Animals Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

"verb: -bat?Eed, -bat?Eing, -bates.
intransitive verb
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
transitive verb
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
noun
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
derivatives
de?Ebate'ment
noun
de?Ebat'er
noun"

TPJust sounds [u said:
more[/u] negative, doesn't it :blush: ?

Do you have a different definition for "more" also? Looking at the word "debate" above, I count only 3 out of the 12 choices that may possibly be considered "negative." Interesting though, "negative" as intent implied never shows up.

Again, those with differing views on an issue will "argue" their case between a jury or judge or someone may be called upon to put forth their "argument" on an issue. Perhaps it is your immaturity that is keeping you from ceding this point on usage of this word in a way that can mean something other than a negative hostile engagement.

Sorry you took the word for its negative connotation. I have gone out of my way to explain that I am not using the version of the word you are insisting it is "more" of than any other meaning. Why don`t you go to google and just search a few things like: Arguments for capital punishment, social welfare, national insurance, or a number of controversial topics and you might see that the word is used in a way that sides of issues put for their reasons of their beliefs.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
TP, why should an animal watchdog group concerned with humane treatment and cruelty have to apply for a job to get in and take a look at how pigs are being raised or mink are being kept in cages? The runnings of factory farms are not top secret. How to run them are printed openly in trade journals for maximum profit.
We are not talking about unfeeling watches in inventory in the basement. We are talking about living animals that feel pain and suffer in windowless and high methane enclosures. Those animals are shut and locked away for maximum profit without any concern to their happiness other than what can minimally be spared to them so that a larger profit can be squeezed from them. Don`t you know that? I thought you had previously hinted at that you were aware of the conditions, and now here you are defending them in a way to keep a watchdog group from checking on them. Are you confused as to what you believe or feel is right?
You mean your personal unverifiable stories that could be stood against my personal stories?
Just because some slaveowners were kind to some of their slaves, do you still believe all slavery is not bad? Just because some slaves did not run away when they had the chance, does that mean they were all happy and content with their lives and thankful they had this lot in life and hoped it continues forever for them and their decendants?
Yes, i mean my personal unverifiable storys that stood against your personal unverifiable storys. Remember to acknoledge that your storys are just as unverifiable as mine, at least though i had the decency to acknoledge them.
Ok, well how about if i said the person wanted to look in walmarts basement because they believed there was rotton food there that was being put on the shelves to be sold? Would that make a better example?
I am not sticking up for battery farms, i was merely stating a point that is often the case.
Do you think i would have any right to want to look into a medicion testing laboratry without permission because i believed they were creating biological warfare weapons?
The fact of the matter is i wouldn't. It would be against the law- if you have issues with the law, then perhaps you should adress that issue to somone who doesn't care about breaking the law.
You seem to believe that animal rights protesters should have access to anywhere they want because you believe they are for a good cause. Well im sorry thats not the case- tis a hard fact of life for now, just because i remind you of it does not mean i have any personal opinions on it either way.

edit: by the way i did a thread/poll on the negativity of an arguement other a debate- you can ignore it if you want, im just interested in other peoples opinions on it.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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...

Do you think the philosophy of exploitaton, oppression, and tyranny are superior? You have a lot to learn if you do. ;) -- along with how words are often used -- like, "argument." <snicker snicker>
 
PS: Im going for a shower/break, you dont have to keep repeating yourself just because i am not there, not that seems to make much difference anyways- just my personal unverifiable opinion lol.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Do you think the philosophy of exploitaton, oppression, and tyranny are superior? You have a lot to learn if you do. ;) -- along with how words are often used -- like, "argument." <snicker snicker>

Well have i ever said or implied that?
Please take time to answer that honestly.
 
This is in reference to post #68 where you quoted my previous post in full.

Tokis-Phoenix said:
So you agree that some farm animals might be happy?

Where did I say that in that post?

Further more, there were a few questions in that post you have not addressed. Why don`t you cut quotes where I pose you questions and answer them like I have done here with you? It will make it easier on both of us to see what points you are referring to.

Then why do you want to ban every farm, good and bad?

