Life on the farm isn't what it used to be.

[LMagic007]

Life on the farm isn't what it used to be.

Eye opening video here, regardless of ones view.

Prevent Animal Cruelty by Adopting a Vegetarian Diet | ChooseVeg.com

By the way, I have no affiliation with this site and am not suggesting people be vegetarian. I was looking at a Solar Energy story link referred to from The Env Site and this other site had this presentation on animal cruelty on it and I thought it was note worthy.

[Cricket Tragic]

I haven't watched the video, but it depends what you mean by cruelty to animals. If eating animals is cruel, we have been doing it for thousands of years, so life on the farm is not much different to what it used to be. If you mean keeping animals in sheds, rather than free range, again we have been doing it for thousands of years in places where the winters are severe and the animals would likely die if left outside. Large operations just have more animals in a smaller area now.

So where does cruelty to animals start or finish? Is it cruel to keep bees for honey? Is it cruel to kill parasites?

I think there are practices where animals are cruely treated that we can all agree with, but if animals are well fed, protected from predators and diseases and then are killed for food, is this more or less cruel than letting the animals fend for themselves?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

I haven't watched the video, but it depends what you mean by cruelty to animals. If eating animals is cruel, we have been doing it for thousands of years, so life on the farm is not much different to what it used to be. If you mean keeping animals in sheds, rather than free range, again we have been doing it for thousands of years in places where the winters are severe and the animals would likely die if left outside. Large operations just have more animals in a smaller area now.

So where does cruelty to animals start or finish? Is it cruel to keep bees for honey? Is it cruel to kill parasites?

I think there are practices where animals are cruely treated that we can all agree with, but if animals are well fed, protected from predators and diseases and then are killed for food, is this more or less cruel than letting the animals fend for themselves?

Firstly please don't misrepresent me. I don't mean anything by "cruelty" as I have not expressed a view on that. I did not say the video depiction was in my view a depiction of acts of animal cruelty, what I did say was that it was a "presentation on animal cruelty" which it is, as that is clearly the intended meaning of the video. Whether one agrees or not with the scenes depicted in the video as depicting cruelty, is a completely different matter. Clearly some scenes may appear more cruel than others. The perceived degree of cruelty is clearly subjective. I have not expressed an opinion of what constitutes "cruelty" What I will say is like many things, it's a subjective determination, commonly held or otherwise.

[Cricket Tragic]

Firstly, I didn’t misrepresent you. I didn’t state that you had any particular position on animal cruelty at all. However, as you had posted a video link from a fairly extreme vegetarian organisation and stated it was “note worthy” this is a fair indication to me that you were not just presenting this video as something to chuckle at. I merely then asked some questions, because I know there is a fair range in attitudes. As I stated, I consider some activities that go on as cruel; however, being intimately associated with agricultural industries, I know that cruelty is counter productive because it reduces growth rates and quality of the carcase. I have also spent enough time in the real world to realise this video will contain the worst events they could find (some may even have been staged) and presented these as normal practice.

Of course the video will depict cruelty, because it is propaganda. I don’t have to watch it to know that. If there is a specific practice you want to raise do so, but I see no reason to download a pile of propaganda to my computer on spec.

If you are not going to have an opinion about the material that you post, why bother posting it in the first place? If you are too frightened to express an opinion because you might be wrong, go off and do some proper research.

Oh and by the way, cutting out the repetition in your posts and writing tidier sentences will make your posts easier to follow.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

Firstly, I didn’t misrepresent you. I didn’t state that you had any particular position on animal cruelty at all. However, as you had posted a video link from a fairly extreme vegetarian organisation and stated it was “note worthy” this is a fair indication to me that you were not just presenting this video as something to chuckle at. I merely then asked some questions, because I know there is a fair range in attitudes. As I stated, I consider some activities that go on as cruel; however, being intimately associated with agricultural industries, I know that cruelty is counter productive because it reduces growth rates and quality of the carcase. I have also spent enough time in the real world to realise this video will contain the worst events they could find (some may even have been staged) and presented these as normal practice.

It really doesn't depend on what I mean by cruelty as you put it, as I was not expressing a view on what constitutes cruelty. The video caught my eye when looking at another story and I admit I did find it somewhat eye opening. Whether one thinks of the video as propaganda or otherwise is ones choice. The video essentially depicts various animal processing methods for food production, that evidently some people have firm views about. To be best placed to make a reasonable comment about the notion of such a video or any other information being propaganda, I would think one might best view the video or information in question, though I can understand why one might not wish to view it. I note your views offer a context of their own. I accept that your comments don't necessarily represent the video. I think some might say the food industry also engages in its fair share of propaganda. Horses for courses really.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

Of course the video will depict cruelty, because it is propaganda. I don’t have to watch it to know that. If there is a specific practice you want to raise do so, but I see no reason to download a pile of propaganda to my computer on spec.

