Animals Are Food, or Are They

[Ella]

hmmm. As an expert of farming. Does it require being an expert of farming to know what is cruel and what is not?

Some examples of cruelty practiced in factory farms:

Keeping an animal in a tiny cage for its entire life like veal calves are housed, and like the fur foxes in the video are kept.
Removing the beak of a bird so that it cannot peck its cage mates, which are crammed in a tiny cage with it.
Keeping these animals so close together that they cannot turn around. Keeping these animals indoors so that they never see sunlight.
factoryfarm.org/

Right now states are fighting the influx of huge hog CAFO’s.
sumeria.net/earth/hogfarms.html

CAFO stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The hogs are raised in sheds with mechanized equipment. This reduces the need for hired workers. The untreated waste from these hogs (and we’re talking maybe 300,000 hogs per year produced in one farm) is collected in open air lagoons. The lagoons leak, or flood with rains, and pollute the groundwater, streams, and rivers nearby.

sierraclub.org/sierra/200103/profile.asp

Thus, in addition to being cruel, CAFOs cause many environmental problems. The reason I know about these things is not because I’m a ‘farming expert’ but because I am a volunteer with environmental cleanups, an ‘outdoors person’, a backpacker and canoeist. And a meat eater.

I’ve posted a few links. There are more. Just do a web search on factory farms, on hog CAFO’s. The information is out there.
One more link - a water quality data website from the USGS (US Geological Survey). Look up the water quality in your area.

**tinyurl.com/4uql3

**

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ella:

Here is why the fur farm is not a non-sequitur. I am against factory farming of animals. The fur farm is one example. Poultry farms are another. Whether for food or for vanity clothing, cruelty to animals is wrong.

When we discussed the harm to animals resulting from growing plants for food, you said that was a non-sequitur. So by your own rules it’s a non-sequitur.

 

[Ella]

If my ‘rule’ is that I’m against factory farms, then a non-sequitur would involve a non-factory farm.
Here’s another ‘rule’: I’m against factory farms that* intentionally* harm animals being raised in that farm.

 

[Ella]

Also, your bringing up the farming machines killing field mice as some sort of justification/moral equivalency for the cruel treatment of animals in factory farms is an example of a *Straw Man *argument.

** Definition: ** The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ella:

If my ‘rule’ is that I’m against factory farms, then a non-sequitur would involve a non-factory farm.
Here’s another ‘rule’: I’m against factory farms that* intentionally* harm animals being raised in that farm.

You make up the rules as you go. You attack chicken houses, and use a clip on a fur raising operation to “prove” your position.

But when someone else points out how animals are harmed on farms in some OTHER way, suddenly that’s off-limits.

You really don’t care about the animals – if you did, you’d be be concerned about pesticides and habitat loss as much as you are about chicken houses.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What about animals who become road-kill when their habitat is obliterated by human expansionism? Isn’t it cruel to kick an animal out of its home so that I can have a nice, new townhouse? Isn’t it cruel to hit a disoriented animal with a speeding car because its home has been destroyed and an 8 lane supehighway now exists where it used to feed?

I agree. Humans should stop breeding, progressing, expanding, and conquering Mother Earth. Lets get back to simpler days of mud huts, living off the land in small clannish communes, and travelling by foot. I’d say horseback, but what right to I have to subject a horse to carry my burdens.

 

[Trelow]

Ella:

hmmm. As an expert of farming. Does it require being an expert of farming to know what is cruel and what is not?

Some examples of cruelty practiced in factory farms:

Keeping an animal in a tiny cage for its entire life like veal calves are housed, and like the fur foxes in the video are kept.

How else are we going to get veal?

Removing the beak of a bird so that it cannot peck its cage mates, which are crammed in a tiny cage with it.

Would it be better for them to peck each other to death? Besides this is a very limited application, having worked in many poultry houses have have yet to have seen one where beaks were chopped of, the only time have witnessed them caged is on the way to have their heads pulled off.

Keeping these animals so close together that they cannot turn around. Keeping these animals indoors so that they never see sunlight.
factoryfarm.org/

Which animals? Do they need to see the sun? If allowed outside they would be more prone to injury and disease.

Right now states are fighting the influx of huge hog CAFO’s.
sumeria.net/earth/hogfarms.html

That’s because they smell.

CAFO stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The hogs are raised in sheds with mechanized equipment. This reduces the need for hired workers. The untreated waste from these hogs (and we’re talking maybe 300,000 hogs per year produced in one farm) is collected in open air lagoons. The lagoons leak, or flood with rains, and pollute the groundwater, streams, and rivers nearby. sierraclub.org/sierra/200103/profile.asp

If they were outside where do you think their waste would go? worked in a few of these too, very clean inside.