Which ones are good? Do you have a comprehensive list of which ones are good? Please show me. Don`t forget about the transportation to the slaughterhouses and the slaughterhouses themselves either. In fact, address the whole industry from impregnation to birth to slaughter. Where is you data showing the farms which are identified as 'good' from the animals' point of view and that they are 'happy' like you stated? Have you gotten that info on animal happiness from ethologists yet like I asked previously?

Just in this para above I counted 4 question marks. Please answer them in quote cut form for clarity.

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

Are you saying that all battery farmed chickens are not 'happy'? What about factory farmed cows and pigs?

Are you aware that there are very few family farms of our traditional image with a pig rooting around and chickens pecking in the yard that support the markets where meat products are sold?

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,...

Why should I know this not to be true when you are putting forth canned hunts as good or animals whose very breath from day to day is determined by their profit they have to offer and the whim of the owner can end their life for his benefit at any time he chooses? Have you come out against fur farming yet? Perhaps your insult is due to the words "oppression" and "exploitation" hitting a vulnerable target somewhere in you. The truth often does hurt. You still have not addressed the slavery issues and questions directly that have been peppered herein throughout.

...that is, if you have actually registered anything i have said in this thread in your brain.

What I have registered is that you are for lengthening the length of the slaves chains rather than severing them. While on the chain, they are still there to serve you for your profit. Severing them and letting them go means your profits are not made on the sweat and brow of another or in the animals' cases, their life and blood -- after viscious lives of suffering and death at slaughterhouses that send animals to scalding tanks alive or to different stations that begin the quartering or "holving" while still conscious.

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.

Do you have some information that shows us that farm animals as we know them today would survive the hardships of natural life and their species would continue on? At any rate, if meat culture were to disappear, it would happen gradually and as demand lessened fewer and fewer would be produced until they were just phased out. There will never be a grand opening of the gates and let the animals run free. Economics will determine their disappearance.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
What would move you to change your consumption in order to lessen suffering?

I've changed my consumption for health reasons already, but have no idea as to if/how what I eat suffers. For something like animal welfare/rights, I'd probably have to see it. After seeing veal farms, I stopped eating veal. I'm not saying just because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it would certainly make more of a mark on me than biased rhetoric from either side.

I would say that all activists, no matter what they are being active for, should never cross any line that our governement would not cross in the present or had not crossed in the past (if those past actions had never been condemned).

I think it'd be tough to find violent government actions that have never been condemned. You talk in your post about having a "practical philosophy," so I guess you'd call me an idealist, but I think when condemning a violent opponent, engaging in violent acts yourself is a bit hypocritical. I think non-violent resistance is a better option, but people can get impatient with legislation and trying to change people's minds.

The belowground groups however, would melt away rather quickly if animal exploitation were to stop. They only exist because there is animal cruelty and Direct Action has proven to stop it, slow it, or bring relief to animals when it has been employed on specific targets of industry whose guiding light is the God Profit. If Direct Action was not or has never been successful in thwarting animal abuse/oppression, then it never would have survived as long as it has as a tactic. It would have ceased to have been being employed.

Every fur farm or lab that closes due to Direct Action only emboldens further action. Ever increasing insurance costs for those industries also embolden activists. The dollar is what is gauged, not only by the oppressors who judge their success on how many dollars they can accumulate, but also by the Direct Actionists who gauge their success on how many dollars they can deny the oppressionists and incur to them as operating costs which put the consumer goods out of further reach from a larger sector of the public that could not pay the higher prices that are past on.
It could be said to be a battle tactic of employing economics by inflicting costs.

I can certainly understand opposing industries that abuse animals. However, "cruelty" is defined differently depending on who you talk to. Some in the AR movement call pet ownership cruelty. I personally don't see it that way. Pet ownership holds no economic benefit. What lengths would the ADL, ALF, and the like go to for simple pets?.

Well, I can`t really comment on where I stand with "them," because I haven`t seen those arguments you specifically are talking about or had the chance to engage the person who put forth those arguments.

Just so you know, I wasn't asking where you thought you stood. It was just for me to know.

At one time, I was following this story in L.A. I kind of have forgotten the details. I think there were several groups pressuring the mayor. In Defense of Animals (IDA) was one of the aboveground group if my memory is corrrect. Sorry, though, I have forgotten the reason for pressuring his removal so can`t comment on it. If in fact what he was doing was detrimental to animals then I support the action that caused his removal. If his removal was the result of misinformation then I would not support it and am sorry that he was targeted for removal.

