Activists Seek Changes at Slaughterhouses
fuller
Activists Seek Changes at Slaughterhouses
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
State authorities agreed and decided not to file animal cruelty
charges.
That decision has incensed animals rights advocates -- and even some
producers -- who say it's an example of the need for stricter national
laws and enforcement to stop what they consider inhumane slaughter of
livestock.
``It's not what we do,'' said Paul Bahan, owner of AAA Egg Farms in
Riverside County, who chairs an industry committee targeting treatment
of poultry.
Amid a growing national push for better treatment of livestock, the
industry is enacting new guidelines for slaughterhouses and farms that
will take into account everything from the size of cages to the ways
animals are killed. Restaurant and grocery store chains are urging
independent audits of the nation's 900 slaughterhouses, and the
federal government is moving to hire more inspectors.
Critics say the changes aren't happening fast enough.
During a hearing in May on agriculture appropriations, Sen. Robert
Byrd, D-W.Va., called on the Agriculture Department to speed up the
hiring of inspectors.
``Despite the laws on the books, chronically weak enforcement and
intense pressure to speed up slaughterhouse assembly lines reportedly
have resulted in animals being skinned, dismembered, and boiled while
they are still alive and conscious,'' Byrd said.
Members of Congress also have received a video from Sen. Jim Moran,
D-Va., actor Alec Baldwin and People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals. The tape, titled ``Meet Your Meat,'' contains graphic images
of cruelty at farms.
``Enforcement is the issue,'' Baldwin, a longtime PETA activist, told
The Associated Press. ``You live in a society where the USDA is the
only barrier between producers and your food.''
The American Meat Institute denied that enforcement at slaughterhouses
is weak and that animals are routinely abused. Officials also pointed
out that the plants can't operate unless an inspector is on the
premises.
In the past decade, the $133 billion processing and packing industry
has taken a number of steps to improve animals' final moments, such as
redesigning pens to accommodate natural movements and minimizing use
of electric prods, American Meat Institute spokeswoman Janet Riley
said. Such treatment is not only ethical, it's good business, she
said.
``If an animal is stressed when it goes to slaughter ... it will emit
hormones that create quality defects in meat that then has to be
trimmed away,'' she said.
Each year, 8 billion chickens and turkeys, 97 million hogs, 35 million
cattle, 3 million sheep and lambs, and 1 million calves are
slaughtered in the United States.
Larger animals are usually killed with a gun that shoots a rod
directly into the brain. Chickens are typically stunned in an
electrified bath before their heads are cut off with a rotating blade.
Others are suffocated with carbon dioxide or their necks are broken.
The 45-year-old federal Humane Slaughter Act offers guidelines on
slaughter methods but only requires that animals be rendered
``insensible to pain'' before being killed. It excludes poultry from
that requirement. State laws vary.
In the wood chipper case, the USDA did not approve the slaughter
method, said Ed Lloyd, a department spokesman. The decision on filing
charges was up to the San Diego County district attorney's office,
which declined in May after determining there was no criminal intent
by the owners of the farm, Arie and Bill Wilgenburg.
``I've done nothing wrong and I stick by that, and I won't say
anything else about it,'' Bill Wilgenburg said.
Officials have said the brothers acted on the advice of a
veterinarian. The birds could not be sent to a slaughterhouse because
they had been quarantined after an outbreak of a bird virus, Exotic
Newcastle Disease.
While the case is unusual, animal welfare advocates say it shows that
farmers are seldom held responsible when animals are subjected to
unnecessary pain and suffering.
The USDA reported that from January 1998 to January 2003, 21 of the
nation's slaughterhouses were cited for violations related to
mistreatment.
It says the relatively low number of citations shows enforcement
methods are working.
``We make our living by selling cows. We don't make our living by
abusing them,'' said Arthur Green, whose Benton Packing Co. in
Springdale, Ark., was cited last year for having too many cows in one
pen.
^------
On the Net:
Animal Welfare Audit Program: http://www.awaudit.org/
Humane Farm Animal Care: http://www.certifiedhumane.com/
National Chicken Council: http://www.eatchicken.com
Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov
Cuchulain Libby
"fuller" <full...@law.com> wrote
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
> insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
> quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
A wood chipper seems efficient.
Took me five shots with a bb gun to off a feral cat once. Used a $1.20 can
of tuna and a borrowed-from-the-Humane Society havaheart trap. Lotsa work
for one damned cat.
-Hound
Jimmy Tango
"Cuchulain Libby" <cli...@satx.XX.com> wrote in message
news:bc5Oa.52593$hV.31...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Let's stick your fat ass in a chipper, bitch.
Paula Drennan
"Cuchulain Libby" <cli...@satx.XX.com> wrote in message
news:bc5Oa.52593$hV.31...@twister.austin.rr.com...
: "fuller" <full...@law.com> wrote
: >
: > LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
: > insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
: > quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
: [...]
on this part, I disagree with use of wood chippers, not for cruelty, but the
sanitation aspect, since they were slaughtered because of a virus. wood
chipper would make all kinds of bloody spray and maybe help spread
virus...not good when you are killing the animals to get rid of virus.
: A wood chipper seems efficient.
: Took me five shots with a bb gun to off a feral cat once. Used a $1.20 can
: of tuna and a borrowed-from-the-Humane Society havaheart trap. Lotsa work
: for one damned cat.
