Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[Meed]

I'll address the rest later; but I wanted to jump on this right now, since it is flagrantly wrong. You cannot get all essential amino acids from any legumes except soybeans. It is simply not possible. Without soy, it requires a blend of legumes and grains to get a full balance of amino acids. Amaranth seeds are the only other available source that is fully balanced, though the balance and concentration is not as good as soy. Soy also has to be processed in particular ways to maximize bioavailability (tofu is the most obvious example); but this is fairly trivial.

1 cup black beans, cooked from dried:

kcal: 227
Protein: 15.2 g
Histidine: 0.4 g
Isoleucine: 0.7 g
Leucine: 1.2 g
Lysine: 1.0 g
Methionine: 0.2 g
Phenylalanine: 0.8 g
Threonine: 0.6 g
Typtophan: 0.2 g
Valine: 0.8 g

Source: NCCDB

 

[Meed]

Again though, what do you do if you can't tolerate beans or legumes very well? Are there any alternatives?

Of course. Some cheap alternatives to beans would be nuts and grains. A more expensive (but very high in protein density) alternative would be seitan a.k.a. wheat gluten.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Oh, now that this made the news, I can finally reveal what I know about the case.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/cas...olved-with-paterson-boys-sentencing-1.1146598

Passaic County Superior Court Judge Greta Gooden-Brown sentenced the boys to one year of probation and 30 hours of community service that must be completed in a pet therapy program or with an animal control agency, Valdes said. They must also undergo family counseling and other therapy focused on empathy awareness, anger management and impulse control, the prosecutor said.

In short, there's finally justice for Quattro. The boys responsible will get the punishment they deserve, and the help they desperately need. They will NOT be going to juvenile hall, nor will they have to pay a fine, because their families are poor. Instead, they will have to undergo psychiatric counseling and have to do community service, which is fine by me. They will have to learn how to properly treat and care for animals; however, they certainly won't be doing that at our shelter.

Do I think it was right to charge them? Yes, because if the law hadn't stepped in, who would? Not the parents, that's for sure. We're talking about parents so irresponsible, they allow their kids to run around torturing innocent animals to death. One has to wonder if these kids learned it from their parents in the first place. The felony animal cruelty charge will go on their records, which essentially means they'll never be allowed to adopt or own pets as long as they live.

It's enough that they caused pain and suffering to a cat to say that what they did was morally wrong. I wouldn't want them to do this to another cat, or dog, whether stray or someone's pet. Whether or not they might have done the same to a human is irrelevant. There is something psychologically messed up about them that needs to be addressed, and I'm glad it was caught early when something can be done about it.

This isn't about race, or anything like that. None of the news sources ever mentioned the race of the perpetrators. This isn't about economic class either. The two boys who tried to save Quattro are from the same neighborhood.

Speaking of the boys who tried to save Quattro, I actually met them and their family. They worked at the shelter for a few months over the summer. The older one wants to become a veterinarian. They both love animals, but they had a hard time keeping up with the daily chores at the shelter.

Something needs to change in Paterson. That's all I can say. It's a dangerous place, for both humans and animals alike.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Agreed, they are not automatically mutually exclusive. Please don't confuse an ethical Vegan from an unethical Vegan. I was specifically arguing against an unethical Vegan who has repeatedly argued for the removal of all farm animals from the farm on the grounds that it is the cow itself that is to blame for its deleterious effect on the environment, the battery cage hen that is to blame for the diseases she spreads, that livestock doesn't even have the right to breathe or fart or defecate because everything they do is harmful to the environment, that the victim is to blame for the abuse it receives. It's now the cows fault? Or is it the fault of the human who put that cow in a CAFO? Raise it properly and a cow can be very beneficial to the environment[1][2], same as all livestock. Stack that same animal along with 100,000 more in a confined area, feeding them unnatural feeds they didn't evolve to eat, and forcing them to live in their own waste, and a whole host of health[3][4] and environmental issues[5] arise. But beyond that, it is animal cruelty! Isn't that exactly the topic of this thread?

Er, I think you are supposed to be making up these positions for me. But if you look at the comment links you will see that you made your comment in response to Dessi.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Your first link written by James E. McWilliams is wrong. McWilliams is btw a Vegan and it is no doubt that his article calls to your dogmatic position.
However, it doesn't make his position any more correct, nor yours. I could debunk his poorly written article, but why? He admits that what I propose is more humane.

