PETA and the Holocaust

[Malachi151]

Shane Costello

Actually I'm undertaking doctorate research in bovine molecular genetics and it's relation to meat quality. This means I've observed all stages of the meat production process at very close quarters. My points are rooted in informed opinion.

Observed all stages in the process at what facility? A facility representative of free range farming or factory farming?

Or was it my observations on the mores and attitudes of the 18th century that irked you? Are you suggesting that human, never mind animal life wasn't held a lot cheaper back then?

Actually in many ways people back then took better care of their animals then fellow humans, because animals were seen as valuable property. I'll admit it was a weak point.

Hmm, link? I don't disbelieve you, it's just that this is news to me.

Well, there are hormones that increase immune response and ones that decrease it. Actually I don't know exactly what they give these animals. I know that they are given antibiotics and also hormone/antibiotic mixes. In all likelihood the hormone/antibiotic mixes are really because the hormones(steroids) lower immune response and the antibiotics are there to help in the case of the weakened immune system. I'm just guessing at what they actually practice though.

My point wasn't that intellectual capability was necessary for humane treatment, rather that animals have a different understanding of happiness and satisfaction than us because of their limited intellectual and emotional capacities.

Wrong. Intellectual capability and living conditions make it possible to consider the feelings of other beings, but that in no way changes an animal's personal emotional state. Just because a wolf may not take the feels of a sheep into consideration when the wolf kills the sheep does not mean that the sheep is not taking his own feelings into consideration.

Animals understand their OWN happiness and satisfaction and they don't take the happiness and satisfaction of others whom they are in competition with into consideration.

To claim that animals are incapable of taking anyone else's feelings into consideration at all is to deny facts, but its also not even relevant. Your argument is, well a wolf does not care about the feelings of other animals, so we shouldn't either. Great, thanks for putting humanity on the same plane as wild animals.

The thing is though that a wolf does not control every aspect of its prey's life, and farmers do. Humans has a capacity to cause pain and suffering that animals in the wild are nto capable of, with that capacity comes responsibilty.

Your links made great play of the fact that calves are usually separated from their mothers at an early age, yet animals simply don't see this as an emotionally traumatic experience. Both mother and calf will have forgotten each other in a matter of days. I've seen it on countless occasions.

I agree that those comments were stupid. I don't have a problem with taking young away from mothers in farming.

A link to the study or studies that established this?

Info taken from memory, if I happen across a link I'll post it.

Precisely, sensitivity is the key. Where the PETA line errs is that it presumes animals have the same sensitivities as humans. They don't, because of their lack of intellectual and emotional capability compared to humans. You may think that farming is exploitative and abusive, but this is because you are a member of a species that has a greater standards for comfort and happiness because of greater emotional and intellectual capability. The animal doesn't think so.

Whoa, whoa. I already made a post on animals and emotions, that post was never addressed. I'll just restate the basics here. What evidence do you have that animals have no emotional capacity? In fact I say that emotions are the most primitive form of thought and the way in which other animals and people are the most similar. I'm quite confident that all higher animals feel love, hate, fear, sad, happy, pain, desire, etc. To assume that these qualities are purely human is to believe in "god" and the creation of man as a separate "kind".

Hopefully, if you are doctoring in molecular biology or genetics you don't believe that.

As I've repeated many times, it is imperative for narrow economic reasons that livestock are not stressed or abused in any way. If an animal has food, water and warmth, it's happy.

Okay, so evidence that the animals are stressed and abused is just what? False? You just claimed here that the animals are "happy", but I thought that you were arguing that animals could not be happy? Which is it? So let's just take veal for example. Are you saying that veal are happy, and they are made sure to be happy because its economically beneficial for he farmers to see to their happiness?

You can mate a leopard to a lion? This I've got to see supported by evidence. Species is not an arbitrary line. You can easily distinguish species using genetic studies, for instance.

Are you sure that you are working on a doctorate in genetics? Have you not heard of chimeras and monsters? A Ligers, etc?

http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/crossesa.htm

Species is an arbitrary line. What is you're degree in BTW? I'm assuming biology of some kind. I've done research papers on speciation myself, and have a bs in biology. Yes, we can identify "species" through genetic testing, we can also identify race and ethnicity too. Through genetic testing it can be determined is someone is white or black and if they are still "pure breed" what region of the globe they are from.

None of which establish that abuse and atrocities are endemic.

I never said that they were, all I said that was the types of conditions that peta is speaking out against are inhumane. If they only occur at one place then fine, shut that one place down and we can all be happy.

Pictures of dead animals?

To my knowledge there were no pictures of dead animals in the links I provided.

Animals don't have emotions and intellect as developed as humans. That is a fact.

No, that's not fact. In fact I would say that animals are more emotional then people precisely because they are not as intellectual. Intellect has given us a degree of control over our emotions. You're still buying into some 19th century notion that animals have no feelings and that their apparent display of emotion and response to stimuli is just a robotic response that we as humans misinterpret as emotion.

Okay, and WHY would anyone make that assumption? The assumption really speaks more about our self identity then how we view animals IMO. Our lives and perceptions are dictated by all the same systems that other animals are, we are animals.

To say that other animals are emotionally insignificant because we are more intelligent then them would be the same as saying that compared to birds all other animals are emotionally insignificant because birds can fly and other animals can't.

The fact that we can do math doesn't make us more sensitive to feelings any more then the fact that birds can fly makes them more sensitive.

This again was the same thing that "civilized" people said about "primitive" people 200+ years ago. Oh, those Indians in South America, they can only built small huts and nothing more so they must not really care about being enslaved in working in gold mines and dying at the age 20 due to overwork.

Stop the ad-homs. I've never beaten an animal about the head.

No, but obviously its a part of standard farming practice is it not?

If the animals didn't get fresh air they'd die. Neither are cattle to big, and they can turn around.

So you are simply deny thing conditions exist. Let's just say hypothetically then, would you approve of these conditions if they did exist?

Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claming to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

LOL, well we may as well just discount everything then. Do you believe books about how cars are made? Why, it could just as easily be like books on aliens.

Are you seriously getting an PhD in the sciences? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world today.

Victor Danilchenko

of course not.

