dagblog - Comments for "It is mischief to hold a mirror up to ugly"

And inch by inch, you end up

CVille Dem — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:14:28 +0000

In reply to maybe we'll see more farm

And inch by inch, you end up with Donald Trump

maybe we'll see more farm

jollyroger — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:09:46 +0000

In reply to The problem with no

maybe we'll see more farm/consumer co-ops. I'd go 2/dozen if they let the hens turn around...

The problem with no

ocean-kat — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 20:05:44 +0000

In reply to Slippery slope alert:

The problem with no regulation is it becomes a race to the bottom. On farmer decides if he can reduce the size of the cage by an inch he can get one more pig in a warehouse. What's an inch, meaningless. Then the next one decides that 2 inches means 2 more pigs. etc. That's the real slippery slope of unregulated capitalism.

Slippery slope alert:

jollyroger — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:37:06 +0000

In reply to It is mischief to hold a mirror up to ugly

Slippery slope alert: Massachusetts Ballot Question 3 would mandate "turn around" room (quelle luxe!) and there go my dollar a dozen jumbo eggs...

Massachusetts isn’t a large producer of eggs or meat, but animal-rights groups and national trade associations are paying close attention to the state this year. Question 3 on the ballot would require giving farm animals enough space to lie down, stand up, extend their limbs and turn around — essentially banning inhumane confined animal feeding operations. Proponents don’t think that is asking for much, but opponents insist it would substantially raise egg prices because farms from outside the state would have to comply if they wished to import and sell their products in Massachusetts. The Humane Society of the United States has poured more than a million dollars into the “yes” campaign, and if the measure passes, it could soon show up on ballots in other states.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/election-2016-ballot-init...

Claro.

jollyroger — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:22:54 +0000

In reply to I'm all in favor of limiting

Claro.

I suspect that it would mean the end of one of my favorite meat transactions, the purchase of boneless pork loin at $2.00/lb (which is my universally applied standard for advantageously priced meat--anything 2 bucks or under is good, perhaps an unconscious homage to Two Buck Chuck.

I think that as a "price conscious" consumer I am the problem here, not the solution.

Yes, one certainly can

jollyroger — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:18:21 +0000

In reply to The possibility of anything

Yes, one certainly can concede that--It does sorta, however, make inevitable the suggestion, "Hey, farmers, if you don't want Anita to give water to your thirsty pigs, do it your own damn selves!"

To which their rejoinder that it would kill their profits to incur the expense thereof brings us back to factory farming in general.

I don't know if I any longer believe in the possibility of ameliorating the suffering to an "acceptable" level, even as I wrestle with the concept of "acceptable suffering".

I'm all in favor of limiting

ocean-kat — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:41:52 +0000

In reply to Of interest, the driver

I'm all in favor of limiting the amount of miles live animals can be transported for slaughter as well as much higher standards for the conditions in which they are raised and killed.

The possibility of anything

barefooted — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:37:31 +0000

In reply to Of interest, the driver

The possibility of anything at all being given to the animals by "civilians" is problematic - since they are to be slaughtered for their meat, and the FDA being particular about that sort of thing - and could lead to all sorts of serious consequences for the farmer.

Of interest, the driver

jollyroger — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:15:21 +0000

In reply to Many animals get sick on the

Of interest, the driver testified that the pigs get water before and after but not during travel.

OTOH, the charging documents seem to make a big deal out of the possibility that something other than water is being given...

I think the larger question still obtains, viz, if we cannot slaughter locally (the opposite of factory farming, I guess), and must haul the animals miles to their death, does that stand as one more way in which the attempt to deliver low cost meat is bound to produce extra suffering.

Many animals get sick on the

ocean-kat — Sat, 29 Oct 2016 22:40:32 +0000

In reply to It is mischief to hold a mirror up to ugly

Many animals get sick on the road if they eat or drink. Some animals are smart enough to learn this, some aren't. My dog will not eat and only drinks sparingly when I take her to town. I usually buy a roasted chicken at walmarts for lunch and she will not eat any. Even though chicken is her favorite food. When we get home she gobbles it up. Animals aren't fed or watered on the road so they don't get sick and to limit the amount of pissing and shitting they do in the truck.

I'm all in favor of much more humane treatment of animals. But there are reasons animals are not fed or watered during transport.