This thread is about animal cruelty. QED

Now if you really wish to fight over the falsehoods in his article, sure I can. His next few paragraphs are straight from the industrial meat industries' deception campaign.



He is an advocate for the industrial meat industry!

Any Vegan who would stoop to becoming a industrial animal production advocate and willing to borrow their propaganda to defend raising animals in an inhumane way has some serious internal conflicts in his own argument. His hypocrisy is obvious. He is no advocate for ethical treatment of animals. He is an advocate for the inhumane torture of animals.

Oh but it gets better. After first pretending to be concerned about animal welfare, then proving actually he doesn't give a damn about the humane treatment of animals by advocating their torture, by the end of the article he throws yet another curve. Turns out he advocates the total elimination of all livestock species! I guess genocide is better than slavery and both are better than free range.



Maybe you learned your unethical position from him?

Poisoning the Well and Ad Hominem. Look it up and then write a coherent response, instead of a manic reaction. See, I can be belittle too.

The second link is meaningless actually. Not sure why you even posted it. If anything he talks about worked, our soils wouldn't have deteriorated to the critically poor state they are in now. Just a rehash of a failed understanding that got us in this position to begin with, and yet again another advocate of the inhumane torture of animals.



The ironic thing is you found exactly the disrespectful, arrogant, manipulative attitude my first post was about. Congrats for making my arguments easier.

Congrats for doing exactly what I said you were doing: clinging to unscientific organic/holistic farming and fixating on one input of nutrient cycles to claim an unestablished victory and declare others "evil".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This will help quite a bit.

How it should be: Putting the CAFO out to pasture

The Five Freedoms include:

Freedom from Hunger and Thirst—by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
Freedom from Discomfort—by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
Freedom from Pain, Injury, or Disease—by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
Freedom to Express Normal Behavior—by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animals’ own kind.
Freedom from Fear and Distress—by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering.

Patently absurd marketing gimmick. Note how they have to list the actual condition next to the ridiculous "freedom". There is no "happy meat". It is like saying waterboarding is ethical because we give the prisoner a fluffy pillow and warm meal. I assume we exempt constant artificial insemination? Letting calves drink the mothers milk? Letting bobby calves live? I suppose getting a cow to slaughter without fear makes the captive bolt to the head ethical?

 

[Belz...]

What is the status quo, with respect to the topic at hand? Do the majority of people in your society, or do they not, believe that animals matter in their own right?

I was talking about eating meat from farmed animals. I think most people agree that animals have feelings and can suffer, and that limiting that suffering is preferable both from a moral standpoint, and from a practical standpoint.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Poisoning the Well and Ad Hominem. Look it up...blah blah etc...

Yeah? And what? I am attacking, ranting and raging against the unethical Vegan that defends factory farming of animals. Nothing personal to you. But your source was a published unethical Vegan. So yeah, I attack in every way possible using every tool possible. But I am attacking the hypocrisy in the argument of the unethical vegan, not you personally. The fact that you too hold those unethical views and also defend factory farming of animals notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Tsukasa,
Let me put it another way. Lets suppose the meat industry propaganda were actually true. Lets suppose factory farming actually was better for the environment. It isn't, but lets just hypothesize a mythical scenario in which it were true, just for argument sake.

Would that be a good enough excuse to abuse and commit horrible acts of cruelty to animals? In my mind no, it wouldn't. There is no good excuse for the inhumane treatment we put the farm animals in CAFOs through.

I do realise that you really hate holistic management for the reason that every management decision one makes considers the ethical, social, and cultural context as equal in importance to the scientific biophysical, environmental and business context. But I see that as a strength, not a weakness. As far as I am concerned science and business needs to consider the ethical context of every decision. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do that something.

In this case we have the opposite though. Because CAFOs are both cruel to the animals AND harmful to the environment as well as human health. So for me it is a no brainer. They have to be abolished.

 

[RandFan]

I eat meat.

Most arguments for eating meat in modern times strike me as ad hoc rationalization. However, I still find the notion that an animal raised in a good environment, is free from predators and the elements and who survives to sexual maturity gets something in return for its providing nourishment to its caregivers.

Still, the animal never had the opportunity to enter into a contract and putting it in that context sounds a bit macabre.

Bob: Hey cow, I'll provide you food, water, shelter and health care. All I ask is that you let me kill you at some point in the future.