Are you refusing to look at the evidence? Have you visited the links yet or are you still discussing an issue that you are not informed on?

I agree. What "Humane Society" defends is not humane treatment of animals, but rather human-discomfort-reducing treatment of animals.

I really don't get what you are trying to say with this whole line of comments. You seem to be arguing that death is the most inhumane thing in the world, and so anything less then death is acceptable. That if we can't stop the killing of animals for food, then abusing them is of no consequence.

First of all I don't think the claim that killing someone is the most inhumane thing, and I don't think that most people think that. That's the whole "put me out of my misery" issue.

Killing is obviously a needed part of farming animals and the part that will never go away. The issue is in how the animals are cared for up to the time of slaughter, and the way in which they are slaughtered.

The links discuss standard acceptable practices of skinning cows while they are still alive and conscious. Of dunking pigs into scalding water to remove hair while they are still alive. They discuss the living conditions of the animals, etc.

that's one of the reasons why i don't think we can conclude that treatment of animals can be ethical or unethical.

So, because a wolf is not capable of acting ethically that absolves us from having to act ethically? That makes no sense.

The ultimate issue comes down to capability.

Yes animals may treat each other unethically, but animals also don't' have the capacity to inflict the amount of pain and suffering that people do, so its naturally regulated. Lions, while they kill animals to eat, they don't cause the suffering of hundreds of millions of animals on a daily basis.

Yes, a lion may not be driven by ethics, but whereas a lion will go an kill an animal every so often, I as a human am capable of taking an animal, putting it in a pin, whereby I then am responsible for feeding and responsible for its environment. The lion is not responsible for the environment that its food lives in, but farmers are. As I said, I have no problem with hunting, and animals are hunters. The issue is when you control every aspect of an animal's life, you then also take on responsibility for the conditions of life.

Now, to address all of these arguments.

You are all arguing that living conditions for animals ultimately do not matter and that animals are incapable of really caring what their living conditions are. Anyone care to tell Zoos that?

Essentially everything that every person is saying in this thread that is defending modern farming practices is in direct contradiction to years of research and accepted position in the area of zoo keeping and animal behavior. If conditions for animals made no difference then why all this talk in zoos about animals keeped in small pens going insane and displaying self destructive behavior, etc?

What is a farm? Just a giant zoo.

I tell you this, open these facilities up to the public to be on display like a zoo, and watch the farming practices get changed real quick.

Start farming dogs like they do pigs and watch people get upset, yet pigs are more intelligent and social then dogs, they are just accepted as farm animals is all.

No one wants to acknowledge the issues of animal behavior in the farm industry because its not economically beneficial to do so. And to take a lead from DialectialMaterialist, I'll say that the behavior displayed here in defending the practices is a product of social evolution in defending economically beneficial practices that are viewed as beneficial to society, though I'm not going to waste my time going into detail like DM did in another thread

Another ironic example of man's own primitivity and instinctual drives.

 

[Valmorian]

Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claming to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

LOL, well we may as well just discount everything then. Do you believe books about how cars are made? Why, it could just as easily be like books on aliens.

Are you seriously getting an PhD in the sciences? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world today.

The saddest part of your rebuttal is this one here. He's absolutely right. The AMOUNT of "evidence" is irrelevant if the evidence isn't well substantiated. Do you deny this?

Nice Ad Hom too, by the way.

 

[Malachi151]

The saddest part of your rebuttal is this one here. He's absolutely right. The AMOUNT of "evidence" is irrelevant if the evidence isn't well substantiated. Do you deny this?

Nice Ad Hom too, by the way.

Which is the whole point!

What do you call substantiated?

Let's see, we have video footage, interviews, photographs, entire documentaries made on the subject, testimony from experts, etc.

Is he (you) claiming that these images are faked? Made in a production studio, or what?

At what point does do the conditions themselves become verified? When you say so?

I think the conditions are well documented and reliably depicted.

No one is claiming that these conditions are representative of all farms, simply that these conditions exist in the farming industry.

In cases where these conditions are not present then its not an issue.

You are now going to claim that vast amounts of verifiable documentation on these conditions is comperable to books on aliens!

See, if you think that, then the problem lies with you and your grasp of reality.

 

[Valmorian]

Which is the whole point!

Then MAKE that point, don't engage in a fallacy and ad-hom.

What do you call substantiated?

>I< don't call any of the information unsubstantiated. Why don't you ask HIM? Instead of accusing him of being irrational for not taking the VOLUME of information as support for the veracity of same, you might want to start pointing out the information you feel is relevant and substantiated. Alternately, you can suggest a number of books in support of your position, and inquire what he thinks is unsubstantiated about them.

Is he (you) claiming that these images are faked? Made in a production studio, or what?

I don't know, why don't you ask him THAT instead of engaging in a fallacy?

No one is claiming that these conditions are representative of all farms, simply that these conditions exist in the farming industry.

Shock of shocks, there's bad conditions in every industry. Now you need to show that the bad conditions are somehow more prolific in the farming industry than in others. It's going to be unavoidable that there will be some irresponsible parties, that's not enough to discount them all.

You are now going to claim that vast amounts of verifiable documentation on these conditions is comperable to books on aliens!

I'm going to point out that the NUMBER of claims has NO bearing on the truth of them. This is EXACTLY what he pointed out, and it's true.

See, if you think that, then the problem lies with you and your grasp of reality.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Observed all stages in the process at what facility? A facility representative of free range farming or factory farming?

Both. Even with free range farming it's necessary to have the animals housed in close proximity when environmental conditions require it. The slaughter process is identical in both cases also. In this country all cattle are free range.

Well, there are hormones that increase immune response and ones that decrease it. Actually I don't know exactly what they give these animals. I know that they are given antibiotics and also hormone/antibiotic mixes. In all likelihood the hormone/antibiotic mixes are really because the hormones(steroids) lower immune response and the antibiotics are there to help in the case of the weakened immune system. I'm just guessing at what they actually practice though.

Well, at least your not basing your opinions on ignorance.