:
: -Hound
now for this one, why were you killing the cat in the first place? was he
sick or someting? you took the time to trap him, why not just take the trap
in your car and drive him somewhere else? he's already feral can fend for
himself obviously. sorry, I have several feral cats as pets and have taken
the time to get htem to trust me. two of them even come inside to eat, and
get warm in winter. Im not all animal activist or anything, just bout cats
mostly.
Paula
:
:
Cuchulain Libby
"Paula Drennan" <drago...@satx.rr.com> wrote >
> now for this one, why were you killing the cat in the first place? was he
> sick or someting? you took the time to trap him, why not just take the
trap
> in your car and drive him somewhere else? he's already feral can fend for
> himself obviously. sorry, I have several feral cats as pets and have taken
> the time to get htem to trust me. two of them even come inside to eat,
and
> get warm in winter. Im not all animal activist or anything, just bout cats
> mostly.
Ironically enough, I now feed two ferals one comes in and the other don't,
they and the other were all female. When I first moved here there was a
family and I had a male cat. Offing the female was the easiest way to solve
the whole mess what with other males hanging around, etc. The male cat
must've et a D-Conned mouse cuz he didn't look or smell to good before he
went (good ol' bb gun again). Current cats get along fine with my dogs and
there does not seem to be any males around as they haven't had any
litters....yet.
-Hound
tcomeau
> July 6, 2003
> Activists Seek Changes at Slaughterhouses
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
> insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
> quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
>
> State authorities agreed and decided not to file animal cruelty
> charges.
>
How would you suggest this be handled?
TC
John Gaughan
Just his ass? Damn, that would suck. How would he poop?
John Gaughan
jo...@johngaughan.net
John Gaughan
> insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
> quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
What else do you do with 30,000 sick chickens? Damn. If a chicken weighs
ten pounds, that amounts to 1,500 tons of chickens. Either that or I
suck at math.
Anyway, what do you do? Slaughter them? Sorry, the slaughterhouse cannot
afford to contaminate its machinery. Bury them alive? Throw them in the
ocean? Sacrifice them one a day in Satanic rituals for the next 82.19
years? Let them sit and stew in their disease, dying slowly? Or better
yet, throw them in a wood chipper and get it over with quickly!
I don't think some of the other people contributing to this thread
realize just how many damn chickens were killed. Killing one or two in a
humane way is one thing, but thirty thousand? Think about it for a
minute. That's a lot of chickens! How can you kill them all humanely,
especially if you are an egg farm?
I see no problem with what they did. They looked at their options, and
out of all the ones that were viable, made a rational decision. Some
extremists got pissed off about it, oh well. These are the same people
who chain themselves to trees to save them.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is a hippy chained to it, does
anyone care?
John Gaughan (the heartless bastard)
jo...@johngaughan.net
tcomeau
Well said. I agree.
TC
Geoff Miller
fuller <full...@law.com> forwards:
[...]
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
> insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
> quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
> State authorities agreed and decided not to file animal cruelty
> charges.
Well, why would they have? The chickens died just as instantan-
eously as they would have had they been slaughtered in the usual
manner. Think of it as a "whole-body decapitation," to coin a
concept. Or perhaps "the Fargo method" would be a better name
for it.
Years ago, a friend of mine worked for the city public works
department. One of his buddies found the carcass of a dead
cat one day when they were doing some trimming of the bushes
along the roadside. So the guy grabbed it by the tail and
tossed it into the mulcher. <rrrrrrrrrRUNNNCH!rrrrrrrrr>
> That decision has incensed animals rights advocates [...]
Hell, what *doesnt* inflame animal "rights" advocates? Those
people are neurotic and emotionally unstable virtually by
definition. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the
overwhelming majority of them are women, and we all know about
women and their hormone typhoons. Just about *any* cause with
a predominantly-female membership is going to be looney-tunes
to some degree or another, since by all indications, being a
human female is not entirely unlike being on a full-time acid
trip.
When you consider how the original cadres of this movement grew
up watching those anthropomorphic animal shows of the Sixties,
"Flipper" and "Daktari" and the like, and then were exposed to
the Earth-worshipping hippie movement while they were still
young and impressionable, a certain pattern should become
apparent. And when, still later, they were exposed to feminism,
with its deliberate rejection of rationality and linear thinking
as overly masculine and therefore anti-female, the inevitability
of this silly-arsed crap should be drawn into sharp focus.
> Members of Congress also have received a video from Sen. Jim
> Moran, D-Va., actor Alec Baldwin and People for the Ethical
> Treatment of Animals. The tape, titled ``Meet Your Meat,''
> contains graphic images of cruelty at farms.
Sounds like the title of the film I saw in 6th grade "health"
class, on that interesting day when the boys were segregated
from the girls.
People, get a grip. Animals have no rights. The concept of
rights was invented by man to describe his relationship with
his fellow human beings. Animals, being subhuman, are outside
the conceptual realm of rights. Which isn't to say I believe
it's okay to mistreat them, mind you. It's just that it's
nonsensical to express compassion for animals in terms of
some misguided, sappy, anthropomorphic concept of rights
where no rights exist, or _can_ exist.
