ITT: Morally justify why you eat factory farmed meat.

[PLAYER57832]

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact.

OK so your response to the claim that growing crops and eating them is better than growing crops to feed animals and eating the animals is to discuss cotton? Is cotton a staple foodstuff in the part of Pennsylvania you hail from?

No, my answer is to look at a real holistic approach, not pick on single crops. And, cotton meal is actually a food source anyway.

And.. I currently live in PA, that is hardly my entire existence. I am originally from CA, where a lot of cotton is grown.

[Army of GOD]

pmchugh, can you morally justify why you eat plants? they deserve to live as much as we do

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry in advance but since I am back at work I don't have time to read and respond to all you lovely people.

A. Define suffering. I recently heard the argument that killing animals period is suffering. Not sure that factory farming is always worse in that regard, despite the peta videos to the contrary. That does happen, but the bigger issue (the more common one) for animals are things like what to do with the massive amounts of manure, the water needs, and often the use of antibiotics to reduce diseases (or to allow the animals to eat corn, etc.) without real need.

I don't have as much issue of an issue with the killing, which is why I specifically picked out factory farming for this thread rather than just the killing of animals. The main problem is the horrific conditions in which they live and ways in which they are treated. At this point, I am just going to have to throw Earthlings at you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2-_MQP5CQ because I don't have time to detail the abuses. The documentary is not perfect and is a bit sensationalist, but it should give you a decent range of standard industry practices which any reasonable person would consider abusive. (skip to 28:33 if you want to focus on this)

Factory farming is a problem, but the problem with such "documentaries" is that they are not truly representative, even though they claim to be so. By sensationalizing, they make the problem something other than it really is. The real and true problem is not "cruelty toward animals". That happens, is abuse and is mostly already illegal. The bigger problem is factories that are not directly abusive, but still cause huge harm. This is part of my problem with the "let's all just go vegetarian and leave the animals alone" rhetoric. The problem is not animals versus plants, its factory/large scale management and absentee owners and a mentality that a few people with good intentions know better than folks who have spent their lives pursuing and studying the land. (that, by-the-way, includes many "do-gooder aid programs".

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.

Exactly what I mean by making statements that lack understanding of proper agriculture. Animals have a close association with humans precisely because they eat things we don't. Ruminants eat the chaff, the grass not just the grain. Even pigs, which need foodstuffs very similar to us eat our waste. You used to see chickens running around, not because folks were too lazy to pen them up, but because the chickens kept down the bugs. Traditionally, these animals might (or might not) be supplemented with grain, but not force fed like some abusive systems today.

As to your last sentence, I am not saying that I have everything sorted out or a perfect harm-free lifestyle. Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

WRONG. Buying sustainably produced meat and vegetables is who you make a positive different, NOT simply going vegetarian. Simply going vegetarian, Vegan or organic is not enough. Animals are part of a truly well functioning farm system.

When you talk about pigs and chickens and the horrible conditions, then you start talking about real factory farming, a type of farming I abhor.

Perhaps I am being unfair on you. You seem to believe that "real factory farming" as you call it, is wrong and you do genuinely seem to care about animal welfare. I would urge you not to eat meat unless you know it was raised humanely because if you do not make sure of that, then you will almost certainly be complicit in a system which you "abhor".[/quote]First, what is wrong with factory farming goes well beyond animal treatment. As I stated above, what angers me is that by focusing on a few extreme and generally exaggerated (really -- I know of what I speak!) cases, you ignore the very real issues that do exist and that do cause very pervasive harm. This bit of "just avoid meat" is among the worst things you can advocate. Grain production in this country and a lot of bean, particularly soy bean, production is harmful.. far more harm over a much wider area than the factory farms. I am not saying the abuses don't happen. I am saying that what the "PETA-ites" like to push as "normal" are aberrations that turn the stomachs of legitimate farmers and often are already flat illegal too boot. Ironically, the pressure on agriculture and cutting funding for things like inspections are why you have seen some increase in that. Also, a lot of the supposedly well meaning pressure on "agriculture as a whole" winds up hurting the very small farmers who should be supported, not the larger corporate farmers (and yes,,, I do know full well that many family farms have become corporations, but if they are still owned by on the site farmers you generally don't see the same abuses)

Per the rest, forgive my laughter, but I have been doing that probably since before you were born. I grew up on a farm, mostly ate animals I or my father/his co-workers raised. Since then, aside from a brief foray in college and living in Mississippi, I largely eat either wild game or Amish raised/other locally raised meet. I rarely buy meat at our market, though there are times when I cannot afford to do otherwise.