Wrong. Intellectual capability and living conditions make it possible to consider the feelings of other beings, but that in no way changes an animal's personal emotional state. Just because a wolf may not take the feels of a sheep into consideration when the wolf kills the sheep does not mean that the sheep is not taking his own feelings into consideration.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Animals understand their OWN happiness and satisfaction and they don't take the happiness and satisfaction of others whom they are in competition with into consideration.

So animals aren't capable of making the moral judgements we are? My point exactly.

To claim that animals are incapable of taking anyone else's feelings into consideration at all is to deny facts, but its also not even relevant. Your argument is, well a wolf does not care about the feelings of other animals, so we shouldn't either. Great, thanks for putting humanity on the same plane as wild animals.

Excuse me, you haven't cited any studies or that have established factual evidence of the emotional capabilities of animals. I never claimed that the amorality of the natural world justified animal cruelty among humans. I never tried to justify animal cruelty, full stop. I've also repeated the point that humans are a couple of planes above animals in nearly every post.

What evidence do you have that animals have no emotional capacity?

That was never my point. I said humans had a much greater emotional capacity than animals. See my earlier point about cows and calves.

Okay, so evidence that the animals are stressed and abused is just what? False? You just claimed here that the animals are "happy", but I thought that you were arguing that animals could not be happy? Which is it? So let's just take veal for example. Are you saying that veal are happy, and they are made sure to be happy because its economically beneficial for he farmers to see to their happiness?

My, my, if you could only market and sell strawmen!

I never argued that animals couldn't be happy, just that their different emotional and intellectual development means that what makes animals happy might appear primitive and cruel to humans. And no, you haven't produced evidence of animal cruelty. You've posted pictures of animals, peppered with biblical references. Which is highly hypocritical, since so many animals were harmed in the making of the Good Book, what with deluges and fatted calf slaughtering.

Are you sure that you are working on a doctorate in genetics? Have you not heard of chimeras and monsters? A Ligers, etc?

IIRC a chimera is an imaginary thing, ditto a monster. But let's look at that website a bit more closely.

Well, crossing cattle with buffalo isn't anything to suprised with, since these animals are closely related. Ditto Manchurian and Siberian tigers (wow, tigers breed with tigers!)

However, methinks that many of these hybrids owe more to Photoshop than interbreeding. Or maybe not even that, since many of the hybrids look like conventional breeds of animal.

Yes, we can identify "species" through genetic testing, we can also identify race and ethnicity too.

Race and ethnicity established by genetic testing? Wrong, very wrong, since these terms are indeed arbitrary. Ethnicity depends more on culture than genetics. What genetics can establish, by Y-c'some and mitochondrial analysis, is ancestry.

Through genetic testing it can be determined is someone is white or black and if they are still "pure breed" what region of the globe they are from.

Codswollop.

To my knowledge there were no pictures of dead animals in the links I provided.

So you didn't even read your own links, something you accused me of?

No, that's not fact. In fact I would say that animals are more emotional then people precisely because they are not as intellectual. Intellect has given us a degree of control over our emotions.

And the scientific studies that have established this are?

Okay, and WHY would anyone make that assumption?

Cows and calves.

No, but obviously its a part of standard farming practice is it not?

No, what gave you that idea?

So you are simply deny thing conditions exist.

Yes, because they don't exist (at least not to the endemic degree you claim). I've presented evidence why these conditions are counterproductive to meat production.

LOL, well we may as well just discount everything then. Do you believe books about how cars are made? Why, it could just as easily be like books on aliens.

No, it comes down to standards of proof. I've seen cars, I've driven cars, therefore a book about automanufacture has some credence. My lack of engineering knowledge would preempt me from making a judgement as to the efficacy of the methods presented in the book, though. However in this case I do have knowledge of the matter in question, so I am able to make a judgement. But don't tell me that because something is in a book automatically gives it merit.

Are you seriously getting an PhD in the sciences? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world today.

In light of that comment I'd like a look at your publication list.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Malachi151

Are you refusing to look at the evidence?

That's right. And when you understand why, you will perhaps understand why you are a fscking loon.

Have you visited the links yet or are you still discussing an issue that you are not informed on?

Dude, I have no idea what you are discussing. I am discussing ethical theory, and I assure you that on that subject, I am far more informed about than than you are (and I similarly assure you that the actual treatment of animals have no bearing on their ethical status).

I really don't get what you are trying to say with this whole line of comments.

No, indeed you don't.

You seem to be arguing that death is the most inhumane thing in the world, and so anything less then death is acceptable. That if we can't stop the killing of animals for food, then abusing them is of no consequence.

No, what I am arguing is that we cannot consistently make ethical argument against mistreatment of animals, while simultaneously endorsing the killing of animals.

It's inconsistent to act on the matter of a child having his lollypop stolen, but do nothing about a child being beaten. it's insonsistent to decry inhumane treatment of animals, without decrying their killing even more.

First of all I don't think the claim that killing someone is the most inhumane thing, and I don't think that most people think that. That's the whole "put me out of my misery" issue.

Oh, please. being well-fed and cared for does not come close to comparing to th sort of privation that prompts the "put me out of my misery" mindset. More importantly, that mindset is uniquely human -- animals will fight for life tooth and nail. It takes intelligence to consider one's status and the nature of death, and to conclude that death is preferrable.

So, because a wolf is not capable of acting ethically that absolves us from having to act ethically? That makes no sense.

of course not -- not to you. You have no idea what ethics is, after all.

Dude, you really have to get your act straight. Your arguments are nearly incoherent.

 

[Malachi151]

That's right. And when you understand why, you will perhaps understand why you are a fscking loon.

Right, because refusing to review information and judge for yourself makes so much sense

No, what I am arguing is that we cannot consistently make ethical argument against mistreatment of animals, while simultaneously endorsing the killing of animals.

Well, for the last time I disagree. We can make ethical arguments about for assisted suicide and euthanasia. That is "pro-death", and related to quality of life.

We can make ethical arguments for war, that is "pro-death", and again ultiamtely deals with quality of life.

Why would we not be able to make ethical judgements about quality of life for animals just because we intent to kill them? Everything dies, so ultimately by your logic there is no need for any ethics at all.

Oh, please. being well-fed and cared for does not come close to comparing to th sort of privation that prompts the "put me out of my misery" mindset.