Geoff
--
"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but
simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the
next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and
hate the enemy." -- Ann Coulter
The Wolf
hE7Oa.31334$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "Jimmy Tango"
<fatbu...@ridethesnake.com> opined:
OOOOOH we have a peta pussy here!
Get a life loser.
--
===========================================================
"Grand pappy told my pappy back in my time son, a man had
To answer For the wicked that he'd done."
===========================================================
The Wolf
Gaughan" <jo...@johngaughan.net> opined:
>> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
>> insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
>> quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
>
> What else do you do with 30,000 sick chickens? Damn. If a chicken weighs
> ten pounds, that amounts to 1,500 tons of chickens. Either that or I
> suck at math.
>
> Anyway, what do you do? Slaughter them? Sorry, the slaughterhouse cannot
> afford to contaminate its machinery. Bury them alive? Throw them in the
> ocean? Sacrifice them one a day in Satanic rituals for the next 82.19
> years? Let them sit and stew in their disease, dying slowly? Or better
> yet, throw them in a wood chipper and get it over with quickly!
>
> I don't think some of the other people contributing to this thread
> realize just how many damn chickens were killed. Killing one or two in a
> humane way is one thing, but thirty thousand? Think about it for a
> minute. That's a lot of chickens! How can you kill them all humanely,
> especially if you are an egg farm?
>
> I see no problem with what they did. They looked at their options, and
> out of all the ones that were viable, made a rational decision. Some
> extremists got pissed off about it, oh well. These are the same people
> who chain themselves to trees to save them.
You employ much too much common sense to debate with these peta people. They
are some of the world's biggest losers. Greenpeace runs a close second.
Kentucky Fried Chicken actually negotiated with peta to end a boycott over
the way their chickens are slaughtered. Why does KFC give a fuck about a
peta boycott? It CANNOT effect their business that much.
>
> If a tree falls in the forest, and there is a hippy chained to it, does
> anyone care?
>
> John Gaughan (the heartless bastard)
> jo...@johngaughan.net
>
--
George Russell
> I don't think some of the other people contributing to this thread
> realize just how many damn chickens were killed. Killing one or two in a
> humane way is one thing, but thirty thousand? Think about it for a
> minute. That's a lot of chickens! How can you kill them all humanely,
> especially if you are an egg farm?
Yes, thank you for making it clear to us all how impractical it is
to keep chickens humanely on a large scale.
It seems to me the solution is not to sacrifice your humanity, but to
not keep chickens on a large scale.
John Gaughan
> to keep chickens humanely on a large scale.
It is quite practical. "Farmers" do it all the time.
> It seems to me the solution is not to sacrifice your humanity, but to
> not keep chickens on a large scale.
Keeping chickens in that quantity has nothing to do with humanity.
Chickens are not human ;-)
John Gaughan
jo...@johngaughan.net
George Russell
scale, snipped):
> It is quite practical. "Farmers" do it all the time.
...
> Keeping chickens in that quantity has nothing to do with humanity.
> Chickens are not human ;-)
Then I think someone must have been forging posts by you. For in an
earlier post allegedly by you occurred the passage
> I don't think some of the other people contributing to this thread
> realize just how many damn chickens were killed. Killing one or two in a
> humane way is one thing, but thirty thousand? Think about it for a
> minute. That's a lot of chickens! How can you kill them all humanely,
> especially if you are an egg farm?
which would appear to make it clear that it's difficult to kill large
numbers of chickens in a humane way, especially for an "egg farm"
(which are run by "Farmers" are they not?).
I think you should contact your ISP to complain about this person who is
spouting rubbish with your e-mail address. However if you choose to
acknowledge both posts as your own creation, I shall leave it to others
to see if they can make any sense of this logic.
Vilco (out)
> Think of it as a "whole-body decapitation," to coin a
> concept. Or perhaps "the Fargo method" would be a better name
> for it.
ROTFL!
Great movie, that one.
Vilco
John Gaughan
> numbers of chickens in a humane way, especially for an "egg farm"
> (which are run by "Farmers" are they not?).
You confuse "humane" with "humanity." They are from the same root but
mean different things.
> I think you should contact your ISP to complain about this person who is
> spouting rubbish with your e-mail address.
My ISP does not provide my email address, and they do a shitty job
providing usenet access. Any rubbish is spouted from myself and I claim
full credit.
Hey, I'm only "human" ;-)
John Gaughan
jo...@johngaughan.net
KiloDelate
says...
Modern food production isn't pretty - but by virtue of it's scale we're
able to feed virtually everyone in the country.
Some people would have us harvesting from our own personal fields and
our own cattle and fowl fields. Impossible to do in a city.
dustbird
"fuller" <full...@law.com> wrote in message
news:3f08d4b0...@news.io.com...
> July 6, 2003
> Activists Seek Changes at Slaughterhouses
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
> insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
> quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
So there won't be any shortage of qualified personnel to man
concentration camps, once the public has been persuaded that human flesh is
nutritious and that the slaughter of useless people is humane.
moonglow minnow
(followup set to the group I'm reading from, rec.food.veg)
> People, get a grip. Animals have no rights. The concept of
> rights was invented by man to describe his relationship with
> his fellow human beings. Animals, being subhuman, are outside
> the conceptual realm of rights. Which isn't to say I believe
> it's okay to mistreat them, mind you. It's just that it's
> nonsensical to express compassion for animals in terms of
> some misguided, sappy, anthropomorphic concept of rights
> where no rights exist, or _can_ exist.