Please note that I am not some young kid who just happened to read the latest PETA blogs or whatever, I have learned about agriculture from birth, learned about it in school and even overseas, in addition to some side knowledge (not my major) from the HSU sustainability crew, which was pretty active when I was in school. If I did not major in that, it perhaps was a mistake, but its also because I did not need classes in how to raise sustainable vegetables.

[PLAYER57832]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

It is difficult to find a proper alternative. (Not impossible, merely difficult ...)

Going veggie/vegan is a proper alternative.

No its a falsely advertised proper alternative. The REAL alternative is to go sustainable. That can include being vegetarian -- nothing wrong with eating "just" veggie matter, but the key is knowing where it comes from. Real sustainability can include meat in reasonable quantities. Deciding vegetarian is the solution is simply being lazy, not being proactive toward a real solution.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

at least the Irish then?

Only in a stew

[Symmetry]

Some crops may be subsidised to the point at which this is true, but I highly doubt that animals cost less to rear than the subsidies the farmers receive. That is a rather large claim and would require evidence for me to believe.

Dont believe it then, I'm not the one pretending to have a moral backbone.

Ignorance wont make your efforts any more worthy.

No AoG

at least the Irish then?

Are you referencing Swift?

*checks AoG's sig*

Sorry, you're probably not.

Carry on.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, tbh I just skimmed through your and PLAYER's posts and saw the word 'animals'. Having actually read them in full, I feel like such a fool for thinking that PLAYER would have written anything other than a wild tangent.

You have a habit of considering any disagreement with your views as as a "wild tangent".

[pmchugh]

Jeezo player, I am going to try keep this brief.

Sorry in advance but since I am back at work I don't have time to read and respond to all you lovely people.

A. Define suffering. I recently heard the argument that killing animals period is suffering. Not sure that factory farming is always worse in that regard, despite the peta videos to the contrary. That does happen, but the bigger issue (the more common one) for animals are things like what to do with the massive amounts of manure, the water needs, and often the use of antibiotics to reduce diseases (or to allow the animals to eat corn, etc.) without real need.

I don't have as much issue of an issue with the killing, which is why I specifically picked out factory farming for this thread rather than just the killing of animals. The main problem is the horrific conditions in which they live and ways in which they are treated. At this point, I am just going to have to throw Earthlings at you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2-_MQP5CQ because I don't have time to detail the abuses. The documentary is not perfect and is a bit sensationalist, but it should give you a decent range of standard industry practices which any reasonable person would consider abusive. (skip to 28:33 if you want to focus on this)

Factory farming is a problem, but the problem with such "documentaries" is that they are not truly representative, even though they claim to be so. By sensationalizing, they make the problem something other than it really is. The real and true problem is not "cruelty toward animals". That happens, is abuse and is mostly already illegal. The bigger problem is factories that are not directly abusive, but still cause huge harm. This is part of my problem with the "let's all just go vegetarian and leave the animals alone" rhetoric. The problem is not animals versus plants, its factory/large scale management and absentee owners and a mentality that a few people with good intentions know better than folks who have spent their lives pursuing and studying the land. (that, by-the-way, includes many "do-gooder aid programs".

Did you even read my words? I said "standard industry practice", and was not referring to law breaking. I am talking about 20,000 fat birds in a shed, about castration without anaesthetic, about depriving animals of natural light etc.

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.

Exactly what I mean by making statements that lack understanding of proper agriculture. Animals have a close association with humans precisely because they eat things we don't. Ruminants eat the chaff, the grass not just the grain. Even pigs, which need foodstuffs very similar to us eat our waste. You used to see chickens running around, not because folks were too lazy to pen them up, but because the chickens kept down the bugs. Traditionally, these animals might (or might not) be supplemented with grain, but not force fed like some abusive systems today.

"The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet".

