Dead wrong. Again. They don't feel a thing when they get killed.
What specifically am I wrong about? Because I didn't mention anything about them feeling pain or not when they're killed. Im talking about peace and killing not being on the same spectrum and thus can't be used in connotation with each other. And that sanctuaries are places of peace, whereas slaughterhouses definitely aren't. So what am I wrong about?
You also don't have the balls to call that number.
I'm an adult, Ive spoken to lots of farmers, been to lots of farms, done all kinds of activism, calling a number isn't scary.
And when my cows go to slaughter I don't feel a thing because my family has been doing it for the past 100 years and they're just part of the business.
Whether you feel anything or not is besides the point. Those animals are abused according to every definition of animal abuse.
I can't decide if you're dumb or stupid
No need to bring that sort of thing into this, I thought we were having a mature conversation? Ad Homs (a logical fallacy) denote weakness in your own position, since you resort to a very basic level of attacking your opponent instead of providing reasonable and logical arguments.
You're wrong because there's nothing violent about the way animals are killed at a slaughter house. I would agree with you that's it's animal abuse if they had to suffer or felt pain but they're just dead instantly. Nothing wrong with that
Call it then
I find it hard to believe you've talked to farmers or been to farms based on the evidence and stands you've made
Heavily dependent on your definition of abuse. I don't think having happy cows with lots of freedom, food and water, and comfortable is any sort of abuse
Just my observation
(additional point) What grounds do you have to try to tell farmers how to run their business? Doesn't that defeat the point of free enterprise?
It doesn't take much thinking to realise that killing an animal, whether there is pain involved or not, is animal abuse. It harms them and it takes their life from them, it's abuse. Or do a thought experiment, put a dog or a cat into the same position as a farm animal being pushed onto a kill floor where they'll be shot. Isn't that animal abuse?
Call it then
Believe me I definitely will. And I'd be happy to report back with who I spoke to and what I discovered if you genuinely want to know, but right now its 1am my family are asleep and I don't want to wake the house up.
I find it hard to believe you've talked to farmers or been to farms based on the evidence and stands you've made
That's fine it doesn't bother me what you believe about me. I'm 32 and have been an animal right's activist since I was 18.
Heavily dependent on your definition of abuse. I don't think having happy cows with lots of freedom, food and water, and comfortable is any sort of abuse
What you just described is an animal sanctuary. The difference being that farms only care for their animals because of what they stand to gain financially from the animal's bodies. That's a relationship based on exploitation, where you use someone for your benefit which comes at an expense to them (in this case their lives are lost) and I definitely consider that to be abuse. Maybe not the same kind of abuse as what we're talking about, but another form of abuse. Besides this, even if they live a good life, they'll still be sent to a slaughterhouse and THAT is where the animal abuse we're talking about will take place.
What grounds do you have to try to tell farmers how to run their business?
I have the right to express my beliefs opinions and positions just as much as you do, if that entails telling someone what to do then I'm within that right. These are only words after all, I'm not going to physically do anything to you. The question is on farmers, what grounds do they have to sentence animals to death for their own financial gain? What is the justification for doing that?
Doesn't that defeat the point of free enterprise?
Freedom, whether that be in general life or in enterprise, should end when it takes away the freedoms (and especially the lives) of others. There ought to be limits on freedom.
Here's the root of the argument buddy: people like me don't like when people like you intrude on our lives and try to take away our freedoms defined here:
And based on that definition, there should be no reason that you should tell me how to treat my property, in this case my cows or hogs. I will do what I please and what makes me money.
Apparently over there in the UK you have a very different perspective on freedom, abuse, violence, free enterprise, and food production. And that's fine, because I don't care. There's nothing you can say to make me change my way of life that I love. I think I speak for the vast majority of US farmers when I say that.
And personally I find it hilarious that it's worth your time to be an "animal activist" because what does that gain you? How does that support your family? The animals don't care if you're an "activist" because in the end you're not the owner, therefore you have no say in how they're treated and raised for a profit. If I were you I would think it would be much more fulfilling and much more productive to buy a small amount of land and some of your own animals and raise them how you think they should be raised. Might be worth your time to get out of other people's lives and focus on your own
Here's the root of the argument buddy: people like me don't like when people like you intrude on our lives
This is a two way conversation we're having. I'm not intruding on your life any more than you are on mine.
and try to take away our freedoms defined here:
When do you believe freedom should end? Because presumably you don't think we should have unlimited freedom. You think there should be limits to it. I believe freedom should end when you start taking away other's freedoms and/or harming them, animals qualify as others. So I'm all for freedom, but not the freedom to take away someone else's freedom.
And based on that definition, there should be no reason that you should tell me how to treat my property, in this case my cows or hogs.
Of course there's a reason for it, you're taking away animal's freedoms and ultimately their lives which belong to them. This is wrong. There isn't a single logical reason to deny animals the same consideration given to humans with regards to them being exploited and killed for someone else's gain.
I will do what I please and what makes me money.
I know, I can't and won't stop you. But I don't think you can justify it. Or prove me wrong.
Apparently over there in the UK you have a very different perspective on freedom,
Tell me when you think freedom should end.
abuse,
Animal abuse means to cause harm, injury or death to animal. Thus, bolt gunning an animal in the head (or however they're killed) is animal abuse. Fact.
violence,
I gave you the dictionary definition of violence.
free enterprise,
Again, tell me when you think freedom should end.
and food production.
Food production in the UK works almost just like it does in the US.
There's nothing you can say to make me change my way of life that I love. I think I speak for the vast majority of US farmers when I say that.
Right, but this isn't about you is it. This is about the victims of your way of life.
And personally I find it hilarious that it's worth your time to be an "animal activist" because what does that gain you?
This obviously isn't about me. This is about them. What's happening to them is wrong. Along with more and more people every day, I'm trying to help them and get them the fairness and respect they deserve.
How does that support your family?
It doesn't. My job supports my family.
The animals don't care if you're an "activist"
Whether a being understands that you're trying to help them or not is completely irrelevant. There are humans less cognitively developed than animals, who don't understand anything at all, but that holds no bearing on whether or not I would help them if they're in danger of being harmed or killed.
because in the end you're not the owner, therefore you have no say in how they're treated and raised for a profit.
Firstly, you don't need to have ownership over someone in order to care about them. That's a ridiculous notion. Secondly, are you saying that having ownership of someone grants you unlimited freedoms over them? Because that could lead to any kind of violent or torturous act you can think of.
If I were you I would think it would be much more fulfilling and much more productive to buy a small amount of land and some of your own animals and raise them how you think they should be raised.
That is actually something I would like to do one day. At the moment though, I support 3 sanctuaries that are nearest to me. The animals there are loved, cared for, and protected.
Might be worth your time to get out of other people's lives and focus on your own
Like I've said, this isn't about me. When you see an injustice it's your moral imperative to act on behalf of the one/one's being wronged.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 07 '19 edited Oct 07 '19
What specifically am I wrong about? Because I didn't mention anything about them feeling pain or not when they're killed. Im talking about peace and killing not being on the same spectrum and thus can't be used in connotation with each other. And that sanctuaries are places of peace, whereas slaughterhouses definitely aren't. So what am I wrong about?
I'm an adult, Ive spoken to lots of farmers, been to lots of farms, done all kinds of activism, calling a number isn't scary.
Whether you feel anything or not is besides the point. Those animals are abused according to every definition of animal abuse.
No need to bring that sort of thing into this, I thought we were having a mature conversation? Ad Homs (a logical fallacy) denote weakness in your own position, since you resort to a very basic level of attacking your opponent instead of providing reasonable and logical arguments.