LOL, here we go ignoring reality again. No one in this thead has said that its inhumane to feed and give good care to animals. Teh issue at hand in actually in fact in some cases starvation and in all cases lack of good care.

of course not -- not to you. You have no idea what ethics is, after all.

Riiiiight... as the one saying that we have an obligation to take good care of animals who's lives are in our control, I'm the one with no idea of ethics

 

[Malachi151]

http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/111299/DL_animalethics.html

SW: In the second edition of your book, Veterinary Ethics, you say the next wave of activism will be related to farm-animal welfare.

JT: Reasonably accurate statistics indicate that 20 million to 40 million animals are used in research in the United States each year, while at least 7 billion animals are used in agriculture. Many protesters believe that farm-animal issues will be the major thrust of activism in the 21st century, because some people want to apply their companion-animal values to farm animals. For example, much of agriculture today is intensive, meaning that animals are housed in group conditions that are not the way they would have been housed in family farms years ago. And many people wonder whether they are suffering and whether it’s an adequate way of life for them. I think we can expect protests and questions about this. Because we have the finest veterinary school in the world, we should be ready with answers. If the animals are being treated appropriately, then we should be able to say so. If the animals’ conditions could be improved, then we should be interested in how various improvements could be made.

Welcome to the Monash University Animal Ethics Office Home Page

http://www.monash.edu.au/resgrant/animal-ethics/

Morals are a purely human construction (animals don't understand morals); doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to animals?

The fallaciousness of this argument can be easily demonstrated by making a simple substitution: Infants and young children don't understand morals, doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to them? Of course not. We refrain from harming infants and children for the same reasons that we do so for adults. That they are incapable of conceptualizing a system of morals and its benefits is irrelevant. The relevant distinction is formalized in the concept of "moral agents" versus "moral patients". A moral agent is an individual possessing the sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral principles to bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that way. By virtue of these abilities, it is fair to hold moral agents accountable for their acts. The paradigmatic moral agent is the normal adult human being. Moral patients, in contrast, lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are proper objects of consideration for moral agents. Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of moral patienthood. Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.

http://urmel.dusnet.de/animal-rights.net/ar-faq/q.phtml?17

I would agree that in theory animals fall into a category equal to children and invalids, but I also weight that against human needs and the laws of nature and accept the killing of animals for survival.

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE

http://www.animal-law.org/library/araw_ii.htm

Animal Care and Ethics

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/research/animal/

Animal Cognition

http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/kar... Pages/Animal Cognition/Animal Cognition.html

Animal Ethics

This means that the ethics of farm animal welfare will increas-ingly come to be seen in terms of industry standards, market structure and government regulation, in additionto individuals’ responsibility to the animals in their care.

http://www.porkscience.org/documents/Other/SwineWelfFACTSHT-ethic.pdf

And from the USDA:

Hmm, seems the USDA has plenty of info realted to Animal ethics in farming as well....

And of course guidelines for humane reatment of livestock. If there are guidelines then that must mean that humane treatement of animals is recognized as something to consider.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/9cfr313_00.html

The electric current shall be administered so as to produce, at a
minimum, surgical anesthesia, i.e., a state where the animal feels no
painful sensation. The animals shall be either stunned or killed before
they are shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. They shall be exposed
to the electric current in a way that will accomplish the desired result
quickly and effectively, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort.

...

Electric current. Each animal shall be given a sufficient
application of electric current to ensure surgical anesthesia throughout
the bleeding operation. Suitable timing, voltage and current control
devices shall be used to ensure that each animal receives the necessary
electrical charge to produce immediate unconsciousness. The current
shall be applied so as to avoid the
production of hemorrhages or other tissue changes which could interfere
with inspection procedures.

So, these things are something TO BE considered.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/farmanimals/farm.htm

Symposium on Animal Agriculture and Ethics

http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca/groups/seta/guelph.html

 

[Valmorian]

No, what I am arguing is that we cannot consistently make ethical argument against mistreatment of animals, while simultaneously endorsing the killing of animals.

Well, for the last time I disagree. We can make ethical arguments about for assisted suicide and euthanasia. That is "pro-death", and related to quality of life.

Wow. You have NO CLUE what he was talking about there, and it's painfully obvious. I wonder if Victor will have the patience to try and explain it in yet ANOTHER way? I know I don't.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Valmorian

Wow. You have NO CLUE what he was talking about there, and it's painfully obvious. I wonder if Victor will have the patience to try and explain it in yet ANOTHER way? I know I don't.

i don't think I do, either. Malachi has shown himself no go into his own little world and engage in private rants than have pretty much nothing to do with anything being said. He doesn't understand what he is being told, and apparently doesn't care to understand.

 

[Malachi151]

IIRC a chimera is an imaginary thing, ditto a monster. But let's look at that website a bit more closely.

Well, crossing cattle with buffalo isn't anything to suprised with, since these animals are closely related. Ditto Manchurian and Siberian tigers (wow, tigers breed with tigers!)

However, methinks that many of these hybrids owe more to Photoshop than interbreeding. Or maybe not even that, since many of the hybrids look like conventional breeds of animal.

Oh man, this takes the cake!

You don't even realize that chimer is a biological term?

chimera (biology)
In biology, an organism composed of tissues that are genetically different. Chimeras can develop naturally if a mutation occurs in a cell of a developing embryo, but are more commonly produced artificially by implanting cells from one organism into the embryo of another.

Ligers and tigons

http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

Species are defined as clades of animals that interbreed and are both genetically and anatomically similar. The key word in our use of species here is "interbreed." Since the pipiens and molestus mosquitoes could no longer interbreed, that makes molestus a completely different species from pipiens. This definition of species isn't always very clear, for example, have you ever heard of any of these animals: Liger (lion and tiger, also known as tigon), Wholfon ( psuedo-orca and bottle nose dolphin), Zonkey (zebra and donkey) and Zorse (zebra and horse), Cama (camel and llama), and Chimera (goat and sheep). Still, the species definition is good and applies for the vast majority of cases. The ability to interbreed does not necessarily make them the same species, but not being able to interbreed automatically makes them different species.