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

As to your last sentence, I am not saying that I have everything sorted out or a perfect harm-free lifestyle. Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

WRONG. Buying sustainably produced meat and vegetables is who you make a positive different, NOT simply going vegetarian. Simply going vegetarian, Vegan or organic is not enough. Animals are part of a truly well functioning farm system.

When you talk about pigs and chickens and the horrible conditions, then you start talking about real factory farming, a type of farming I abhor.

Perhaps I am being unfair on you. You seem to believe that "real factory farming" as you call it, is wrong and you do genuinely seem to care about animal welfare. I would urge you not to eat meat unless you know it was raised humanely because if you do not make sure of that, then you will almost certainly be complicit in a system which you "abhor".

First, what is wrong with factory farming goes well beyond animal treatment. As I stated above, what angers me is that by focusing on a few extreme and generally exaggerated (really -- I know of what I speak!) cases, you ignore the very real issues that do exist and that do cause very pervasive harm. This bit of "just avoid meat" is among the worst things you can advocate. Grain production in this country and a lot of bean, particularly soy bean, production is harmful.. far more harm over a much wider area than the factory farms. I am not saying the abuses don't happen. I am saying that what the "PETA-ites" like to push as "normal" are aberrations that turn the stomachs of legitimate farmers and often are already flat illegal too boot. Ironically, the pressure on agriculture and cutting funding for things like inspections are why you have seen some increase in that. Also, a lot of the supposedly well meaning pressure on "agriculture as a whole" winds up hurting the very small farmers who should be supported, not the larger corporate farmers (and yes,,, I do know full well that many family farms have become corporations, but if they are still owned by on the site farmers you generally don't see the same abuses)

Per the rest, forgive my laughter, but I have been doing that probably since before you were born. I grew up on a farm, mostly ate animals I or my father/his co-workers raised. Since then, aside from a brief foray in college and living in Mississippi, I largely eat either wild game or Amish raised/other locally raised meet. I rarely buy meat at our market, though there are times when I cannot afford to do otherwise.

Please note that I am not some young kid who just happened to read the latest PETA blogs or whatever, I have learned about agriculture from birth, learned about it in school and even overseas, in addition to some side knowledge (not my major) from the HSU sustainability crew, which was pretty active when I was in school. If I did not major in that, it perhaps was a mistake, but its also because I did not need classes in how to raise sustainable vegetables.

What percentage of meat and poultry is raised in intensive farming? That is what we are talking about not your Mom n' Pop farm. If everyone ate like you did, the world would be a better place.

I am not basing my views on a PETA blog either but on rational and sceptical observation of the available materials on the conditions in which our food is raised. You will forgive me for making my own judgements and not simply taking your word for it because you are older than me, or you grew up on a farm or any other credential you wish to claim.

[Symmetry]

Jeezo player, I am going to try keep this brief.

Sorry in advance but since I am back at work I don't have time to read and respond to all you lovely people.

A. Define suffering. I recently heard the argument that killing animals period is suffering. Not sure that factory farming is always worse in that regard, despite the peta videos to the contrary. That does happen, but the bigger issue (the more common one) for animals are things like what to do with the massive amounts of manure, the water needs, and often the use of antibiotics to reduce diseases (or to allow the animals to eat corn, etc.) without real need.

I don't have as much issue of an issue with the killing, which is why I specifically picked out factory farming for this thread rather than just the killing of animals. The main problem is the horrific conditions in which they live and ways in which they are treated. At this point, I am just going to have to throw Earthlings at you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2-_MQP5CQ because I don't have time to detail the abuses. The documentary is not perfect and is a bit sensationalist, but it should give you a decent range of standard industry practices which any reasonable person would consider abusive. (skip to 28:33 if you want to focus on this)

Factory farming is a problem, but the problem with such "documentaries" is that they are not truly representative, even though they claim to be so. By sensationalizing, they make the problem something other than it really is. The real and true problem is not "cruelty toward animals". That happens, is abuse and is mostly already illegal. The bigger problem is factories that are not directly abusive, but still cause huge harm. This is part of my problem with the "let's all just go vegetarian and leave the animals alone" rhetoric. The problem is not animals versus plants, its factory/large scale management and absentee owners and a mentality that a few people with good intentions know better than folks who have spent their lives pursuing and studying the land. (that, by-the-way, includes many "do-gooder aid programs".