Well, a major sticking point had been the treatment of stray dogs. Oddly enough, now ex-GM Stuckey had been reducing the number of dogs euthanized in Los Angeles over the past few years, from 39,000 in 01-02 to 25,000 in 04-05. Yet the Animal Defense League didn't think that was the kind of progress they wanted, and they successfully forced Villaraigosa to remove Stuckey. The ADL proclaims a desire for a no-kill policy immediately, but speaking practically, where are 25,000 dogs going to go? I also find the difference in stances troubling to the cause, since even PETA euthanizes animals.

Link Here
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.

TP, because your point of view is one of exploitation and oppression and tyranny over other beings. I am not goint to acknowledge that those are right no sooner than I am going to acknowledge slavery is or was right. You embrace those philosophies. I don`t. We stand on opposite sides of the issue.

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.

Errrrrrr....well... gee, TP, how do I respond to that? Errr...let me see...

The same right back to you. ;)
 
strongvoicesforward said:
This is in reference to post #68 where you quoted my previous post in full.
Where did I say that in that post?
Further more, there were a few questions in that post you have not addressed. Why don`t you cut quotes where I pose you questions and answer them like I have done here with you? It will make it easier on both of us to see what points you are referring to.
Which ones are good? Do you have a comprehensive list of which ones are good? Please show me. Don`t forget about the transportation to the slaughterhouses and the slaughterhouses themselves either. In fact, address the whole industry from impregnation to birth to slaughter. Where is you data showing the farms which are identified as 'good' from the animals' point of view and that they are 'happy' like you stated? Have you gotten that info on animal happiness from ethologists yet like I asked previously?
Just in this para above I counted 4 question marks. Please answer them in quote cut form for clarity.
Are you saying that all battery farmed chickens are not 'happy'? What about factory farmed cows and pigs?
Are you aware that there are very few family farms of our traditional image with a pig rooting around and chickens pecking in the yard that support the markets where meat products are sold?
Why should I know this not to be true when you are putting forth canned hunts as good or animals whose very breath from day to day is determined by their profit they have to offer and the whim of the owner can end their life for his benefit at any time he chooses? Have you come out against fur farming yet? Perhaps your insult is due to the words "oppression" and "exploitation" hitting a vulnerable target somewhere in you. The truth often does hurt. You still have not addressed the slavery issues and questions directly that have been peppered herein throughout.
What I have registered is that you are for lengthening the length of the slaves chains rather than severing them. While on the chain, they are still there to serve you for your profit. Severing them and letting them go means your profits are not made on the sweat and brow of another or in the animals' cases, their life and blood -- after viscious lives of suffering and death at slaughterhouses that send animals to scalding tanks alive or to different stations that begin the quartering or "holving" while still conscious.
Do you have some information that shows us that farm animals as we know them today would survive the hardships of natural life and their species would continue on? At any rate, if meat culture were to disappear, it would happen gradually and as demand lessened fewer and fewer would be produced until they were just phased out. There will never be a grand opening of the gates and let the animals run free. Economics will determine their disappearance.


First question- i never said you said that, i was just asking a question.
Second question- i've already answered that if you read my posts, and said why wouldn't do it too.
Third question- I've already answered that before, and yes i am aware that good/traditional farms are rare/uncommon, which i've also said/acknowledged.
Fourth question- That is your personal opinion/assumption which i disagree with. And no i dont believe in your theory.

I have explained to your thoroughly my opinion that not all farming is animal slavery. Animals are not boiled alive in slaughter houses, although i know of how they go about slaughtering cows, pigs, chickens and sheep.
I doubt any cow is still going to be alive after having its brains smashed out with a bolt gun. I cant speak for every abatoir though obviously.
Boiling is not part of the butchering process either- they dont cook meat, they just preprare the bulk of the carcass, other odds and bits go to other places to deal with- i would like to know the source where you got this idea of slaughtering animals from?

And yes i do have sources "farm animals as we know them today would survive the hardships of natural life and their species would continue on", take pigs for example;

"Pigs were domesticated many times";

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4337435.stm

..
 