>
>
>
> Geoff
Replace 'animals' with 'children,' 'women,' or 'slaves' and you have an
agument identical to that once made (and still made in many third-world
countries) by slaveholders, abusive husbands, and abusive parents.
They're all 'clearly' inferior to Free Men, so they don't have rights.
The very idea is preposterous. They're just property.
Concepts, and the language used to describe them, can and do evolve in
changing societies... like the ones one animal commonly known as 'human'
tend to form, for example.
Maeve... does not consider pigs, cats, coyotes, dolphins, and other
highly intelligent animals to be subhuman. Cows, birds (except ducks),
and a lage number of humans, on the other hand...
--
throw the baby out with the bathwater to reply by e-mail
~*~ http://volatiledreams.deep-ice.com ~*~
I know it all. I just can't remember it all at once.
Richard Periut
I would assume they died an instant death, and felt no prolonged pain.
Nevertheless, how do you propose the fowl should of been killed? Or
would you rather keep them alive, in a large space, so they could live
out their infected lives, and hope to hell they don't infect other fowl
(both in captive, and wild.)
Another question is, what did they do with the remains? To throw them in
the garbage would of been a tremendous loss of rich fertilizer that
could help the circle of life.
R
Cuchulain Libby
"moonglow minnow" <Psych...@Goddessbathwater.zzn.com> wrote
> Concepts, and the language used to describe them, can and do evolve in
> changing societies... like the ones one animal commonly known as 'human'
> tend to form, for example.
>
> Maeve... does not consider pigs, cats, coyotes, dolphins, and other
> highly intelligent animals to be subhuman.
Your post gives pause to the idea women should have the freedoms you
propose. The idea that any animal has the same rights as humans is to demean
your very own species. Name another animal that gives any other animal equal
rights. Don't forget Maeve, God gave us dominion over all animals...
-Hound
moonglow minnow
aether:
> Your post gives pause to the idea women should have the freedoms you
> propose. The idea that any animal has the same rights as humans is to
> demean your very own species. Name another animal that gives any other
> animal equal rights. Don't forget Maeve, God gave us dominion over all
> animals...
>
> -Hound
No other animal shares our language, so the human concept of 'rights' in
law would be impossible to determine, but as far as behaviour, well...
the vast majority of animals have a better track record than humans in
only destroying life to preserve their own. Only humans, polar bears, and
some species of dolphins (most notably "killer whales") are known to kill
not for food or self defense, but for enjoyment. Virtually all other
animals only kill for food (to sustain their own life) or in self-
defense. On actions, which is the only way to judge when not sharing a
common language, I'd say that the vast majority of animals grant others
the right to life so long as it does not interfere with their own. That's
far better than our own record, recklessly destroying and mistreating the
creatures and plants and very earth we were granted guardianship (with
power comes responsibility) over.
God gave us better sense than to trust a book written by men and badly
translated time and time again by men as His word. After all, I'm sure
you've seen what happens to instruction manuals translated only once.
Only pride separates us from the animals, after all...
Maeve... the true character of a society can be judged by how it treats
those without rights...
--
throw the baby out with the bathwater to reply by e-mail
~*~ http://volatiledreams.deep-ice.com ~*~
Cats know how we feel. They don't care, but they know.
George Russell
> Don't forget Maeve, God gave us dominion over all animals...
George Bush has dominion over Americans, but that does not give him the
right to kill and eat them.
zachary m. amaryllis
news:befmfl$g...@library2.airnews.net:
> and that the slaughter of useless people is humane
i'm all for the slaughter of useless people.. i mean, think of the money
those of us that actually WORK for a living could save if we didn't have to
support all thoe people who don't..
if they can be used as a food item, then bonus for us..
dustbird
"zachary m. amaryllis" <f_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B34C322697E...@63.240.76.16...
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. A "useless person" is anyone
who is worth less than a billion dollars, is not a top-ranking general or
does not command a top-secret agency, or is not deemed "essential" by any of
the above, or else who does not appear to be nutritious.
zachary m. amaryllis
news:beh7am$r...@library1.airnews.net:
> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. A "useless person" is
> anyone who is worth less than a billion dollars, is not a top-ranking
> general or does not command a top-secret agency, or is not deemed
> "essential" by any of the above, or else who does not appear to be
> nutritious.
>
well, if i fall into that category, then i certainly hope i taste good...
i've been told i'm good with a light onion sauce.. but that was a sex
thing..
when i think 'useless' i think of people who have all these 'head problems'
that collect checks cuz their ADD or suicidal tendencies or whatever
'prevents them from being able to work'... bullschit, i say...
but i'm certainly not above my own standards.. if that applies to me, then
so be it..
-bkzma
Moosh:]
Your logic appears to be faulty.
What is the connection with keeping lots of layers, and having
logistical problems killing 30,000 all at once?
Rooster
But you are (arguably). Thus, the need to attempt to behave accordingly.
>
> John Gaughan
> jo...@johngaughan.net
Rooster
> "dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in
> news:beh7am$r...@library1.airnews.net:
>
> > Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. A "useless person" is
> > anyone who is worth less than a billion dollars, is not a top-ranking
> > general or does not command a top-secret agency, or is not deemed
> > "essential" by any of the above, or else who does not appear to be
> > nutritious.