Did you even read my words? I said "standard industry practice", and was not referring to law breaking. I am talking about 20,000 fat birds in a shed, about castration without anaesthetic, about depriving animals of natural light etc.

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.

Exactly what I mean by making statements that lack understanding of proper agriculture. Animals have a close association with humans precisely because they eat things we don't. Ruminants eat the chaff, the grass not just the grain. Even pigs, which need foodstuffs very similar to us eat our waste. You used to see chickens running around, not because folks were too lazy to pen them up, but because the chickens kept down the bugs. Traditionally, these animals might (or might not) be supplemented with grain, but not force fed like some abusive systems today.

"The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet".

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

As to your last sentence, I am not saying that I have everything sorted out or a perfect harm-free lifestyle. Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

WRONG. Buying sustainably produced meat and vegetables is who you make a positive different, NOT simply going vegetarian. Simply going vegetarian, Vegan or organic is not enough. Animals are part of a truly well functioning farm system.

When you talk about pigs and chickens and the horrible conditions, then you start talking about real factory farming, a type of farming I abhor.

Perhaps I am being unfair on you. You seem to believe that "real factory farming" as you call it, is wrong and you do genuinely seem to care about animal welfare. I would urge you not to eat meat unless you know it was raised humanely because if you do not make sure of that, then you will almost certainly be complicit in a system which you "abhor".

First, what is wrong with factory farming goes well beyond animal treatment. As I stated above, what angers me is that by focusing on a few extreme and generally exaggerated (really -- I know of what I speak!) cases, you ignore the very real issues that do exist and that do cause very pervasive harm. This bit of "just avoid meat" is among the worst things you can advocate. Grain production in this country and a lot of bean, particularly soy bean, production is harmful.. far more harm over a much wider area than the factory farms. I am not saying the abuses don't happen. I am saying that what the "PETA-ites" like to push as "normal" are aberrations that turn the stomachs of legitimate farmers and often are already flat illegal too boot. Ironically, the pressure on agriculture and cutting funding for things like inspections are why you have seen some increase in that. Also, a lot of the supposedly well meaning pressure on "agriculture as a whole" winds up hurting the very small farmers who should be supported, not the larger corporate farmers (and yes,,, I do know full well that many family farms have become corporations, but if they are still owned by on the site farmers you generally don't see the same abuses)

Per the rest, forgive my laughter, but I have been doing that probably since before you were born. I grew up on a farm, mostly ate animals I or my father/his co-workers raised. Since then, aside from a brief foray in college and living in Mississippi, I largely eat either wild game or Amish raised/other locally raised meet. I rarely buy meat at our market, though there are times when I cannot afford to do otherwise.

Please note that I am not some young kid who just happened to read the latest PETA blogs or whatever, I have learned about agriculture from birth, learned about it in school and even overseas, in addition to some side knowledge (not my major) from the HSU sustainability crew, which was pretty active when I was in school. If I did not major in that, it perhaps was a mistake, but its also because I did not need classes in how to raise sustainable vegetables.

What percentage of meat and poultry is raised in intensive farming? That is what we are talking about not your Mom n' Pop farm. If everyone ate like you did, the world would be a better place.

I am not basing my views on a PETA blog either but on rational and sceptical observation of the available materials on the conditions in which our food is raised. You will forgive me for making my own judgements and not simply taking your word for it because you are older than me, or you grew up on a farm or any other credential you wish to claim.

What comes first, the chicken or the kid?

[PLAYER57832]

Jeezo player, I am going to try keep this brief.

Sorry in advance but since I am back at work I don't have time to read and respond to all you lovely people.

A. Define suffering. I recently heard the argument that killing animals period is suffering. Not sure that factory farming is always worse in that regard, despite the peta videos to the contrary. That does happen, but the bigger issue (the more common one) for animals are things like what to do with the massive amounts of manure, the water needs, and often the use of antibiotics to reduce diseases (or to allow the animals to eat corn, etc.) without real need.

