PDA

View Full Version : Activists Seek Changes at Slaughterhouses


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Fuller
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
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.

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
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
"fuller" <fullerNOT@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 Tang
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
"Cuchulain Libby" <clibby@satx.XX.com> wrote in message
news:bc5Oa.52593$hV.3161594@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "fuller" <fullerNOT@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
>
>
>

Let's stick your fat ass in a chipper, bitch.

Paula Dren
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
"Cuchulain Libby" <clibby@satx.XX.com> wrote in message
news:bc5Oa.52593$hV.3161594@twister.austin.rr.com...
:
: "fuller" <fullerNOT@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
:
:

Steve Sqwe
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:48:39 GMT, "Cuchulain Libby"
<clibby@satx.XX.com> wrote:

>Took me five shots with a bb gun to off a feral cat once.
>Used a $1.20 can of tuna and a ...

$1.20 for a can of Tuna? I gotta prowl around yer house more
often. That must be one of them there Spanich Tuno's in Virgin
Olive Oil.

Meow.

-sw <purrr

Cuchulain
Mon, Jul-07-03, 06:12
"Paula Drennan" <dragonpink@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
Mon, Jul-07-03, 19:16
fullerNOT@law.com (fuller) wrote in message
news:<3f08d4b0.19987457@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.
>
> State authorities agreed and decided not to file animal
> cruelty charges.
>

How would you suggest this be handled?

TC

John Gaugh
Mon, Jul-07-03, 19:16
> 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.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is a hippy chained to
it, does anyone care?

John Gaughan (the heartless bastard) john@johngaughan.net

Tcomeau
Mon, Jul-07-03, 19:16
John Gaughan <john@johngaughan.net> wrote in message
news:<vgja41ao6f6me1@corp.supernews.com>...
> > 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.
>
> If a tree falls in the forest, and there is a hippy chained
> to it, does anyone care?
>
> John Gaughan (the heartless bastard) john@johngaughan.net

Well said. I agree.

TC

Steve Sqwe
Mon, Jul-07-03, 19:16
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:06:07 -0500, John Gaughan
<john@johngaughan.net> wrote:

>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?

You wait until theres a cure, of course. Or you can hire a few
dozen priests to console just before their humane and lethal
injections.

Seriously though, why not just electrocute them like they
would all the other chickens destined for the market? You
still have a disposal problem though - same as you would with
the wood-chipper (which by the way - would be awfully messy.
Brings back scenes from Fargo...)

I wonder how they got rid of 100,000lbs of splayed chickens?

-sw

John Gaugh
Mon, Jul-07-03, 19:16
> Let's stick your fat ass in a chipper, bitch.

Just his ass? Damn, that would suck. How would he poop?

John Gaughan john@johngaughan.net

Geoff Mill
Tue, Jul-08-03, 06:13
fuller <fullerNOT@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
Tue, Jul-08-03, 06:13
On 7/7/03 10:06 AM, in article
vgja41ao6f6me1@corp.supernews.com, "John Gaughan"
<john@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) john@johngaughan.net
>

--
===========================================================
"Grand pappy told my pappy back in my time son, a man had To
answer For the wicked that he'd done."
===========================================================

The Wolf
Tue, Jul-08-03, 06:13
On 7/6/03 10:35 PM, in article
hE7Oa.31334$C83.2693417@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
"Jimmy Tango" <fatbusters@ridethesnake.com> opined:

>
> "Cuchulain Libby" <clibby@satx.XX.com> wrote in message
> news:bc5Oa.52593$hV.3161594@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>
>> "fuller" <fullerNOT@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
>>
>>
>>
>
> Let's stick your fat ass in a chipper, bitch.
>
>
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."
===========================================================

Dustbird
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
"fuller" <fullerNOT@law.com> wrote in message
news:3f08d4b0.19987457@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.

George Rus
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
John Gaughan wrote (snipped):
> 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.

Vilco \
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
"Geoff Miller" ha scritto

> 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 Gaugh
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
> Yes, thank you for making it clear to us all how impractical
> it is 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 john@johngaughan.net

Kilodelate
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
In article <bee2ij$pa$2@kohl.informatik.uni-bremen.de>,
ger@tzi.de says...
> John Gaughan wrote (snipped):
> > 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.

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.

George Rus
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
John Gaughan wrote (about keeping chickens humanely on a large
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.

John Gaugh
Tue, Jul-08-03, 19:14
> 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?).

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 john@johngaughan.net

Moonglow M
Wed, Jul-09-03, 06:12
Geoff Miller howled at the moon, then scrawled thusly upon
the aether:

(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 Pe
Wed, Jul-09-03, 06:12
dustbird wrote:
> "fuller" <fullerNOT@law.com> wrote in message
> news:3f08d4b0.19987457@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.
>
>

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

Zachary M.
Wed, Jul-09-03, 19:14
"dustbird" <dustbird@cross.wind> wrote in
news:befmfl$gl4@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..

Moosh:]
Sat, Jul-12-03, 06:11
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:56:43 +0200, George Russell
<ger@tzi.de> wrote:

>John Gaughan wrote (about keeping chickens humanely on a
>large 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.

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
Sat, Jul-12-03, 19:14
John Gaughan <john@johngaughan.net> wrote in message
news:<vglbglsqessr2c@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Yes, thank you for making it clear to us all how
> > impractical it is 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 ;-)

But you are (arguably). Thus, the need to attempt to behave
accordingly.

>
> John Gaughan john@johngaughan.net

Geoff Mill
Thu, Jul-17-03, 19:15
moonglow minnow <Psychebaby@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 <Psychebaby@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. McCar
Thu, Jul-17-03, 19:15
Geoff Miller wrote:
>
> moonglow minnow <Psychebaby@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 <Psychebaby@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

>> 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. McCar
Thu, Jul-17-03, 19:15
Geoff Miller wrote:
>
> moonglow minnow <Psychebaby@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 <Psychebaby@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

>> Tamed and happy animals are MUCH easier to slaughter
>> than "free
thinking" and WILD ones..LOL! B-0b1

Geoff Mill
Fri, Jul-18-03, 06:12
R.L. McCarty <sos@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?

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

Moonglow M
Fri, Jul-18-03, 19:14
followup set to rec.food.veg, as my newsreader prompts me to
set a 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 <Psychebaby@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.