> >
>
> well, if i fall into that category, then i certainly hope i taste good...
> i've been told i'm good with a light onion sauce.. but that was a sex
> thing..
>
> when i think 'useless' i think of people who have all these 'head problems'
> that collect checks cuz their ADD or suicidal tendencies or whatever
> 'prevents them from being able to work'... bullschit, i say...
Really? Right, then. In your fantasy world, plenty of dangerous
people, who would otherwise not really be a danger to anyone would lie
about their mental problems (for fear of being deemed useless) and
you'd have to deal with them in your workplace. Personally, I'd just
as soon have them get a check and only have a slight chance of getting
shot, stabbed or otherwise maimed at work.
>
> but i'm certainly not above my own standards.. if that applies to me, then
> so be it..
Please. You'd be squealing like a live pig on a skewer if you even
thought your time was up.
>
> -bkzma
zachary m. amaryllis
news:ada4586b.03071...@posting.google.com:
> Really? Right, then. In your fantasy world, plenty of dangerous
> people, who would otherwise not really be a danger to anyone would lie
> about their mental problems (for fear of being deemed useless) and
> you'd have to deal with them in your workplace. Personally, I'd just
> as soon have them get a check and only have a slight chance of getting
> shot, stabbed or otherwise maimed at work.
>> but i'm certainly not above my own standards.. if that applies to me,
>> then so be it..
> Please. You'd be squealing like a live pig on a skewer if you even
> thought your time was up.
actually, theres really nothing like realizing that you're a 33 year old
person working at a burger king, to really MAKE you feel like your time is
allready up... i'm tired.. REAL tired...personally, i think my own time was
up about 5 years ago...
-bkzma
Geoff Miller
moonglow minnow <Psych...@Goddessbathwater.zzn.com> writes:
> (followup set to the group I'm reading from, rec.food.veg)
Followups restored to the original newsgroups. Were you
hoping to forestall opposition by moving the discussion
into a friendly forum, so that your vegetarian friends
could dogpile me? I've seen the talk.politics.animals
types try that stunt, too.
Earlier I wrote:
: People, get a grip. Animals have no rights. The concept of
: rights was invented by man to describe his relationship with
: his fellow human beings. Animals, being subhuman, are outside
: the conceptual realm of rights. Which isn't to say I believe
: it's okay to mistreat them, mind you. It's just that it's
: nonsensical to express compassion for animals in terms of
: some misguided, sappy, anthropomorphic concept of rights
: where no rights exist, or _can_ exist.
moonglow minnow <Psych...@Goddessbathwater.zzn.com> responded:
> Replace 'animals' with 'children,' 'women,' or 'slaves' and
> you have an agument identical to that once made (and still
> made in many third-world countries) by slaveholders, abusive
> husbands, and abusive parents. They're all 'clearly' inferior
> to Free Men, so they don't have rights. The very idea is
> preposterous. They're just property.
Except that children, women, and slaves are human beings, which
means that they're not interchangeable with animals -- and that
therefore, the concept of rights does, in fact, apply to them.
You can't simply substitute terms in an argument like that and
expect it to remain valid. The whole point of what I wrote
earlier was that humans are existentially superior to animals,
after all.
> Concepts, and the language used to describe them, can and do
> evolve in changing societies... like the ones one animal
> commonly known as 'human' tend to form, for example.
Concepts do _not_ change. New concepts come along every now and
again, some of them goofier and less defensible than others, and
advocated by fringe groups with nutty agendas and generally
tweaked worldviews. The idea that animals have rights arose from
three things: irrational emotionalism, anthropomorphism, and a
flawed understanding of what rights actually are.
> Maeve... does not consider pigs, cats, coyotes, dolphins,
> and other highly intelligent animals to be subhuman.
You are, quite simply, insane.
Geoff
--
"The nation's colleges and universities have become a Safe Streets
program for traitors and lunatics. At least Tailgunner Joe got them
out of government work." -- Ann Coulter
R.L. McCarty
>> ANNE..it's the opposite in the USA..THEY RUN the country...better
that than being in the "work-force" where REAL damages could
result>>LOL! B=0b1
R.L. McCarty
>> Tamed and happy animals are MUCH easier to slaughter than "free
thinking" and WILD ones..LOL! B-0b1
Geoff Miller
R.L. McCarty <s...@grandecom.net> writes:
> ANNE..it's the opposite in the USA..THEY RUN the country...better
> that than being in the "work-force" where REAL damages could
> result>>LOL! B=0b1
*boggle*
You quoted my _entire article_ just to comment on the .sig?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but were you by any chance
what is now delicately referred to as a "special needs" child?
moonglow minnow
followup to minimise unneeded crossposting... Geoff, if you would kindly
add the newsgroup you're reading from back on, and only that newsgroup,
it would be appreciated.
Geoff Miller howled at the moon, then scrawled thusly upon the aether:
> moonglow minnow <Psych...@Goddessbathwater.zzn.com> writes:
>
>> (followup set to the group I'm reading from, rec.food.veg)
>
> Followups restored to the original newsgroups. Were you
> hoping to forestall opposition by moving the discussion
> into a friendly forum, so that your vegetarian friends
> could dogpile me? I've seen the talk.politics.animals
> types try that stunt, too.