Polyploidy & Hybridization

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/hybrids1.htm

Some so-called "hybrid" animals mentioned in news articles are actually chimeras. They are produced by combining genes and cells of two species.

So, we have hybrids which are cross breeds, and chimeras which are genetically engineered, and monsters I believe are animals with transplants from other animals, such as a person with a baboon heart or something.

Race and ethnicity established by genetic testing? Wrong, very wrong, since these terms are indeed arbitrary. Ethnicity depends more on culture than genetics. What genetics can establish, by Y-c'some and mitochondrial analysis, is ancestry.

Codswollop.


Wrong. Scientific American a few months ago:

Here is "a" link, but its not the article I read where they did blind tests and were able determine race, but its a realted article.

"It was chilling," recalls Francis S. Collins, director of the institute. He had not been aware of DNA sequences that could identify race, and it shocked him that the information can be used to investigate crimes. "It stopped the conversation in its tracks."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002A353-C027-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF

Anyway, its really beside the point, the point is that species is a human classifcation, not an natural reality. Two individuals being able to produce offsprice together is a natural reality, but that is one of our arbitrary means how we classify animals.

What about asexual organisms? We obviously can't use that test there can we?

Species is just how we, as humans, group oragisms.

 

[voidx]

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html

The above link, and the accompanying ones about pigs and cattle all contain photo's of dead animals, this in relation to this comment by you:

To my knowledge there were no pictures of dead animals in the links I provided.

I do not objectively take this website as good evidence based upon the fact that it has a clear religious and political agenda. For christs sake, at one point they quote something similar to, "Look at this pig, he is chewing on the steel bar, happy content pigs do not chew on steel bars". Huh? Hell even my kitten chews on everthing from power cords to chair legs to fingers to wood, and he's the most spoiled little snot on the face of the planet. My main issue with this site is basically several things. There is no documentation of why these sites were looked at, when these photo's were taken, where they were taken, what were the circumstances surrounding these particular sites and were these sites in violation of the standards of the time. And what happened to these farms as a result of all the attention they received? Were they fined? Were they convicted of animal cruelty? Were lawsuits launched? We're not told, the only thing we're told is to quit eating livestock as we are contributing to this "evil" by doing so. As mentioned, no one disagree's that these conditions exist, or have existed. But if these photo's are from 10 years ago, and new standards have been put in place since then, then the entire site is pointless.

Once again I'll put forth that the nature of the animals happiness is not the point here, these animals are a food supply, they are domesticated. That does not make it alright to abuse them, but no one has stated that they believe animal abuse and cruelty is ok either. They have argued about the justification of cruelty towards them and how it may be hypocritical in relation to our opinions in other forms of non-human cruelty, but that's different IMO. The main concern is that they are kept in as healthy an environment as possible. For one because yes we should keep them for their sake in as nice an environment as possible for a livestock food supply, but the other reason is also to have a healthy food supply. The article you linked about forced molting again makes this arguement very well, and I could debate and even agree with it based on its scientific merits. It does not argue that the industry should be abolished or is similiar to the holocaust, but rather just argues on improvements, and changed standards to discourage in the articles opinion potentially unhealthy practices used by the industry. Changes and arguements of this kind I can agree with, or at least take seriously as they present proof and research and a real practical solution.

As another example of this let me post the following links (information is older but still has relevance):

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/PIP9.pdf

[url]http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/PIP26.pdf[/URL]

There are many articles regarding poultry on here, as well as practices in california regarding dairy and other cattle. Scientifically and objectively stated articles that show yes in some cases overcrowding poultry in cages (up to 4 hens per cage) while producing a higher mortality rate, also can yield more eggs per hen and reduce feed costs overall. But it also states that depending on margins, this may be too expensive a form of farming for some poultrymen. Also it states that the higher denisty of hens per cage once at a certain level, starts to actually reduce the number of eggs produced per hen, while contributing to slightly higher mortality rates. In essence, producing less eggs per hen, at higher hen loss, therefore biting money out of the farmers bottom line. Hardly incentive to cram as many chickens as possible into one cage for greeds sake. These articles of course should be taken with a grain of salt, their a little old. However at least they state cage dimensions, output, feed costs, mortality rates. None of the horrendous conditions sites mention any of this information. The US humane society didn't link to any sources or documents citing specific cases, just blanket descriptions of why these conditions are bad. But even then, the US humane society links an article describing how the United Egg Producers are trying to take steps to make conditions more humane.

It appears to me from my initial amount of looking around that even as far back as the late 70's research was showing at least in poultry that certain levels of over-crowding resulted in less productivity and was warned against. I haven't been able to check what federal standards on all this stuff are, but it seems they may have been lacking. But I see every indication that there have been improvements, that standards are being updated and that the industry is starting to pay attention. If that is the case, then doesn't it seem rather ridiculous to compare the industry to an animal holocaust that should be abolished, just when your lobbying and scientific analysis is making marked improvements and revising standards for this industry?

Oh and on a sidenote, here's an article regarding hormones, as it pertains to poultry in the state of California at least:

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-PO_BroilerCarePrax.pdf

Hormones are not approved for poultry and are never included in the feed or water of commercial poultry

 

[Malachi151]

The above link, and the accompanying ones about pigs and cattle all contain photo's of dead animals, this in relation to this comment by you:

And that detracts from the assertions how?

I was assuming that he original poster of the remark meant that pictures of animals properly killed wasn't anything to worry about. Like, pictures of animals being slaughtered or having already been processed. To that I meant that the pictures were not about those types of things, insinuating that the imagery was simply exposing the obvious.

Pictures of animals that have died and been left in cages to rot with other animals, how is pictures of that detracting from the argument any?

I do not objectively take this website as good evidence based upon the fact that it has a clear religious and political agenda.

That's fine I just did a google and pulled up something at random w/o spending hours looking for "the best evidence". Its not my job to fully educate everyone here.

So these people that are appalled happen to be very religious, so what? How does that detract from the photos in any way?

Again, what is the argument?

That these pictures are fake because the people taking them are religious nut.

That these pictures are not representative of industry conditions.

That these conditions, even if they are representative don't merit outrage?

My only point is that these are the types of conditions that are being said are inhumane.