I don't have as much issue of an issue with the killing, which is why I specifically picked out factory farming for this thread rather than just the killing of animals. The main problem is the horrific conditions in which they live and ways in which they are treated. At this point, I am just going to have to throw Earthlings at you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2-_MQP5CQ because I don't have time to detail the abuses. The documentary is not perfect and is a bit sensationalist, but it should give you a decent range of standard industry practices which any reasonable person would consider abusive. (skip to 28:33 if you want to focus on this)

Factory farming is a problem, but the problem with such "documentaries" is that they are not truly representative, even though they claim to be so. By sensationalizing, they make the problem something other than it really is. The real and true problem is not "cruelty toward animals". That happens, is abuse and is mostly already illegal. The bigger problem is factories that are not directly abusive, but still cause huge harm. This is part of my problem with the "let's all just go vegetarian and leave the animals alone" rhetoric. The problem is not animals versus plants, its factory/large scale management and absentee owners and a mentality that a few people with good intentions know better than folks who have spent their lives pursuing and studying the land. (that, by-the-way, includes many "do-gooder aid programs".

Did you even read my words? I said "standard industry practice", and was not referring to law breaking. I am talking about 20,000 fat birds in a shed, about castration without anaesthetic, about depriving animals of natural light etc.

Not standard. Light is manipulated, particularly in chickens so they will lay more eggs. Putting chickens entirely in the dark is counter-productive. Artificial light is common... as it is on our offices and houses.

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.

Exactly what I mean by making statements that lack understanding of proper agriculture. Animals have a close association with humans precisely because they eat things we don't. Ruminants eat the chaff, the grass not just the grain. Even pigs, which need foodstuffs very similar to us eat our waste. You used to see chickens running around, not because folks were too lazy to pen them up, but because the chickens kept down the bugs. Traditionally, these animals might (or might not) be supplemented with grain, but not force fed like some abusive systems today.

"The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet".[/quote]true, but irrelevant. This is done because currently grain is very, very cheap, not because its necessary or most efficient.

That is the part you have correct, factory farming can lead to laziness, in the name of "efficiency", but its not a requirement.

As to your last sentence, I am not saying that I have everything sorted out or a perfect harm-free lifestyle. Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

WRONG. Buying sustainably produced meat and vegetables is who you make a positive different, NOT simply going vegetarian. Simply going vegetarian, Vegan or organic is not enough. Animals are part of a truly well functioning farm system.

When you talk about pigs and chickens and the horrible conditions, then you start talking about real factory farming, a type of farming I abhor.

Perhaps I am being unfair on you. You seem to believe that "real factory farming" as you call it, is wrong and you do genuinely seem to care about animal welfare. I would urge you not to eat meat unless you know it was raised humanely because if you do not make sure of that, then you will almost certainly be complicit in a system which you "abhor".

First, what is wrong with factory farming goes well beyond animal treatment. As I stated above, what angers me is that by focusing on a few extreme and generally exaggerated (really -- I know of what I speak!) cases, you ignore the very real issues that do exist and that do cause very pervasive harm. This bit of "just avoid meat" is among the worst things you can advocate. Grain production in this country and a lot of bean, particularly soy bean, production is harmful.. far more harm over a much wider area than the factory farms. I am not saying the abuses don't happen. I am saying that what the "PETA-ites" like to push as "normal" are aberrations that turn the stomachs of legitimate farmers and often are already flat illegal too boot. Ironically, the pressure on agriculture and cutting funding for things like inspections are why you have seen some increase in that. Also, a lot of the supposedly well meaning pressure on "agriculture as a whole" winds up hurting the very small farmers who should be supported, not the larger corporate farmers (and yes,,, I do know full well that many family farms have become corporations, but if they are still owned by on the site farmers you generally don't see the same abuses)

Per the rest, forgive my laughter, but I have been doing that probably since before you were born. I grew up on a farm, mostly ate animals I or my father/his co-workers raised. Since then, aside from a brief foray in college and living in Mississippi, I largely eat either wild game or Amish raised/other locally raised meet. I rarely buy meat at our market, though there are times when I cannot afford to do otherwise.