IMO, there is much we can do to improve the lives of domesticated animals. Particularly those raised in large factory farms.

 

[Cain]

I was talking about eating meat from farmed animals. I think most people agree that animals have feelings and can suffer, and that limiting that suffering is preferable both from a moral standpoint, and from a practical standpoint.

It's a matter of people living in accordance with their values. People say they want to raise animals in humane conditions, and they want to elect politicians who do not lie, and they want to listen to radio stations that play the biggest variety of music. Stated preferences and observed behavior have a tendency to diverge. It's easy to sympathize with animals being cruelly tortured by some weird, red-headed kid. It's easy for Americans to oppose Japanese whale-hunting. Self-described "skeptics" who implicitly support some rights but are avowed opponents of veganism are sort of like the Christians who are adept at dissecting the Qu'ran.

I contend that we both support animal rights. I just believe in applying those rights to all all animals suffering solely for human ends. When you tell me why you oppose certain forms of exploitation, I'll tell why I oppose them all.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I eat meat.

Most arguments for eating meat in modern times strike me as ad hoc rationalization. However, I still find the notion that an animal raised in a good environment, is free from predators and the elements and who survives to sexual maturity gets something in return for its providing nourishment to its caregivers.

Still, the animal never had the opportunity to enter into a contract and putting it in that context sounds a bit macabre.

Bob: Hey cow, I'll provide you food, water, shelter and health care. All I ask is that you let me kill you at some point in the future.

IMO, there is much we can do to improve the lives of domesticated animals. Particularly those raised in large factory farms.

I can agree with that.

The thing is, I'm not starving, and I don't know what it's like to live at the poverty level. Therefore it's not up to me to tell other people what they can or cannot eat. A lot of people still eat food for the sake of survival, not pleasure, and they have to get whatever they can afford. If this happens to include meat, then I have no right to tell them it's immoral.

If anything, it's the people who run the large industrialized farms who bear the most responsibility, since they have the power to make the changes. Right now, given our current agriculture, economy, and technology, these types of farms are where most of our food comes from. There is very little the consumer can do to put pressure on them, unless you can afford alternatives, or you can afford to switch your diet, as some people here have done. I don't know if government regulation is going to solve anything either.

What do you think might work as far as improving conditions for domestic animals?

 

[RandFan]

I can agree with that.

The thing is, I'm not starving, and I don't know what it's like to live at the poverty level. Therefore it's not up to me to tell other people what they can or cannot eat. A lot of people still eat food for the sake of survival, not pleasure, and they have to get whatever they can afford. If this happens to include meat, then I have no right to tell them it's immoral.

If anything, it's the people who run the large industrialized farms who bear the most responsibility, since they have the power to make the changes. Right now, given our current agriculture, economy, and technology, these types of farms are where most of our food comes from. There is very little the consumer can do to put pressure on them, unless you can afford alternatives, or you can afford to switch your diet, as some people here have done. I don't know if government regulation is going to solve anything either.

What do you think might work as far as improving conditions for domestic animals?

Great question. I was raised on a small farm. In my community there was a culture of a kind of reverence for animals. There was a strict taboo against allowing animals to suffer or to intentionally cause unnecessary suffering (granting that slaughtering was considered necessary).

It's a tough nut to crack. I don't know. One thing that isn't going to happen but I wish would. At some point in their lives people should see a cow slaughtered. I grew up across from a dairy and I worked there. I've seen a Captive bolt pistol placed against the head of a cow and the trigger released. It's a hell of a thing. I've slaughtered and cleaned many hundreds of chickens and rabbits. I wish people could make more informed choices about their food. Most are too removed from the actual process.

Like those who fought to end slavery and segregation we need to be patient and keep raising awareness. Enlarging the circle of empathy. It might be awhile before we see real substantive changes. I suspect that environmental and health concerns will cause change before concerns of animal welfare does.

I would also recommend against self-righteousness. It's perfectly fine to argue the ethics of not consuming animals but taking a holier than thou attitude is not helpful in my opinion.

While tradition and evolved adaptation for the ability to eat meat are not logically valid arguments to justify eating for taste, they are powerful drivers of culture. It is very likely that meat gave us the nutrition necessary to grow big brains and to survive in a wide variety climes from the Sub Sahara to the Arctic. It's deeply engrained in our culture and perhaps even in our DNA. Though, again, those facts do not themselves justify eating meat.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What do you think might work as far as improving conditions for domestic animals?