Do you agree that these "alleged" conditions are inhumane?

If these conditions are not representative, then great, and I'm sure that they probably are not. However, where these conditions do exist they are problematic. The issue is how common are these conditions, and what is really done to police farms to ensure that these conditions are not present?

Of course you can always say that there is nothing wrong with these conditions.

In addition, this was just one link of about 10 that have been posted in this thread.

Yet, everyone wants to pick on it because it has religious nuts talking in it. Okay, this is a religious nut link, so what, what about the other half dozen or so links, and again, these are just a few random links that posters here have pulled up, its not like this is the full body of evidence or anything, its just an example of the types of conditions that are being discussed.

no one has stated that they believe animal abuse and cruelty is ok either.

This comment is not really directed at you, but yes, it seems that some people are arguing just that.

while producing a higher mortality rate, also can yield more eggs per hen and reduce feed costs overall. But it also states that depending on margins, this may be too expensive a form of farming for some poultrymen.

Yes, exactly, in this case we are talking about animal welfare being dictated by what is most economically viable. Economic viability in no way dictates what is humane. This is why its compared to the Holocaust. The concentration camps in Germany were LABOR CAMPS. They were maintained at levels of economic viability. Economics dictated the conditions, and morals in regard for the lives were taken out of play. As long at the people could do the work needed that was all that mattered. Same goes for the animals, and its why its really a good comparison.

These articles are primarily concerned with optimal production and product quality. Again, that says nothing of quality of life for the animals.

Hormones are not approved for poultry and are never included in the feed or water of commercial poultry

Good info. However antibiotics are, and hormones are used for cows. The antibiotics allow for higher population concentrations. Now, I'm not saying that antibiotics are bad to feed animals, or even that hormones are necessarily.

Again, I've never said that these conditions are common in the industry, I've just said that there is such a thing as inhumane conditons for animals, and that we do have an ethical obligation to treat animals humanely.

Many people have said no, thats not the case.

All I'm saying is that in the examples shows I agree that the conditions are inhumane. If those examples are isolated then all the better.

I also agree that free range farming is more humane then factory farming, and that while not as economically effective I feel its preferable to factory farming because it is more humane. These animals sustain us and provide the food we need to survive, I think they deserve at little bit of respect for that. Thats all. I'm no vegitarian, I eat meat in every meal. I am sure that I eat factory farmed meat too, because its impossible to tell what is what. I do hunt and and I do fish, and I feel that those methods of getting food are more humane and preferable to factory farming, even by industy acceptable standards.

 

[BillyTK]

That's fine.

Sweet!

This is the cut and thrust of my argument, too. Humans making judgements about the natural world and agriculture solely from a human viewpoint, using standards of human comfort and treatment to judge those of animals.

I agree. But the problem with this is the tendency towards a Disney view of the natural world, which I object to.

It was in reference to an earlier point you made, namely:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By human standards, the natural world is completely ammoral, hence the term "jungle law".

I agree; however, my point was that the traits implied when someone is called an animal are not traits we typically see in the natrual world. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition for "animal":

a very cruel, violent, or uncivilized person

Can animals ever be described as cruel, violent or uncivilised in an equivalent way to humans?

Similarly with "the law of the jungle"; sure the natural world is amoral and lawless, but those are human artefacts; the implicit in the term is the notion of survival of the strongest, which is a misunderstanding of Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest, in which fittest means best suited to the environment, not most physically strong.

Have to disagree. The fox certainly wreaks havoc on the henhouse because it was put there by man, but the killer instinct was innate, not provoked by people.

Same idea, different direction; foxes are predators, but it's human activity--in the form of keeping hens in confined spaces--which exacerbates the fox's killer behaviour.

 

[voidx]

The above link, and the accompanying ones about pigs and cattle all contain photo's of dead animals, this in relation to this comment by you:

.

And that detracts from the assertions how?

Never said that it did. I was merely clarifying what was indeed the case.

So these people that are appalled happen to be very religious, so what?

My main point here is just a frustration. I agree the pictures state some horrible conditions, but rather than making a valid point and giving us information about the incident and what we can actively do to help would have been much more effective. Instead we get a bunch of "respect for God's creature and don't eat meat no more" claptrap. My main beef with the site isn't that it is run by religious nuts, its that there's no damned information on what we're looking at. I agree that these are bad cases, and I'd like to see what happened so I can more accurately judge for myself just how much standards may have improved as a result, or how they didn't improve at all.

The issue is how common are these conditions, and what is really done to police farms to ensure that these conditions are not present?

I'm in full agreement. I just simply felt that those 3 links to the all-creatures website were not a very good example of good objective reporting of this problem. So lets agree that this website in particular isn't helping us with information on the above stated quote. The issue you state by the way is precisely what my concern is as well. Its just been hard finding objective information in that regard. Peta isn't a very good source, however the US humane society site seems better, but even it gets sidetracked by articles pushing its "organic" food standards.

Do you agree that these "alleged" conditions are inhumane?

Yes of course. However I still have trouble finding any objective view of just how common this is in the industry, statistics, analysis, anything. If you happen to have a link to a good objective source for this information I'd like to see it just for my own information. I myself am finding it hard to get any clear picture of what these industries as a whole are like aside from individual incidents, which I obviously also agree even if not the norm still need to be dealt with.

Economic viability in no way dictates what is humane.

But it also does not automatically lead to an environment of horrendous inhumane conditions. The links I provided showed lower mortality rates for certain types and dimensions of cages, with lower hen densities for example that still provided comparable income per hen. How do these tested cage conditions compare to industry standard? And from all these groups vying for improved conditions, what proposed cage size and density would be appropriate? Again the information just doesn't seem to be there, although I'd gladly be proven wrong here.

The concentration camps in Germany were LABOR CAMPS. They were maintained at levels of economic viability. Economics dictated the conditions, and morals in regard for the lives were taken out of play. As long at the people could do the work needed that was all that mattered. Same goes for the animals, and its why its really a good comparison.