Please note that I am not some young kid who just happened to read the latest PETA blogs or whatever, I have learned about agriculture from birth, learned about it in school and even overseas, in addition to some side knowledge (not my major) from the HSU sustainability crew, which was pretty active when I was in school. If I did not major in that, it perhaps was a mistake, but its also because I did not need classes in how to raise sustainable vegetables.

What percentage of meat and poultry is raised in intensive farming? That is what we are talking about not your Mom n' Pop farm. If everyone ate like you did, the world would be a better place.[/quote]
OK, except you just changed terms. See, factory farming and intensive farming are not the same thing. Factory farming is a term used primarily to abusive operations specifically. Intensive farming.. that does not require abuse, and can be beneficial IF done properly. Sadly, they often are not, but going vegetarian is actually counter-productive, because it hurts the smaller farmers more. You need to not just avoid the bad guys, you need to actively support the good guys..and also not that there are "good guys" AND "bad guys" in BOTH vegetable/grain and animal production systems.

I am not basing my views on a PETA blog either but on rational and sceptical observation of the available materials on the conditions in which our food is raised. You will forgive me for making my own judgements and not simply taking your word for it because you are older than me, or you grew up on a farm or any other credential you wish to claim.

LOL -- fine, but please look at ALL the data, not just what you find conveniently on the internet. I, myself have. I would expect no less. Its just irritating when I see touted as "truth" what I know is simply not truth. Finding truth takes work, though, and following the easy answer satisfies many.. to the harm of the real solutions.

[pmchugh]

Not standard.

Castration of male pigs is claimed at 77% in Europe, (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114148.htm) Getting numbers for the US seemed harder, all I can see on google is people claiming nearly 100% but without sources.

This comes down to; you can not eat meat and be sure none of this happens or you can investigate the specific farm from which your pork comes from to ensure this abuse doesn't happen. I don't care which you do.

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.

Exactly what I mean by making statements that lack understanding of proper agriculture. Animals have a close association with humans precisely because they eat things we don't. Ruminants eat the chaff, the grass not just the grain. Even pigs, which need foodstuffs very similar to us eat our waste. You used to see chickens running around, not because folks were too lazy to pen them up, but because the chickens kept down the bugs. Traditionally, these animals might (or might not) be supplemented with grain, but not force fed like some abusive systems today.

"The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet".

true, but irrelevant. This is done because currently grain is very, very cheap, not because its necessary or most efficient.

That is the part you have correct, factory farming can lead to laziness, in the name of "efficiency", but its not a requirement.

It is relevant to my point, "Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.". Perhaps I should have started, "The typical Animals that we consume" to be more precise.

OK, except you just changed terms. See, factory farming and intensive farming are not the same thing. Factory farming is a term used primarily to abusive operations specifically. Intensive farming.. that does not require abuse, and can be beneficial IF done properly. Sadly, they often are not, but going vegetarian is actually counter-productive, because it hurts the smaller farmers more. You need to not just avoid the bad guys, you need to actively support the good guys..and also not that there are "good guys" AND "bad guys" in BOTH vegetable/grain and animal production systems.

I don't believe that you can have scalable means of production that is not harmful. How can you keep chickens in an area where each of them has just larger than an A4 sheet of paper and hope to give them meaningful and joyful lives? How can a small group of human beings adequately look after 8,389 pigs? (average Hog farm size in the US circa 2009)

I am not basing my views on a PETA blog either but on rational and sceptical observation of the available materials on the conditions in which our food is raised. You will forgive me for making my own judgements and not simply taking your word for it because you are older than me, or you grew up on a farm or any other credential you wish to claim.

LOL -- fine, but please look at ALL the data, not just what you find conveniently on the internet. I, myself have. I would expect no less. Its just irritating when I see touted as "truth" what I know is simply not truth. Finding truth takes work, though, and following the easy answer satisfies many.. to the harm of the real solutions.

No one is perfect and no one knows everything, but I read some very biased pro-meat sources to encounter opposing points of view. If you have a problem with people basing their choices on lack of information imagine living in a society where most people justify their habits with; "protein tho", "food chain tho", "plants feel pain tho". If everyone looked into the issue seriously there would be much, much less meat consumed in our respective countries.

[notyou2]

I am an omnivore.

The problem is, there are 7+ billion omnivores.

We should eat each other.