Nope... most of my friends are rather carnivorous, actually. (They're
also the ones who tend to tell me that I'm going to die on a regular
basis because apparently soybeans, cheese, rice, beans, etc. don't have
any protein in them. Huh.) It's a default in my newsreader to set a
followup, and as I don't know which group you're from, it's most logical
to set it to the group I happen to be reading from, duly notifying so
that those who wish to follow can.
>> Replace 'animals' with 'children,' 'women,' or 'slaves' and
>> you have an agument identical to that once made (and still
>> made in many third-world countries) by slaveholders, abusive
>> husbands, and abusive parents. They're all 'clearly' inferior
>> to Free Men, so they don't have rights. The very idea is
>> preposterous. They're just property.
>
> Except that children, women, and slaves are human beings, which
> means that they're not interchangeable with animals -- and that
> therefore, the concept of rights does, in fact, apply to them.
Funny, I seem to recall slaves being sold like and *as* livestock...
animals to be owned and used, who just happen to have the means to speak
and understand human language.
> You can't simply substitute terms in an argument like that and
> expect it to remain valid. The whole point of what I wrote
> earlier was that humans are existentially superior to animals,
> after all.
My point is that still now in many parts of the world Men are considered
existentially superior to women and children, to the point where killing
them in an exceedingly cruel manner is considered acceptable.
> Concepts do _not_ change. New concepts come along every now and
> again, some of them goofier and less defensible than others, and
> advocated by fringe groups with nutty agendas and generally
> tweaked worldviews. The idea that animals have rights arose from
> three things: irrational emotionalism, anthropomorphism, and a
> flawed understanding of what rights actually are.
Humans, like all other animals, must evolve and grow and adapt, or die
off. Complex language must also evolve or die. Just look at French, a
language that isn't evolving at pace, and is dying off as a result.
It's rational to conclude that animals other than humans can and do feel
pain, as they respond to painful stimuli, and in the case of mammals,
they have remarkably similar nervous system structure. It is also logical
to come to the same conclusion when you consider that pain is often
useful in keeping you alive and intact. A child doesn't touch a hot stove
not because it damages his or her hand, but because it hurts.
It's rational to conclude that treating animals in an inhumane manner
(especially torture) may be a sign of severe mental illness, as, indeed,
all mass murderers begin killing animals, and tend to find it a very
small step or no step at all to killing humans... after all, they're
inherently inferior to the predator who can kill them with such ease. As
a less extreme example, a large percentage of people with borderline
personality disorder, and most people who abuse their spouses and/or
children, frequently abuse animals, starting at a young age.
>> Maeve... does not consider pigs, cats, coyotes, dolphins,
>> and other highly intelligent animals to be subhuman.
>
> You are, quite simply, insane.
My boss, my coworkers, my friends, and my doctors, would all strongly
disagree with you on that point. My immune system is faulty, but my brain
is in perfect working order, for a bookworm who studies and analyses
things more than your average sheep... err.. person.
*shrugs*
I don't believe that God writes books. Inspires, certainly, but a great
deal of human error and addition for the convenience of the ruling
classes goes in with that inspiration before it makes it to the commons.
I've worked with many people, and many domestic animals, and on average,
from observation, the animals seem much more capable of rational though
than the humans. Why should I consider a clearly more intelligent
creature as an inferior? Pride before the fall...
By the way, my exact position on the issue is that animals destined for
consumption should be raised in conditions that promote optimal health,
and should be slaughtered as humanely as is practical, with minimal
stress to the animal. Funnily enough, this also makes for the best
quality meat.
Something must die for another to live, but as we were granted the
intelligence to percieve the suffering of others, including animals, I
find it an obligation to at least minimise the suffering that we cause.
Maeve... didn't watch lassie or flipper or bambi, just grew up with dogs
and horses...
--
throw the baby out with the bathwater to reply by e-mail
~*~ http://volatiledreams.deep-ice.com ~*~
666-A -- The Tenant of the Beast.
usual suspect
<snip>
"Rather carnivorous" equals "omnivorous."
> (They're
> also the ones who tend to tell me that I'm going to die on a regular
> basis because apparently soybeans, cheese, rice, beans, etc. don't have
> any protein in them. Huh.) It's a default in my newsreader to set a
> followup, and as I don't know which group you're from, it's most logical
> to set it to the group I happen to be reading from, duly notifying so
> that those who wish to follow can.
You should change your default if you're going to send out cross-posts
to four other groups. Some of us aren't subscribed to the one which you
left in your reply-to.
>>>Replace 'animals' with 'children,' 'women,' or 'slaves' and
>>>you have an agument identical to that once made (and still
>>>made in many third-world countries) by slaveholders, abusive
>>>husbands, and abusive parents. They're all 'clearly' inferior
>>>to Free Men, so they don't have rights. The very idea is
>>>preposterous. They're just property.
>>
>>Except that children, women, and slaves are human beings, which
>>means that they're not interchangeable with animals -- and that
>>therefore, the concept of rights does, in fact, apply to them.
>
> Funny, I seem to recall slaves being sold like and *as* livestock...
They still are, including in certain third-world nations which you might
think are paradigms of morality and virtue.
> animals to be owned and used, who just happen to have the means to speak
> and understand human language.