Oh come on. A domesticated animal, doing what it was domesticated to do in an attempted efficient manner (regardless of whether we agree or not that the efficiency is humane in its practice) is the same thing as previously free peoples doing forced manual labour by an oppressive regime? A chicken in the wild would be mating and laying eggs, same as a free range farm chicken, or a factory chicken, its the conditions that are different. I'm pretty sure jews and homosexuals and the other groups oppressed by the Nazi's would not have been out digging up turnips for 20 hours a day and digging ditches if given a choice. You could perhaps argue the economic viability point for comparison, but anything else is pure sensationlism IMO.

I also agree that free range farming is more humane then factory farming

I'll agree with that, but I also think done properly factory farming could provide a healthy environment for livestock while still remaining economically viable. I'd like to see new research done like that in the links I provided to come up with a compromise between healthy conditions and economic viability for factory farming. While free range would give the livestock more room for freedom of movement, I still think as long as conditions are healthy, and revised minimum amount of space is decided upon, that factory farming can be healthy and humane and personally I would have no problem with it.

 

[Malachi151]

voidx

Okay, I think that you and I at least have reached consensus on this issue, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

The truth is that farming is like any part of life, unfair.

Obviously the amount of food needed is causing these types of farming issues to come up. There is no real way to go back to free range farms for everything, its just not economically viable. There will be some level of suffering by the animals, but its just an issue of minimizing it to a reasonable level.

I still think that genetic engineering holds the most promise, so that we can engineer brainless animals or like someone else said, plants that produce animal proteins, which I image it not far off.

I do think that keeping animals in small pens their whole life is inhumane, even if they are kept physically health and are not physically harmed and, if possible I would choose free range food over animals kept in pens.

 

[voidx]

Agreed. Its a grey area in many ways, and a necessity because of our diets and lifestyle. I'm willing to say fair enough . A minimal amount of animal suffering and discomfort as possible is a reasonable goal.

 

[Cain]

I apologize again for the delay. I really should be finishing a paper, but a few comments cannot go without reply:


Victor first:

I offered the analogy that firefighters would still try to save people from a burning building, even if they couldn't save them all.

Yes; but th epoint is that the firefighters still do their best, even though they may save only a minute proportion of the inhabitants. The limitation here is of ability -- the firefighters are still consistent with their mission. Contrawise, we not merely don't try to protect animals from each other, we actively oppose such attempts. Here the failure to avert the outcome is from lack of trying. This is exactly the hypocrisy -- the fact that you regard human killing animals as unethical, but animals killing animals as not unethical. Had you regarded both unethical, and did your best to protect rabbits from foxes (but only succeeded ion minute percentage of cases, due to inability to do better), your view wouldn't be hypocritical.

You're use of the term "unethical" is vague. As I've maintained, animals (including some humans) are not moral agents, so their own actions cannot be regarded as unethical. Now, animals can act in ways that cause suffering to humans and each other and this is morally significant. As I've said previously, Victor, if we could intervene in the affairs of animals in the wild to cause less suffering, then we should. But, at the moment, this is an unachieavable goal (and just because it's unachievable does not undermine the ethical point: reducing suffering to a minimum).

And stop using the word "hypocrisy" as though it's going out of style.

I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans.

Your comments have been vague at best. I asked for a non-arbitrary moral criterion and you pointed to two intellectual accomplishments. So what level of "emotional advancement and awareness" is necessary? Would comparing the intellectual and emotional capabilities of a chimp to an infant work? Why should privilege the human infant over the chimp?

I have never claimed that cruelty to animals was justifiable. I have made the point that animal cruelty has no place whatsoever in the meat industry. My other point is that the conditions animals are farmed in are not cruel, since the people making these claims are judging these conditions from a human, rather than the animals perspective.

Yes, apparently animals don't like to turn around in their pins, enjoy fresh air, or do much anything other than sit and get fat

I can't open the video links, but as I've said the photo links are nothing new to me. Reas also what I said about standards of proof.

...
Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claimng to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

Earlier you spoke of "odious" comparisons. This is a perfect example. Instead of bothering to even download the software to view the videos, you just spout nonsense over claims of alien abductions and spoon-bending. Yes, yes, I suppose the videos I linked -- which, again, you never viewed -- was completely faked. A pig didn't have its head smashed with a cinder block. They weren't beaten and a throat wasn't slashed.



I don't have Eisnitz's book at the moment, but Scully recounts a passage dealing with the slaughterhouse:

"Does it ever happen," she asked a fellow named Nathan Price, a worker for Carolina Foods, "that hogs aren't properly stunned?"
"All the time," Price laughed. "Because if you're killing 16,000 hogs a shift, those guys aren't going to stun all them hogs all the time. Some hogs come out kicking and raising hell."
"Is kicking the only sign that they're not stunned properly?"
"Running across the table or floor isn't a good sign neither. See, they use this four-pronged stunner. And if you don't hit that hog precisely, that hog runs across the table."
At this point you'd almost that some mighty instinct would make them charge the throat slasher, the sooner to escape a world that never gave them anything but hurt, but they don't, they still want to live, and so, as Mr. Price explained, they have to be chased and beaten. There are beatings? asked Ms. Eisnitz. "That's all the time. You get a stubborn hog that doesn't want to go, employees can get to beating that hog all they want to. They use a shackle, a pipe, anything they can get their hands on."
...
These mistakes, we're assured, happen with but a slight fraction of the totla hogs slaughtered every year. Yet every year, just in America, 103 million pigs are slaughtered, and what is a fraction of that? Supposing the very minmum of 1 percent, that's more than a million right there, 3,550 creatures condemned every day, today, to this most merciless of deaths.

Undercover reporters for the New York Times, Washington Post, and other papers have described the abuses: "...Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, 'they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'"

Here's the entry on Factory Farms from everything2 (a pretty cool site):

A factory farm is a large scale livestock production system optimized for production of a single commodity. Factory farms tend to discount non-monetary "externalities" such as animal rights, nutritional quality, energy efficiency, environmental&integrity, rural community, and public health. Although opposition to these methods is widespread, it survives partly because of the refusal of the consumer to take responsiblily for what their money funds.

And it makes perfect economic sense to confine pigs to the smallest possible pins. It saves space and deprives of them of exercise.