TP, do you want me to keep replying to you? If so, you are going to have to start cutting my quotes and addressing them in cut form so I can quickly see what you are referring to. Look at how MeAndRoo above did it. That is what I mean. Until you start doing that I will probably just pick and choose a few things from your posts rather than being thorough in trying to address as much as possible.

Now, do you think you can start cutting my quotes up? Yes or No. Please answer.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
TP, because your point of view is one of exploitation and oppression and tyranny over other beings. I am not goint to acknowledge that those are right no sooner than I am going to acknowledge slavery is or was right. You embrace those philosophies. I don`t. We stand on opposite sides of the issue.
Errrrrrr....well... gee, TP, how do I respond to that? Errr...let me see...
The same right back to you. ;)

I dont embrace those philosophies as you call it, thats just your personal narrow-minded opinion of my opinions. I dont need you to tell me my point of veiw, i've already told you plenty of my points of view as far as thats concerned anyways- would you like it if i told you my personal theorys on everything you have said on the whole? Would you like it if i implied that my opinions on you are better/more right than your own?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
TP, do you want me to keep replying to you? If so, you are going to have to start cutting my quotes and addressing them in cut form so I can quickly see what you are referring to. Look at how MeAndRoo above did it. That is what I mean. Until you start doing that I will probably just pick and choose a few things from your posts rather than being thorough in trying to address as much as possible.
Now, do you think you can start cutting my quotes up? Yes or No. Please answer.
"sigh"...Third time round, this was my reply to your question a page or so ago;
"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."
Please be fair.
If you completely stop responding to my replys i'll just take it that you agree with me- your choice.

edit: Gotta go for now.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.

We are being told something when books, magazines, newspaper stories etc... are being published about the horror of factory farms and when farms and slaughterhouses are being named and depicting their cruel conditions but yet those large agribusiness corporationd do not sue those publications for libal or slander. When J-Crew stops using fur because PETA has done an undercover investigaton on the source of fur and the pain involved in getting it, then J-Crew is tacitly verifying what is being brought before them.

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 not really my target, TP. I care more about the onlookers and moving them on the spectrum of belief than you. You have already accepted exploitation as a philosophy to embrace. I am more concerned about those undecided on the issue. You are just a sounding board.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
"sigh"...Third time round, this was my reply to your question a page or so ago;
"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."
Please be fair.

The thing is TP, when I do break things up in different posts, my answers are right under the relevant question or point I am addressing. You can see that quickly without having to search for what I am referring to.

I sometimes have no idea what you are referring to in your answers to a large quote of mine.

If you completely stop responding to my replys i'll just take it that you agree with me- your choice.

I guess that is your leaning towards "presumptionism," again, right? <snicker snicker>

"Presume" and you may look as foolish as you did with the "slavery was ended due to economic reasons," again.

However, I will post on things that stick out and I catch knowing exactly what you are referring to. But, if you want a thorough response to response, I do ask that you cut the quote and answer there. If not, I guess I will have to employ some of your "presumptionism" that you don`t want a response.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
The thing is TP, when I do break things up in different posts, my answers are right under the relevant question or point I am addressing. You can see that quickly without having to search for what I am referring to.
I sometimes have no idea what you are referring to in your answers to a large quote of mine.
I guess that is your leaning towards "presumptionism," again, right? <snicker snicker>
"Presume" and you may look as foolish as you did with the "slavery was ended due to economic reasons," again.
However, I will post on things that stick out and I catch knowing exactly what you are referring to. But, if you want a thorough response to response, I do ask that you cut the quote and answer there. If not, I guess I will have to employ some of your "presumptionism" that you don`t want a response.


If you find my replys too confuzing for your brain to handle, i'll point out a trend that in the vast majority of cases, i'll start by adressing your first comments and then work my way down them. A relatively simply concept, no?

And yes, maybe i do the presumption thing in the same sense you asume that all slavery was ended due to moral reasons.

If you want to give a thorough response, thats your responsability if you want to have a good debate. Or if you like, arguement :blush: .
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.

Would you say all of them did? Even the first ones? I would guess that there were many parents who tried to hide that fate from their young children who could probably be made to believe something rather than death awaited them.

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.