[Army of GOD]

Some crops may be subsidised to the point at which this is true, but I highly doubt that animals cost less to rear than the subsidies the farmers receive. That is a rather large claim and would require evidence for me to believe.

Dont believe it then, I'm not the one pretending to have a moral backbone.

Ignorance wont make your efforts any more worthy.

No AoG

at least the Irish then?

Are you referencing Swift?

*checks AoG's sig*

Sorry, you're probably not.

Carry on.

Not a fan of eating children. Meat isn't developed

[Bernie Sanders]

I am an omnivore.

The problem is, there are 7+ billion omnivores.

We should eat each other.

What part of you can I cut off for that yummy Canadian Bacon?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

[Bernie Sanders]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

Here's some tasty Hog testicle recipes, yummm.

http://gratetv.com/hog-balls-4/

[hotfire]

I am an omnivore.

The problem is, there are 7+ billion omnivores.

We should eat each other.

that is not the real problem ...the real problem is we jumped up 6 billion omnivores in the past 100 years with the help of oil which has passed its peak now

[pmchugh]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

They squeal in terror and pain. I guess its all OK though because the pain isn't permanent and you need your ham.

They could use anaesthetic and help reduce its suffering but they don't. I guess its all OK though because you need your ham cheap.

[mrswdk]

I guess its all OK though because the pain isn't permanent

I mean, if the pig is not in pain right now then the pain is only a memory. So... what's the fuss?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

They squeal in terror and pain. I guess its all OK though because the pain isn't permanent and you need your ham.

They could use anaesthetic and help reduce its suffering but they don't. I guess its all OK though because you need your ham cheap.

If you had read my first post you would know I generally supported your stance. However, if you're a farmer or at all in the business of animal husbandry, you sometimes have to cause harm for the benefit of the animal. For example, dehorning goats.

Yes, the piglets squeal in pain a bit, and you generally hold them by restraining their legs, but it's not that bad. It takes like two minutes, and they don't have the same sort of ennervation that humans do. Like seriously, when you put them back in the crate, they go right back to nursing and playing with their littermates.

It's a little farfetched to demand that we spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on anaesthetics (which can be far more dangerous) to alleviate two minutes of a little pain and maybe a day's worth or soreness. You have to be grounded in reality.

-TG

[pmchugh]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

They squeal in terror and pain. I guess its all OK though because the pain isn't permanent and you need your ham.

They could use anaesthetic and help reduce its suffering but they don't. I guess its all OK though because you need your ham cheap.

If you had read my first post you would know I generally supported your stance. However, if you're a farmer or at all in the business of animal husbandry, you sometimes have to cause harm for the benefit of the animal. For example, dehorning goats.

Yes, the piglets squeal in pain a bit, and you generally hold them by restraining their legs, but it's not that bad. It takes like two minutes, and they don't have the same sort of ennervation that humans do. Like seriously, when you put them back in the crate, they go right back to nursing and playing with their littermates.

It's a little farfetched to demand that we spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on anaesthetics (which can be far more dangerous) to alleviate two minutes of a little pain and maybe a day's worth or soreness. You have to be grounded in reality.

-TG

I am glad you are sympathetic and I have read every post, but I don't remember them all either.

I posted earlier that in the EU 77% were castrated without anaesthetic, that means 23% are not. This is not a fantasy. There are other alternatives as well, such as improvest.

[Bernie Sanders]

I am an omnivore.

The problem is, there are 7+ billion omnivores.

We should eat each other.

that is not the real problem ...the real problem is we jumped up 6 billion omnivores in the past 100 years with the help of oil which has passed its peak now

We talk tasty animals and you talk peak oil? Besides, peak oil has not been reached, due to fracking and open mining of oil sands.

Now where's that tasty animal ran off to?

[Bernie Sanders]

I eat factory farmed vagina.

With mayo?

[hotfire]

I am an omnivore.

The problem is, there are 7+ billion omnivores.

We should eat each other.

that is not the real problem ...the real problem is we jumped up 6 billion omnivores in the past 100 years with the help of oil which has passed its peak now

We talk tasty animals and you talk peak oil? Besides, peak oil has not been reached, due to fracking and open mining of oil sands.

Now where's that tasty animal ran off to?

oil=food