Thus, in addition to being cruel, CAFOs cause many environmental problems. The reason I know about these things is not because I’m a ‘farming expert’ but because I am a volunteer with environmental cleanups, an ‘outdoors person’, a backpacker and canoeist. And a meat eater.

I’ve posted a few links.

Try not to reference fanatical groups next time, it would make your argument much better.

Also, your bringing up the farming machines killing field mice as some sort of justification/moral equivalency for the cruel treatment of animals in factory farms is an example of a Straw Man argument.

Definition: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.

Horse-Phooey. Claiming that dirt farming is any more “ethical” is a ridiculous argument. If the fact that many baby mice are ground into meal so that the hypocrites of the world can enjoy their tofu mu-shu foo-fooo doo-doo doesn’t’ matter, why should it matter a few calves are made into delicious veal?

Saying all “factory farms” treat animals with unabated cruelty, is like saying that all Germans treat Jews like the Nazis did.

Now personally, I’m not the biggest supporter of “factory farms” because I come from a long line of farmers. And it’s hard to compete. But they have their right I reckon, and the people need to be fed.

 

[Ella]

hmmm.

Vern wrote: “You really don’t care about the animals – if you did, you’d be be concerned about pesticides and habitat loss as much as you are about chicken houses.”
*
Which is an example of attacking the person not the argument, an *ad hominem attack…
datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

*Scott La France used a Slippery Slope argument:
datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

Scott does this by stating that my position leads to having us all, “get back to simpler days of mud huts, living off the land in small clannish communes, and travelling by foot. I’d say horseback, but what right to I have to subject a horse to carry my burdens.”*

Vern wrote: " Which animals? Do they need to see the sun? If allowed outside they would be more prone to injury and disease. "

Hogs, Vern. Hogs. More prone to disease if they were allowed outside? As opposed to being crammed together in standing room only pens? Where do you get that fact from? Let’s see some data.
Regarding states fighting CAFO’s, Vern wrote: " That’s because they smell."
*
Not just smell, Vern. Pollute. Want me to post some more websites to do research on this issue? Or perhaps just read the ones I’ve already posted?
*
Regarding my link to the USGS water quality site, Vern wrote:
"Try not to quote fanatical groups next time, it would make your argument much better. "
*The USGS is a ‘fanatical group’? Where did you pull that from? I bet you didn’t even read the site.
For those who do not know, the USGS is the United States Geological Survey, and is a respected scientific organization. Look 'em up! You’ll see that they are as I stated.
*

Vern wrote: “Horse-Phooey. Claiming that dirt farming is any more “ethical” is a ridiculous argument. If the fact that many baby mice are ground into meal so that the hypocrites of the world can enjoy their tofu mu-shu foo-fooo doo-doo doesn’t’ matter, why should it matter a few calves are made into delicious veal?”
*
Is this really your argument? *

Vern wrote: “Saying all “factory farms” treat animals with unabated cruelty, is like saying that all Germans treat Jews like the Nazis did.”

Saying that none of the factory farms are cruel is a lie.

Vern wrote: “Now personally, I’m not the biggest supporter of “factory farms” because I come from a long line of farmers. And it’s hard to compete. But they have their right I reckon, and the people need to be fed.”
*
And the people have the right to be fed healthy animals raised in a healthy way that does not damage our environment.*

 

[BLB_Oregon]

There is a third way. A practical alternative to factory farming has recently arrived: Certified Humane. According to Saveur magazine, Humane Farm Animal Care, a nonprofit consortium of concerned veternarians, scientists, and animal welfare groups began offering strict, objective, third-party inspections to dairy, poultry, lamb, and beef producers. Once inspectors have determined that animals are being raised free of hormones and antibiotics in a safe, healthful environment, producers may label their product “Certified Humane.”

For this to work, we need to start asking our grocers when they will start carrying these products, and when we find one that does, we need to patronize them. For most of us, the added cost of the meat is going to dictate that we scale back our portions or switch some of our meals to vegetarian. I grew up eating meat three times a day (except during Advent and Lent, when breakfast meat was off the menu), and I can assure you that a meat-eater can be happy with a vegetarian meal. In fact, I knew a chef who was one of the most meat-eating guys I have ever known, and he said he would much rather give up meat than restrict his vegetables to onions, carrots, potatoes, and celery. There is unbelievable variety and pleasure to be found solely in the world of fruits, nuts, grains, legumes, and vegetables. You just have to have a little imagination.

