Animals Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

strongvoicesforward said:
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 :relief: .

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?
 
Last edited:
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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...
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
...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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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,...

Like I said before, it is not about believing -- it is about it not being verifiable.

just like you dont have to believe anything you read on the internet-

lol. I don`t. There are other sources. Books, newspapers, and magazines. Though, a lot of those sources are cited on the internet.

...i believe you are simply choosing not to believe me/ignore my opinions,...

TP, I was once on the other side of the fence believing the other side. My belief is not rigid. It can move. It has moved. I am now an ARist. It is not about choosing to believe you, it is just about deciding which has more of the ring of truth to it. Yours does not because your argument is one of oppression and tyranny.

I have not ignored your opinions. On the contrary, I have spent time addressing them. I just don`t accept them for they are mired in exploitation.

...because you are currently stuck in a state of mind that you choose to be in.

I have moved on the issue. I have shown the ability to move since I was moved. You are the one who has not moved. And, having not moved on the issue that exploitation is ok, you are the one who is demonstrating a state of being "stuck."
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Like I said before, it is not about believing -- it is about it not being verifiable.
lol. I don`t. There are other sources. Books, newspapers, and magazines. Though, a lot of those sources are cited on the internet.
TP, I was once on the other side of the fence believing the other side. My belief is not rigid. It can move. It has moved. I am now an ARist. It is not about choosing to believe you, it is just about deciding which has more of the ring of truth to it. Yours does not because your argument is one of oppression and tyranny.
I have not ignored your opinions. On the contrary, I have spent time addressing them. I just don`t accept them for they are mired in exploitation.
I have moved on the issue. I have shown the ability to move since I was moved. You are the one who has not moved. And, having not moved on the issue that exploitation is ok, you are the one who is demonstrating a state of being "stuck."

Books, magazines and newspapers aern't anymore trustworthy than the internet- how silly of you to imply that.

And yeah, did you spend time adressing my farm storys and the question with them by entirely dismissing them altogether? I think not.

What ability exactly have you shown that your opinions are not rigid in this thread, may i ask?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.

An "argument" need not be "negative" like you are insisting.

Here:

Main Entry: ar?Egu?Ement
Pronunciation: 'a?Nr-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <a later editor added an argument to the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : the angle assigned to a complex number when it is plotted in a complex plane using polar coordinates -- called also amplitude; compare ABSOLUTE VALUE 2


Words don`t necessarily mean what we "believe" them to be. Again note, many lawyers "argue" their cases in front of judges and jurries and people are called upon to proffer their argument for what they believe on a particular subject. Now, can you find this word in your dictionary, or don`t you have one?
 
strongvoicesforward said:
An "argument" need not be "negative" like you are insisting.
Here:
Main Entry: ar?Egu?Ement
Pronunciation: 'a?Nr-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <a later editor added an argument to the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar c : the angle assigned to a complex number when it is plotted in a complex plane using polar coordinates -- called also amplitude; compare ABSOLUTE VALUE 2
Words don`t necessarily mean what we "believe" them to be. Again note, many lawyers "argue" their cases in front of judges and jurries and people are called upon to proffer their argument for what they believe on a particular subject. Now, can you find this word in your dictionary, or don`t you have one?


"verb: -bat·ed, -bat·ing, -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·bate'ment
noun
de·bat'er
noun"

Just sounds more negative, doesn't it :blush: ?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.

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?

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?

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?
 

This thread has been viewed 154541 times.

Back
Top