Animals do not speak or understand any language but their own. Some
animals, like dogs and porpoises, are *conditioned* to commands on cue.
Others, including cats, associate certain humans with kindness and (MUCH
MORE importantly) food.
>>You can't simply substitute terms in an argument like that and
>>expect it to remain valid. The whole point of what I wrote
>>earlier was that humans are existentially superior to animals,
>>after all.
>
> My point is that still now in many parts of the world Men are considered
> existentially superior to women and children, to the point where killing
> them in an exceedingly cruel manner is considered acceptable.
Again, this kind of thing happens in third-world nations which many of
you radical, idealistic, misinformed liberals think are paradigms of
morality and virtue. India is among nations with the highest rate of
female infanticide, yet liberals continue practicing yoga, meditating,
eating curries, and quoting Gandhi ad nauseum. It's ironic that the
people and region which gave us ahimsa -- non-violence -- adopts
backwards policies that create such harm to young girls. It's disgusting.
Here is a recent story on infanticide in India:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/07/07/india.infanticide.pt1/
>>Concepts do _not_ change. New concepts come along every now and
>>again, some of them goofier and less defensible than others, and
>>advocated by fringe groups with nutty agendas and generally
>>tweaked worldviews. The idea that animals have rights arose from
>>three things: irrational emotionalism, anthropomorphism, and a
>>flawed understanding of what rights actually are.
>
> Humans, like all other animals, must evolve and grow and adapt, or die
> off. Complex language must also evolve or die. Just look at French, a
> language that isn't evolving at pace, and is dying off as a result.
French is dying off for other reasons, namely the fact that the US has
displace France in international importance. People outside the US no
longer learn French as the international language, they learn English.
English is the international language because it's the language of
prosperity.
> It's rational to conclude that animals other than humans can and do feel
> pain, as they respond to painful stimuli, and in the case of mammals,
> they have remarkably similar nervous system structure. It is also logical
> to come to the same conclusion when you consider that pain is often
> useful in keeping you alive and intact. A child doesn't touch a hot stove
> not because it damages his or her hand, but because it hurts.
How many negatives can you use in one sentence? Geez. The rest of your
paragraph is equally illiterate.
> It's rational to conclude that treating animals in an inhumane manner
> (especially torture) may be a sign of severe mental illness, as, indeed,
How is it rational? You've yet to make any case for this incredible leap.
> all mass murderers begin killing animals, and tend to find it a very
ALL mass murderers? I'm aware of only one or two SERIAL (there's a
difference) murderers who killed small animals as children. Most serial
murderers, though, have seriously abnormal psycho-sexual problems that
are completely unrelated to their relationships with animals. Indeed,
many serial killers had pets. Go figure.
> small step or no step at all to killing humans... after all, they're
> inherently inferior to the predator who can kill them with such ease. As
Please cite a source for this next leap of logic.
> a less extreme example, a large percentage of people with borderline
> personality disorder, and most people who abuse their spouses and/or
> children, frequently abuse animals, starting at a young age.
Evidence please?
>>>Maeve... does not consider pigs, cats, coyotes, dolphins,
>>>and other highly intelligent animals to be subhuman.
>>
>>You are, quite simply, insane.
>
> My boss, my coworkers, my friends, and my doctors, would all strongly
> disagree with you on that point.
I'd strongly disagree with them.
> My immune system is faulty, but my brain
> is in perfect working order,
Sure you don't have that twisted around? You've just made several leaps
of extreme illogic. Something's wrong upstairs.
> for a bookworm who studies and analyses
> things more than your average sheep... err.. person.
You think you're a damn sheep?
> *shrugs*
>
> I don't believe that God writes books. Inspires, certainly, but a great
> deal of human error and addition for the convenience of the ruling
> classes goes in with that inspiration before it makes it to the commons.
So?
> I've worked with many people, and many domestic animals, and on average,
> from observation, the animals seem much more capable of rational though
> than the humans.
What a pathetic case of misanthropy. I thought I'd seen it all. Go ask
your boss, co-workers, friends, doctors, and family (why did you leave
THEM out above?) if they agree with the above point, then ask if they
still think you're so sane afterward. Maybe the whole bunch of you are
nuts. Birds of a feather, ya know.
> Why should I consider a clearly more intelligent
> creature as an inferior? Pride before the fall...
I'm sure many animals *are* smarter than you, but that's only to the
extent that they understand the natural order of things.
> By the way, my exact position on the issue is that animals destined for
> consumption should be raised in conditions that promote optimal health,
> and should be slaughtered as humanely as is practical, with minimal
> stress to the animal. Funnily enough, this also makes for the best
> quality meat.
Which is why most meat tastes good. That's the norm, your impressions of
the "norm" are probably animal rights groups' propaganda videos which
show only the most extreme examples.
> Something must die for another to live, but as we were granted the
> intelligence to percieve the suffering of others, including animals, I
> find it an obligation to at least minimise the suffering that we cause.
That is already done routinely and as a matter of course.
> Maeve... didn't watch lassie or flipper or bambi, just grew up with dogs
> and horses...
So?
Ed Debevic
>July 6, 2003
>Activists Seek Changes at Slaughterhouses
>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The owners of a Southern California egg farm
>insist they did nothing wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 chickens,
>quarantined because of a virus, by throwing them into wood chippers.
>
>charges.
