in pieces and went back and forth to quoting. If it were a relevant question, in no way did I avoid it purposely. Post it again, please.

Note, though, I think many of my direct questions have gone unanswered by you. Please extend the same courtesy of answering questions posed.

Also, we had talked about posting style in the past and I don`t really want to make that an issue, but when you quote whole posts of mine and then answer, it is just hard for me to see exactly which part of my post you are addressing. Why not break the quotes up soon after places questions are so that I can see exactly which part you are answering?

...and besides, if i wrote an account on farming on an internet site, and it was positive, would you believe it then?

Possibly. Still does not mean their violation of autonomy through captivity and life at the whim of the farmer or that their slaughter is positive. Would you believe that Jew had a great life if she were forced to be a house maid of a Nazi general and play the violin for him and his family but then shipped off to the gas chambers as her 'time' came to an end? I wouldn`t accept that

Or would you rather believe the many accounts of cruel farming you search for and read?

It is not a matter of "Would you rather believe," -- it is just believing that which is documented. I guess I could believe the other side more if the factory farms could be openly visited by anyone to see the operations or if slaughterhouses could also be visited and have cameras installed to watch everythng. But the industry is against that because they themselves know it is a horrid business.

[strongvoicesforward]

To be honest i was just thinking we were in a debate, or a conversation, not an arguement, as you put it.
Do my opinions honestly piss you off that much that you think we are in an arguement?

TP, I usually answer in order of posts, but seeing this I thought it imperative I jump the order to school you on the word "argue/argument."

Those terms are often used synonimously with debate. Lawyers "argue" their points before judges and jurries. A professor may ask a student for his "argument" on or against capital punishment.

It can mean a verbal fight with intent to injure in such a case as a husband and wife are having an argument and nasty words have flown and the child is crying because of the level of rancor it has reached.

However, you and I are putting forth our reasons for and against something, so most people with a strong lexicon will identify that "argument" means a debate. Please note that.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Please repeat it. It could be that I just missed it by mistake as I quoted in pieces and went back and forth to quoting. If it were a relevant question, in no way did I avoid it purposely. Post it again, please.
Note, though, I think many of my direct questions have gone unanswered by you. Please extend the same courtesy of answering questions posed.
Also, we had talked about posting style in the past and I don`t really want to make that an issue, but when you quote whole posts of mine and then answer, it is just hard for me to see exactly which part of my post you are addressing. Why not break the quotes up soon after places questions are so that I can see exactly which part you are answering?
Possibly. Still does not mean their violation of autonomy through captivity and life at the whim of the farmer or that their slaughter is positive. Would you believe that Jew had a great life if she were forced to be a house maid of a Nazi general and play the violin for him and his family but then shipped off to the gas chambers as her 'time' came to an end? I wouldn`t accept that
It is not a matter of "Would you rather believe," -- it is just believing that which is documented. I guess I could believe the other side more if the factory farms could be openly visited by anyone to see the operations or if slaughterhouses could also be visited and have cameras installed to watch everythng. But the industry is against that because they themselves know it is a horrid business.

Why should i separate which quotes i do to make it easier for you to read when you refused to not do multiple posts when i asked you because i told you that i found it difficult for me to read? Very hypocritical i think of you to even ask.

Most of your questions i didn't answer were because they were already questions that you had asked in one form or another before and i had already answered, or because i believed they were off topic.

And yeah the questions i wanted you to answer, i apologise, i was referring to my farm storys i posted and the questions relevant to them, technically you did answer them by dismissing them entirely.


'Tis interesting that you noted that only believed info that was documented, which is incredibly vague. In essence you could say i am documenting my opinions by typing them up on here.

And you forget that the difference between the jews being slaves to the nazis in the concentration camps, is that they knew they were going to die long before they were killed, often by months or even years in some cases.
Unlike the jews, many farm animals do not know they are going to be slaughtered long before they are. You seem to ignore this fact.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

TP, I usually answer in order of posts, but seeing this I thought it imperative I jump the order to school you on the word "argue/argument."
Those terms are often used synonimously with debate. Lawyers "argue" their points before judges and jurries. A professor may ask a student for his "argument" on or against capital punishment.
It can mean a verbal fight with intent to injure in such a case as a husband and wife are having an argument and nasty words have flown and the child is crying because of the level of rancor it has reached.
However, you and I are putting forth our reasons for and against something, so most people with a strong lexicon will identify that "argument" means a debate. Please note that.

You are twisting the actual meaning of an arguement though.
If you believe that a debate is exactly the same thing as an arguement then perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

A debate implys a serious but civilised conversation of the discussing of opinions. An arguemnt implys somthing similar but much more negative. At least that is what it is to me, and many others, i believe.