You might start with getting rid of government corruption in the USDA that purposely subsidises CAFOs so they can operate at below cost, and purposely prevents ethical farmers from competing on a level playing field with regulations.

There are hundreds of subtle underhanded ways they do this, but here is a good example:

FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4

Now this is subtle, so if you don't understand I'll be happy to explain.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I eat meat.

Most arguments for eating meat in modern times strike me as ad hoc rationalization. However, I still find the notion that an animal raised in a good environment, is free from predators and the elements and who survives to sexual maturity gets something in return for its providing nourishment to its caregivers.

Still, the animal never had the opportunity to enter into a contract and putting it in that context sounds a bit macabre.

Bob: Hey cow, I'll provide you food, water, shelter and health care. All I ask is that you let me kill you at some point in the future.

IMO, there is much we can do to improve the lives of domesticated animals. Particularly those raised in large factory farms.

Further, in what other context do we follow this "contract" of being able to violate another's rights because we are "due" it because we provided for them? "Provide nourishment" is a bit of a sanitised description, no ?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah? And what? I am attacking, ranting and raging against the unethical Vegan that defends factory farming of animals. Nothing personal to you. But your source was a published unethical Vegan. So yeah, I attack in every way possible using every tool possible. But I am attacking the hypocrisy in the argument of the unethical vegan, not you personally. The fact that you too hold those unethical views and also defend factory farming of animals notwithstanding.

Tsukasa,
Let me put it another way. Lets suppose the meat industry propaganda were actually true. Lets suppose factory farming actually was better for the environment. It isn't, but lets just hypothesize a mythical scenario in which it were true, just for argument sake.

Would that be a good enough excuse to abuse and commit horrible acts of cruelty to animals? In my mind no, it wouldn't. There is no good excuse for the inhumane treatment we put the farm animals in CAFOs through.

I do realise that you really hate holistic management for the reason that every management decision one makes considers the ethical, social, and cultural context as equal in importance to the scientific biophysical, environmental and business context. But I see that as a strength, not a weakness. As far as I am concerned science and business needs to consider the ethical context of every decision. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do that something.

In this case we have the opposite though. Because CAFOs are both cruel to the animals AND harmful to the environment as well as human health. So for me it is a no brainer. They have to be abolished.

You are directing these comments at me, but seem to be discoursing with some phantom of your own imaginings.

Wait, I mean blah blah blah.

 

[Belz...]

It's a matter of people living in accordance with their values.

I'm fine with that. Just don't ask me to live by your values.

I contend that we both support animal rights. I just believe in applying those rights to all all animals suffering solely for human ends. When you tell me why you oppose certain forms of exploitation, I'll tell why I oppose them all.

I will do so with pleasure: because principles are not universal. I don't want to cause undue suffering to animals, just like I don't want to cut down trees needlessly. Where there's a need, however...

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You are directing these comments at me, but seem to be discoursing with some phantom of your own imaginings.

Comments directed at you are done so only because you are the one who attempted to make unethical arguments and you are the one who posted the factory farming meat industry's propaganda to support your unethical arguments. They are not meant to be a direct attack at you personally, only the unethical arguments you make. I have no issue with any of the vegetarians or Vegans on this thread who make that choice for whatever reason they deem reasonable. However, any vegan that uses CAFO meat industry propaganda to back an unethical agenda I will be happy to debate, and do often.

 

[Meed]

I'm fine with that. Just don't ask me to live by your values.



I will do so with pleasure: because principles are not universal. I don't want to cause undue suffering to animals, just like I don't want to cut down trees needlessly. Where there's a need, however...

What need are you referring to?

 

[Cain]

I will do so with pleasure: because principles are not universal. I don't want to cause undue suffering to animals, just like I don't want to cut down trees needlessly. Where there's a need, however...

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you're going to claim ethical subjectivism, then it makes no difference if someone wants to avoid causing "undue" suffering (or needless suffering).

I'm fine with that. Just don't ask me to live by your values.

Which is a silly comment. I suppose society imposes on someone when it makes human trafficking illegal (in that imposes itself upon the trafficker). In any event, you're using my non-controversial observation to score some point about how you're a victim if you're prevented from racking up a body count. It doesn't really make any sense, but that's par for the course...