Not ignoring anything. Knowing you are not going to be slaughtered from the victim point of view does not make it any more right. Factory farms are horrid places to live for animals. The transportation is not any nicer. Waiting in line with the stench of blood and screams in the air is not nice either. Are you ignoring that?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
We are being told something when books, magazines, newspaper stories etc... are being published about the horror of factory farms and when farms and slaughterhouses are being named and depicting their cruel conditions but yet those large agribusiness corporationd do not sue those publications for libal or slander. When J-Crew stops using fur because PETA has done an undercover investigaton on the source of fur and the pain involved in getting it, then J-Crew is tacitly verifying what is being brought before them.
You are not really my target, TP. I care more about the onlookers and moving them on the spectrum of belief than you. You have already accepted exploitation as a philosophy to embrace. I am more concerned about those undecided on the issue. You are just a sounding board.

So essentially you believe everything you are told when its by an animal rights group because they did an undercover investigation? How biased.

I've never accepted expolitation as a philosophy to embrace, if you can find anywhere i've agreed with that, please tell me. What a wall you are to talk to sometimes.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Would you say all of them did? Even the first ones? I would guess that there were many parents who tried to hide that fate from their young children who could probably be made to believe something rather than death awaited them.
Not ignoring anything. Knowing you are not going to be slaughtered from the victim point of view does not make it any more right. Factory farms are horrid places to live for animals. The transportation is not any nicer. Waiting in line with the stench of blood and screams in the air is not nice either. Are you ignoring that?

No, i wouldn't say all of them did, but then again you seemed to express that part of why the jewish concentration camps were so relevant to farming was because both the jews and animals knew they were going to die in very similar circumstances i.e they knew they were going to die long before they did. That is why i reminded you that this is hardly the case.

Why do you continue to imply that i agree with factory farms methods by the way? Must be maybe about over a dozen times i have said i dont agree with any of their methods. What a wall.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
If you find my replys too confuzing for your brain to handle,...

Not your replies -- just the mechanics of your formatting your replies to my comments.

...i'll point out a trend that in the vast majority of cases, i'll start by adressing your first comments and then work my way down them. A relatively simply concept, no?

Looking forward to see how it looks. Thanks for trying something different.

And yes, maybe i do the presumption thing in the same sense you asume that all slavery was ended due to moral reasons.

Have you shown me any reference yet that slavery was ended due to economic reasons like you stated?

[/quote]If you want to give a thorough response, thats your responsability if you want to have a good debate. [/quote]

I do. But, would like your cooperation by replying to quotes at the points your answers are referring to. It would help make things more efficient.

Or if you like, arguement.

Either word is fine by me. ;)

Glad you`ve finally come around on that point. By the way, have you done any google searches with things like: the argument for gay rights, the arguments for capital punishment etc... you will see how the word is used not in a "negative" sense like you jumped at it to mean when I used it. I think I or MeAndRoo had it in our exchange and he didn`t see it as negative. Just took it as putting forth one`s position on an issue.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Not your replies -- just the mechanics of your formatting your replies to my comments.
Looking forward to see how it looks. Thanks for trying something different.
Have you shown me any reference yet that slavery was ended due to economic reasons like you stated?
If you want to give a thorough response, thats your responsability if you want to have a good debate. [/quote]
I do. But, would like your cooperation by replying to quotes at the points your answers are referring to. It would help make things more efficient.
Either word is fine by me. ;)
Glad you`ve finally come around on that point. By the way, have you done any google searches with things like: the argument for gay rights, the arguments for capital punishment etc... you will see how the word is used not in a "negative" sense like you jumped at it to mean when I used it. I think I or MeAndRoo had it in our exchange and he didn`t see it as negative. Just took it as putting forth one`s position on an issue.[/QUOTE]


Great, well if you look back at lets say, even just half a dozen of my last posts, you may come to better understand this concept.

Too bad then, isn't it? I prefer my method, you seem to understand it now too which is always a bonus.

I was just trying to speak on your terms ;) . I havn't done any google searches, but then again i notified you earlier on this thread of a poll i did recently in this section on the arguement/debate topic to see what other peoples opinions were on the subject, which i think is just as good, perhaps even more efficient at just essentially typing "argue" into a search engine :blush: .
I thought you didn't care much for other peoples unverifiable opinions anyways though or what people assumed argueing was about etc.
 

This thread has been viewed 154548 times.

Back
Top