>
>That decision has incensed animals rights advocates -- and even some
>producers -- who say it's an example of the need for stricter national
>laws and enforcement to stop what they consider inhumane slaughter of
>livestock.
>
>``It's not what we do,'' said Paul Bahan, owner of AAA Egg Farms in
>Riverside County, who chairs an industry committee targeting treatment
>of poultry.
>
>Amid a growing national push for better treatment of livestock, the
>industry is enacting new guidelines for slaughterhouses and farms that
>will take into account everything from the size of cages to the ways
>animals are killed. Restaurant and grocery store chains are urging
>independent audits of the nation's 900 slaughterhouses, and the
>federal government is moving to hire more inspectors.
>
>Critics say the changes aren't happening fast enough.
>
>During a hearing in May on agriculture appropriations, Sen. Robert
>Byrd, D-W.Va., called on the Agriculture Department to speed up the
>hiring of inspectors.
>
>``Despite the laws on the books, chronically weak enforcement and
>intense pressure to speed up slaughterhouse assembly lines reportedly
>have resulted in animals being skinned, dismembered, and boiled while
>they are still alive and conscious,'' Byrd said.
>
>Members of Congress also have received a video from Sen. Jim Moran,
>D-Va., actor Alec Baldwin and People for the Ethical Treatment of
>Animals. The tape, titled ``Meet Your Meat,'' contains graphic images
>of cruelty at farms.
>
>``Enforcement is the issue,'' Baldwin, a longtime PETA activist, told
>The Associated Press. ``You live in a society where the USDA is the
>only barrier between producers and your food.''
>
>The American Meat Institute denied that enforcement at slaughterhouses
>is weak and that animals are routinely abused. Officials also pointed
>out that the plants can't operate unless an inspector is on the
>premises.
>
>In the past decade, the $133 billion processing and packing industry
>has taken a number of steps to improve animals' final moments, such as
>redesigning pens to accommodate natural movements and minimizing use
>of electric prods, American Meat Institute spokeswoman Janet Riley
>said. Such treatment is not only ethical, it's good business, she
>said.
>
>``If an animal is stressed when it goes to slaughter ... it will emit
>hormones that create quality defects in meat that then has to be
>trimmed away,'' she said.
>
>Each year, 8 billion chickens and turkeys, 97 million hogs, 35 million
>cattle, 3 million sheep and lambs, and 1 million calves are
>slaughtered in the United States.
>
>Larger animals are usually killed with a gun that shoots a rod
>directly into the brain. Chickens are typically stunned in an
>electrified bath before their heads are cut off with a rotating blade.
>Others are suffocated with carbon dioxide or their necks are broken.
>
>The 45-year-old federal Humane Slaughter Act offers guidelines on
>slaughter methods but only requires that animals be rendered
>``insensible to pain'' before being killed. It excludes poultry from
>that requirement. State laws vary.
>
>In the wood chipper case, the USDA did not approve the slaughter
>method, said Ed Lloyd, a department spokesman. The decision on filing
>charges was up to the San Diego County district attorney's office,
>which declined in May after determining there was no criminal intent
>by the owners of the farm, Arie and Bill Wilgenburg.
>
>``I've done nothing wrong and I stick by that, and I won't say
>anything else about it,'' Bill Wilgenburg said.
>
>Officials have said the brothers acted on the advice of a
>veterinarian. The birds could not be sent to a slaughterhouse because
>they had been quarantined after an outbreak of a bird virus, Exotic
>Newcastle Disease.
>
>While the case is unusual, animal welfare advocates say it shows that
>farmers are seldom held responsible when animals are subjected to
>unnecessary pain and suffering.
>
>The USDA reported that from January 1998 to January 2003, 21 of the
>nation's slaughterhouses were cited for violations related to
>mistreatment.
>
>It says the relatively low number of citations shows enforcement
>methods are working.
>
>``We make our living by selling cows. We don't make our living by
>abusing them,'' said Arthur Green, whose Benton Packing Co. in
>Springdale, Ark., was cited last year for having too many cows in one
>pen.
>
>^------
>
>On the Net:
>
>Animal Welfare Audit Program: http://www.awaudit.org/
>
>Humane Farm Animal Care: http://www.certifiedhumane.com/
>
>National Chicken Council: http://www.eatchicken.com
>
>Department of Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov
>
>
>
Animals deserve the same rights afforded to niggers and jews. Death
should not come sadistically, A quick jolt of a hangman's noose. or a
guillotine will make the process quick and painless
Sqwertz
This article is fucked up and has an agenda that is misplaced.
It's confusing egg farms with slaughter houses.
Throwing live chickens into a wood-chipper might be fun at a
carnival or company Christmas party for first 500 or so. But
after 10,000 or so, it gets REALLY messy. They don't exactly
evaporate just because of the wood chipper. Let alone after
30,000.
A wood chipper would need some serious maintenance every 2,000
bloody, fatty-skinned chickens. Those blades and motors like dry
wood. Not wet, fatty chickens. They're 10X harder to get rid
after a wood chipper than 30,000 gassed, dead whole chickens
thrown into a local furnace. And a wood chipper atomizes the
virus they were trying to get rid of, infecting all the other
soil, buildings, nearby farms, cattle, humans, and wildlife.
I smell 20 year-old sensationalist bullshit.
-sw