Incidentally, the concept of certified humane is in keeping with the traditional Jewish practice that would have been in place during Jesus’ time. An animal that was treated cruelly prior to death was treif, or not kosher. Orthodox Jews do not eat animals unless they were slaughtered by a specially trained slaughterer, who must cut the throat swiftly and perfectly for the meat to be kosher.

 

[Trelow]

Ella:

Stuff you said. too long to repost.

That was me sweetheart.

Outside they are more subject to injury, parasites, rabid vermin, infectious insect bites, etc. I have never once seen them in “standing room only” pens. It’s illogical to do so you would limit their growth.

The USGS is the only non-fanatical site you referenced.

You are taking the extremes and trying to make a case that it’s the norm. Doesn’t fly. Yes there are abusers out there, there are abusers everywhere. If I regarded all hikers as the ones I’ve followed, I’d shoot all on sight, but I understand that only the exceptions stand out.

 

[Ella]

Thanks, BLBOregon. That’s a cool concept - that being the Certified Humane. And the point about kosher meat in Jesus’ time is a good one, too.

And Trelow, we are just going to have to disagree, I guess. You do know that shooting hikers on sight would be a very unChristian act, I hope… But I am pleased that you use the term ‘abusers’ which seems to indicate that you recognize that farmed animals* can* be abused. Some people won’t even acknowledge that.

 

[Ella]

oh, and while I think about it -

Trelow wrote: *
“The USGS is the only non-fanatical site you referenced.”

*Goodness NO! Slowfood.org is not a fanatical site, unless you count fans of good food! In which I count my self one of slowfood’s fanatics.

www.themeatrix.com is not a fanatical site - how is it fanatical? It’s a cartoon about sustainable cruelty-free farming being overtaken by agricultural cooporations and factory farms.

 

[Trelow]

Ella:

Thanks, BLBOregon. That’s a cool concept - that being the Certified Humane. And the point about kosher meat in Jesus’ time is a good one, too.

And Trelow, we are just going to have to disagree, I guess. You do know that shooting hikers on sight would be a very unChristian act, I hope… But I am pleased that you use the term ‘abusers’ which seems to indicate that you recognize that farmed animals* can* be abused. Some people won’t even acknowledge that.

Agreed. I just find it very aggravating when people take the exception and interpret as the rule. Most people I have dealt with regarding farming are PETA freaks, and quite frankly I would have little problem shooting most of them. I suppose over-generalization can happen both ways. Peace be with you.

 

[Trelow]

Ella:

oh, and while I think about it -

Trelow wrote: *
“The USGS is the only non-fanatical site you referenced.”

*Goodness NO! Slowfood.org is not a fanatical site, unless you count fans of good food! In which I count my self one of slowfood’s fanatics.

www.themeatrix.com is not a fanatical site - how is it fanatical? It’s a cartoon about sustainable cruelty-free farming being overtaken by agricultural cooporations and factory farms.

The meatrix is supported by GRACE gracelinks.org/ , who support the UN’s population control measures among other-things.

sumeria.net/ Obvious nut jobs.

And the Sierra Club just rubs me wrong, they claim to support sportsmen, but keep trying to get more and more land taken away from us, while supporting anti-gun politicians.

 

[TAS2000]

Ok, I’ll try once more since I haven’t seen anyone on the pro-veggie side try to address this point yet. Why do you guys feel that it is somehow better or more holy to eat the vegatables than the animals? All the same arguments apply to both. They are both alive, until we chop them up and eat them. God created them both, and lots of different kinds. We pump the animals with drugs, we coat the plants with pesticides, chemical fertilizer’s etc. The plants we eat are very carefully bred through research to get the highest yeilds, best tasting, etc. and bear little resemblence to their historical ancestors. So what exactly makes it better to eat the plants?

 

[vern_humphrey]

TAS2000:

Ok, I’ll try once more since I haven’t seen anyone on the pro-veggie side try to address this point yet. Why do you guys feel that it is somehow better or more holy to eat the vegatables than the animals? All the same arguments apply to both. They are both alive, until we chop them up and eat them. God created them both, and lots of different kinds. We pump the animals with drugs, we coat the plants with pesticides, chemical fertilizer’s etc. The plants we eat are very carefully bred through research to get the highest yeilds, best tasting, etc. and bear little resemblence to their historical ancestors. So what exactly makes it better to eat the plants?

Equally cogent is the cost of vegetable production in terms of animal life. We kill millions of birds and small animals with the pesticides we use to protect crops. We kill millions of fish when the fertilizers encourage growth of algae in the water. We convert prime habitat to cropland.