Again your opinion on what's propaganda and whether that constitutes a problem in terms of credibility, but still the intended meaning of the post was about the video. I don't believe that just because something has been done over time, it's necessarily desirable on that basis, but yes comparatively speaking if it can be shown that cruelty may be minimized by best practice management, then one might form a more convincing argument.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

If you are not going to have an opinion about the material that you post, why bother posting it in the first place? If you are too frightened to express an opinion because you might be wrong, go off and do some proper research.

There is no fear of expressing a view, nor need their be, however I have simply yet to form a firm view and there is no reasonable argument that says someone should have a firm opinion on anything before commenting on it.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It really doesn't depend on what I mean by cruelty as you put it, as I was not expressing a view on what constitutes cruelty. The video caught my eye when looking at another story and I admit I did find it somewhat eye opening. Whether one thinks of the video as propaganda or otherwise is ones choice. The video essentially depicts various animal processing methods for food production, that evidently some people have firm views about. To be best placed to make a reasonable comment about the notion of such a video or any other information being propaganda, I would think one might best view the video or information in question, though I can understand why one might not wish to view it. I note your views offer a context of their own. I accept that your comments don't necessarily represent the video. I think some might say the food industry also engages in its fair share of propaganda. Horses for courses really.

You really don’t get it do you? 1) You post a video from an extreme organization stating it was “note worthy”. 2) Said video is propaganda; its contents are easily predictable because the agenda of the organization is well known. 3) You have achieved exactly what chooseveg wanted, distributed their video to a wider audience. In essence, you have acted as their agent.

OK, what strikes me as odd here is that you essentially act as the agent of an extreme organization and then deny having any opinion on the matter. If you have acted as their agent unwittingly, I will simply describe you as naïve.

The main point of my original comments was a criticism of the implied point from the title that life on the farm was once better for animals than it is now. This is simply untrue. Unless you consider being underfed, left out in all weathers open to attack from predators and disease and then killed and eaten is better than being well fed, protected from the weather and disease and then killed and eaten.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Again your opinion on what's propaganda and whether that constitutes a problem in terms of credibility, but still the intended meaning of the post was about the video. I don't believe that just because something has been done over time, it's necessarily desirable on that basis, but yes comparatively speaking if it can be shown that cruelty may be minimized by best practice management, then one might form a more convincing argument.

I might respond to this if I could work out what point you are making.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

There is no fear of expressing a view, nor need their be, however I have simply yet to form a firm view and there is no reasonable argument that says someone should have a firm opinion on anything before commenting on it.

Well, that is an odd way of proceeding. However, you did have an opinion as you described the video as “note worthy”, which I would consider counts as an endorsement. Are you saying you have changed your mind?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

You really don’t get it do you? 1) You post a video from an extreme organization stating it was “note worthy”. 2) Said video is propaganda; its contents are easily predictable because the agenda of the organization is well known. 3) You have achieved exactly what chooseveg wanted, distributed their video to a wider audience. In essence, you have acted as their agent.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

Actually, I posed the question of whether one thinks it's propaganda and whether that is of importance. Whether anyone thinks it is or isn't is their choice. Just because something is seen as propaganda on its own, does not automatically diminish its significance. The fact that you see it the way you do, is just a reflection of your view.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

OK, what strikes me as odd here is that you essentially act as the agent of an extreme organization and then deny having any opinion on the matter. If you have acted as their agent unwittingly, I will simply describe you as naïve.

Your choice to see it that way. I disagree. Describe me however you wish, I thought it would be of interest, regardless of ones view. If anyone thinks it's nonsense, so be it, though I suspect there will be a range of views some of which wont reflect your own.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

The main point of my original comments was a criticism of the implied point from the title that life on the farm was once better for animals than it is now. This is simply untrue. Unless you consider being underfed, left out in all weathers open to attack from predators and disease and then killed and eaten is better than being well fed, protected from the weather and disease and then killed and eaten.

As I acknowledged, where best practice is applied, you might have a plausible point to offer on that aspect. Clearly there are cases of good management and bad. Evidently it seems the video highlights "the bad". As I indicated, one can find food production corporations doing similar, but focusing on "the good" each to their own view on that.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

I might respond to this if I could work out what point you are making. Well, that is an odd way of proceeding. However, you did have an opinion as you described the video as “note worthy”, which I would consider counts as an endorsement. Are you saying you have changed your mind?