Factory farms are worse, of course. But let's follow the line of reasoning over economic advantage. Scully discusses ISE America (an ironic acryonym for International Standard Excellence), which was "convicted of cruelly discarding live chickens in trash cans." They had six employees overseeing 1.2 million hens, and the company's lawyer initially argued that these birds were trash.

"Kevin M. Hahn (attorney): we contend, your Honor, that clearly my client meets the requirements [of the law]. Clearly it's a commercial farm. And clearly the handling of chickens, and how chickens are discarded, falls into agricultural management practices of my client. And we've had -- we'vel itgated this issue before in this county with respect to my client and how it handles manure..."
"The Court: Isn't there a big distinction between manure and live animals?"
Hahn: "No, Your Honor. Because the Right to Farm Act protects us in the operation of our farm and all the agricultural management practices employed by our farm."

--------------------------------------------------------------

It is demonstrable that Mao did not heed the science of his time. As a simple example, killing sparrows to save grain was stupid and the likely impact was known before his "war on the sparrows".
To assume that the Chinese would continue to ignore science in seeking remedies to problems of food is to believe that the Chinese are incapable of learning from Mao's many mistakes. While I think anecdotal mistakes are possible in today's China, I doubt that any leader ignores science wholesale the way Mao did.

*sigh* You offered an a priori argument -- i.e. it makes sense that China would implement a scientifically sound agricultural policy to feed all of its people. As I said, the same could be applied at Mao's time. I said earlier that cereals produce 5 times more protein per acre than livestock. Well legumes produce ten times more; leafy vegetables 15 times more. (these are averages from _Diet for a Small Planet_).

Again, from Dominion on ethically sane China:
"I think for a example of some wrenching footage aired in late 1998 the NBC news program Dateline docuemnting the use of some two million cats and dogs a year by chinese fur manufacturers for export mostly to the WEst. Filmed by undercover agents for the Humane Society of the United States, on the video we saw the dogs tied down while being skinned alive, whimpering for mercy, actually licking the head of the skinner, and the cats stuffed into little cagtes, huddled in terror as one after another was strangled to death -- literally noosed and hung inside the cage, this to avoid bleeding or other damage to the fur."
(to say nothing of the bear farms).

The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten.

The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten (probably eaten while they are alive) shortly after they are born.

Animals that don't die from predation will likely die of starvation or the elements.

Without current domestication policies, millions and millions of animals wouldn't exist. What, eight billion chickens are killed every year? 103 million pigs slaughtered in the US alone? Those are ridiculous figures -- and fully preventable. Yes, we can't stop animals from killing each other (just as we cannot stop humans from murdering one another). That's a misguided non-argument, however.

 

[Malachi151]

What is interresting is some people's desire to defend these practises.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
Your comments have been vague at best.

Over your head, perhaps. Vague, I don't think so. I mean, what part of the statement "Animal Welfare is central to meat production do you find vague?

I asked for a non-arbitrary moral criterion and you pointed to two intellectual accomplishments.

You offered as a statement of fact the line that "abuse and atrocities" against animals were endemic in the meat industry. Until you offer supporting evidence for this you're in no position to ask me or anyone else for anything in this debate.

So what level of "emotional advancement and awareness" is necessary?

I never claimed any level of emotional or intellectual advacnement was a prerequisite for ethical treatment. However these are vital factors when considering "happiness". I've heard it said that happiness is 95% perception and 5% reality. In which case how an animal percieves it's surroundings and situation is of utmost importance, as is our ability to percieve and interpret those surroundings from an uniquely human viewpoint.

Yes, apparently animals don't like to turn around in their pins, enjoy fresh air, or do much anything other than sit and get fat

Your evidence for this is? Do animals get to turn around in their pins? Do they need to? Do they fail to get fresh air? Would they "enjoy" it in any case?

Earlier you spoke of "odious" comparisons. This is a perfect example. Instead of bothering to even download the software to view the videos, you just spout nonsense over claims of alien abductions and spoon-bending.

I made a pertinent point. I could also view videos of Uri Geller bending spoon using his psychic abilities, or alien corpses being dissected in Area 51. Just because something is on video doesn't make it factual.

Yes, yes, I suppose the videos I linked -- which, again, you never viewed -- was completely faked.

It's a distinct possibility.

A pig didn't have its head smashed with a cinder block. They weren't beaten and a throat wasn't slashed.

They weren't, or at least they shouldn't have been, because it just doesn't make any sense. I'll refer back to my earleir links; Humane pre-slaughter handling and slughtering methods are absolutely vital from an economic sense. Smashing a pig's head head off a cinder block is a very innefficient way to slaughter it. It affects meat quality and is more than consuming than stunning or gassing with carbon monoxide. Pig's throats are slashed after initial stunning, to kill the animal and remove the blood. At this stage, the animal is no longer sentient.

"These mistakes, we're assured, happen with but a slight fraction of the totla hogs slaughtered every year. Yet every year, just in America, 103 million pigs are slaughtered, and what is a fraction of that? Supposing the very minmum of 1 percent, that's more than a million right there, 3,550 creatures condemned every day, today, to this most merciless of deaths.

I'm not denying that slaughter methods aren't 100% foolproof, but then what is? That being said, the above is heresay, and doesn't come up to the requisite standard of proof. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, a detailed study giving a reliable approximation is a different thing altogether. Look at Jayson Blair.

Undercover reporters for the New York Times, Washington Post, and other papers have described the abuses: "...Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, 'they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'"

Crap. If they killed people they'd be in jail or on death row. This is anecdotal evidence. I'd like to see employment records for the companies in question.

A factory farm is a large scale livestock production system optimized for production of a single commodity.

And?

Factory farms tend to discount non-monetary "externalities" such as animal rights, nutritional quality, energy efficiency, environmental&integrity, rural community, and public health. Although opposition to these methods is widespread, it survives partly because of the refusal of the consumer to take responsiblily for what their money funds.

Even more assertions. What about evidence?

And it makes perfect economic sense to confine pigs to the smallest possible pins. It saves space and deprives of them of exercise.

Says who? How many times do I have to say it "IT MAKES PERFECT ECONOMIC SENSE TO TREAT LIVESTOCK WITH THE UTMOST CONCERN FOR THEIR WELFARE"