But the vegans don’t shed any tears about THAT!

 

[BLB_Oregon]

TAS2000:

Ok, I’ll try once more since I haven’t seen anyone on the pro-veggie side try to address this point yet. Why do you guys feel that it is somehow better or more holy to eat the vegatables than the animals? All the same arguments apply to both. They are both alive, until we chop them up and eat them. God created them both, and lots of different kinds. We pump the animals with drugs, we coat the plants with pesticides, chemical fertilizer’s etc. The plants we eat are very carefully bred through research to get the highest yeilds, best tasting, etc. and bear little resemblence to their historical ancestors. So what exactly makes it better to eat the plants?

I’m not a vegetarian, but the general argument is this: it takes a lot more plants to raise the meat you eat than to just eat plants in the first place. If our natural resources are being pushed to the limit, then it follows that we can feed more people on the same resources if the diet is shifted at least towards more plants and fewer animals. You need plants for a healthy diet. Meat is nutritious, but you don’t need it. In fact, a diet that includes excessive amounts of meat will make you more prone to cancer and heart disease, etc.

As far as the plants being carefully bred and coated in pesticides, you’ll find the ranks of today’s vegetarians tend to be largely populated with those who choose organicly grown heirloom-type food plants with a long track record of having co-existed with our natural world without undue adverse impact. Since it is a fact that some pesticides are very durable in the environment and have an adverse effect on birds and predatory animals, there is a proven basis in fact for their concerns.

On the holiness count, the traditions of aesthetics throughout the ages have a long history of a largely or entirely vegetarian diet. It is simply less costly to provide and doesn’t involve spilling blood.

 

[Trelow]

vern humphrey:

Equally cogent is the cost of vegetable production in terms of animal life. We kill millions of birds and small animals with the pesticides we use to protect crops. We kill millions of fish when the fertilizers encourage growth of algae in the water. We convert prime habitat to cropland.

But the vegans don’t shed any tears about THAT!

Don’t forget God was like": Uh, Cain this sucks. Turnips? You bring me turnips? I don’t want no stinking turnips. Hey, Abel, you rock. This is the best veal I’ve munched in a long time, gracias little dude, gracias."

They Cain was all like, “RARW!!! YOU KILLED THAT LITTLE CALF!! NOW YOUR GONNA DIE BECAUSE IT"S ALL LIKE WRONG TO KILL ANIMALS AND STUFF!!”""

Then he hacked him up with his hoe and planted him in his garden.

The God got po’d and tattooed PETA on Cain’s head. Which meant People don’t Eat Turnips, Ableep.

Apparently the meaning got lost in translation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BLB_Oregon:

I’m not a vegetarian, but the general argument is this: it takes a lot more plants to raise the meat you eat than to just eat plants in the first place. If our natural resources are being pushed to the limit, then it follows that we can feed more people on the same resources if the diet is shifted at least towards more plants and fewer animals.

That’s not a valid argument for two basic reasons:

1. Most pasturage is not suited for raising crops.
2. There is no shortage of natural resources for food.

There is, in fact, a food surplus, world-wide. People starve not because there isn’t enought food, but because it isn’t distributed properly. Much hunger is due to lack of transportation facilities, and to government or quasi-governmental policies, where combatants use hunger as a weapon of war.

 

[TAS2000]

it takes a lot more plants to raise the meat you eat than to just eat plants in the first place

OK, I’ll accept this one at face value, as a Good Stewardship issue. However, as an engineer I can show some interesting studies on when the most efficient method isn’t really the best one overall. And of course, this arguement only applies if there is in fact a shortage of resources.
As far as nutrition goes, a diet that is excessive in amount of anything causes all kinds of health issues, so this isn’t an animals only arguement.
Argueing that some vegetarians raise their own food, of special historic types, and don’t use pesticides is useless, because I can show you plenty of small farmers that raise their own animals, don’t use chemical enhancers, and that can and do raise rare breeds. And of course, don’t abuse their animals. However the major pro-veg argument in this thread is against huge factory farms, so that eliminates the small guy growing his own vegatables. To be a fair comparison, we’d have to compare to large factory plant farms, which negate all the above advantages.
And for the holiness arguement, there were plenty of saints who were not vegatarians, so we can skip that one. Less costly, maybe. Some plants can be pretty expensive, too. Anything “rare” usually is. So maybe they were just eating whatever was cheapest in their area. And as for spilling blood? Again, why the difference? The plant dies, the animal dies. Why is it holier to “spill sap” than to “spill blood”?