No my note worthy remark, is not an endorsement of the video content being balanced. Clearly the video is pushing a certain viewpoint, which I fully acknowledge. My remarks could be viewed as an endorsement that the video is worth a look, from which point one could form their own view. There is no obligation to view the video at all, nor agree with its content in whatever context you choose. If one has seen the video and one thinks it's biased, so be it. Welcome to the world of opinion.

The issue is not just about making points. If my answer does not satisfy you, I can't help you. In essence though, I saw the video, it showed things I had not seen before. Yes it was a bit disturbing. I thought perhaps others besides yourself, might like to view the video or part of it. Clearly you don't think much of it in terms of credibility, though I suspect there are others that might look at least some of the video and form their own view just like yourself, which may not necessarily be in alignment with yours. Thus if there is a point to linking the video, that is the point. It's open for public discussion and expression of opinion. Glad to see you have expressed yours. Well done.

[Cricket Tragic]

Egads, it is like having a discussion with Humpty Dumpty. “'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'”

So you said the video was note worthy, but you didn’t really mean it was note worthy, what you meant was that it might be of interest, to some people, perhaps. You don’t think it is propaganda, regardless of its provenance; or maybe you do, it is hard to tell. I challenged you early on to do some research on the situation. If this video depicts normal practice it is accurate. If it is a highlights reel of the worst observable and/or staged events masquerading as normal practice, it is propaganda. It is really as easy as that to sort out.

For future reference: From Webster’s Dictionary:

worthy of or attracting attention especially because of some special excellence

I am not all that interested in whether you do or don’t want to express an opinion about the video. That is a matter for you, although I would hope you would attempt to make an informed decision when you do. I do object to organisations like chooseveg using emotional blackmail to make their point. If their point was valid, it would be self-evident and there would be little need for this. But that is after all my opinion and others may be quite happy to be blackmailed in this way.

What I was really objected to was you stating that I was misrepresenting you. Perhaps you were after all right, when you start creating new meanings of words in the English language it is hard for people used to the common ones not to misunderstand what you say.

And I note that you conflated two of my paragraphs when you quoted me, implying I meant something I did not say.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

Egads, it is like having a discussion with Humpty Dumpty. “'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'”

Irrelevant degradation of the topic. Not worthy of further comment.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

So you said the video was note worthy, but you didn’t really mean it was note worthy, what you meant was that it might be of interest, to some people, perhaps. You don’t think it is propaganda, regardless of its provenance; or maybe you do, it is hard to tell. I challenged you early on to do some research on the situation. If this video depicts normal practice it is accurate. If it is a highlights reel of the worst observable and/or staged events masquerading as normal practice, it is propaganda. It is really as easy as that to sort out.

What I meant was what I said, nothing more nothing less. I said I thought it note worthy and I still do. Misrepresentative statements only weaken your argument. I have not said it is or isn't propaganda. Propaganda or otherwise though, so be it. Clearly animal cruelty is an issue of public interest. The video was posted for those interested. Of course it depicts acts that may be considered cruel, but then perhaps not to you. It may not represent every case, but its evident to me that animal cruelty however one sees it, exists in varying forms to varying degrees. If you don't like it, so be it. Though clearly based on your if supposition, it appears you don't know with certainty either to what degree the video might be deemed propaganda. Of course also your view on what that constitutes, may differ from the next person. So really that's a futile line of argument to persist with.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

I am not all that interested in whether you do or don’t want to express an opinion about the video. That is a matter for you, although I would hope you would attempt to make an informed decision when you do. I do object to organisations like chooseveg using emotional blackmail to make their point. If their point was valid, it would be self-evident and there would be little need for this. But that is after all my opinion and others may be quite happy to be blackmailed in this way.

Of course just your opinion. Plenty of organizations use emotional blackmail every day in advertising and spend vastly greater amounts of money in the process. Even governments use emotional blackmail. Here's for emotional blackmail. Hip Hip.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

What I was really objected to was you stating that I was misrepresenting you. Perhaps you were after all right, when you start creating new meanings of words in the English language it is hard for people used to the common ones not to misunderstand what you say. And I note that you conflated two of my paragraphs when you quoted me, implying I meant something I did not say.

I believe you have misrepresented some of my statements, you may think otherwise. So be it. As I said, the video is there for those that want to view it and they can form whatever view they want about it, just as you have. Good to see you expressing your freedom of speech. Well done.

[screener]

I don't have a computer and/or connection fast enough to download videos, Could each of you outline some of the scenes of animal cruelty portrayed. I'ld like to compare this to some of the Canadian farm/feedlot situations. thanks