European Farmers Must Keep their Pigs Emotionally Happy

[Infohawk]

nm

 

[Throckmorton]

Is straw free? I don't think so. You're arguing in degrees against a categorical statement, so you're simply wrong.

The increase to the cost is virtually nothing.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's similar,but not the same. They do not have the same brain, even if things are similar, so they can not possibly be the same. Not to mention what worth is an emotion if the animal doesn't actually comprehend what it feels? I am not condoning the poor treatment of animals, I just think this whole emotion/feelings bullshit when it comes to animals is just projection and it's stupid.

Individuals have different brains, yet we acknowledge that every person feels pain (except those with some disorder that prevents them).

We know that pain causes suffering to all animals, by definition. That's the point of pain, to cause suffering and cause the animal to react to preserve its life.

They've probably studied pigs very closely to conclude that they become bored when they don't have an environment they can manipulate.

 

[lothar]

So you don't believe in animal welfare. I don't really want to debate animal welfare laws here. Most Americans support them. My issue is with people that think only pets deserve animal welfare protection because it's inconsistent in my opinion. If you don't think any animals deserve animal welfare protection you're consistent even if I don't agree with you.


I do and I'm sure a lot of other people do too. And the goal of those devices is not to torture but to control.

You have to first define what you mean by "animal welfare" so I know exactly what it means or what your own definition of it means.
Not torturing them? Well, this is easy for anyone to understand.
Endangered species protection? Well again, this is easy for anyone to understand.
Keeping animals emotionally happy? <----------What the hell does this mean and how will it be measured?

If the dog you tortured isn't yours and the owner is against pressing any charges or punishment, do you believe the government should proceed with lawsuits/prison sentences against the animal owner's wishes? What degree of animal welfare would this be? I'm sure everyone believes in "some" degree of animal welfare, the question one has to answer is to what extent? If one really believes in "ultimate" animal protection then that person would probably believe in prison sentences(or death penalty even) for the criminal that inflicted the torture regardless of whatever the agreement that takes place between the criminal and the owner.

We don't know if the person that inflicted the torture came to the owner and said "I'm sorry I did that to your dog, won't happen again" with the owner responding "no problem man, just make sure something like this NEVER happens again". If another had owner responded differently in this situation and said "no problem man, just make sure you compensate me for the medical bills" then the answer should not be any different in this equation. The point is the owner and the person that tortured the animal are in agreement.

I see that we're in general agreement on shock collars and electric fences and it's refreshing to see that you have a problem with it like I do, but I'm a bit confused by the last sentence.
Since this thread is about keeping animals emotionally happy, do you believe a dog kept within an electric fence or with a shock collar would be more emotionally happy than one kept without or one put on a long leash? If you were a politician, how would you balance this act? You say the goal of those products isn't to torture animals, but to control them, and you also mentioned that you agree with my position about those devices.
Would you completely ban them since the dog would be emotionally unhappy? Would you completely allow them because the goal isn't to torture animals, but to control them? or would you come to a middle ground and say "allow the use of those devices on certain breeds such as pitbulls and rottweilers but ban them on all other breeds"?

 

[CycloWizard]

The increase to the cost is virtually nothing.

How much is it then? How much straw do we have to give to each animal to placate you? How much will this raise the final price of meat? One cent per pound? Ten? How much is too much? How much farmland will have to be repurposed to grow straw to feed this new market? What will you do to people who don't provide what you deem an adequate amount of straw to their pigs? And, last but not least, can you show that it will in any way benefit the animals or produce better food?

 

[BeauJangles]

Straw costs money, increasing the price of raising animals, increasing the cost of food. This is the drawback of every regulation: it increases the price of the regulated product. This increased burden is obviously felt the most by the poorest.

That's simply untrue. Government regulation is actually one of the things that is propping up the industrial meat-producing system we have in place today. The cost of straw is also minuscule compared to the other things that are done to these animals so that they "survive" the meat-creation process.

My issue is with people that think only pets deserve animal welfare protection because it's inconsistent in my opinion.

This. I have no problem with killing and eating animals. I do have a problem when the animals and the workers that work around them, or with them, are abused or exploited.

 

[CycloWizard]

That's simply untrue. Government regulation is actually one of the things that is propping up the industrial meat-producing system we have in place today.

How's that exactly? How is regulation supporting the industry?

The cost of straw is also minuscule compared to the other things that are done to these animals so that they "survive" the meat-creation process.

You made the same assertions as Throckmorton, so I'll ask you exactly the same questions:

How much is it then? How much straw do we have to give to each animal to placate you? How much will this raise the final price of meat? One cent per pound? Ten? How much is too much? How much farmland will have to be repurposed to grow straw to feed this new market? What will you do to people who don't provide what you deem an adequate amount of straw to their pigs? And, last but not least, can you show that it will in any way benefit the animals or produce better food?

 

[Infohawk]

You have to first define what you mean by "animal welfare" so I know exactly what it means or what your own definition of it means.
Not torturing them? Well, this is easy for anyone to understand.
Endangered species protection? Well again, this is easy for anyone to understand.
Keeping animals emotionally happy? <----------What the hell does this mean and how will it be measured?

All of these are fairly abstract principles, actually. People disagree on what constitutes endangered and what constitutes torture too. It doesn't mean we can't pass laws about all of them.

Since this thread is about keeping animals emotionally happy, do you believe a dog kept within an electric fence or with a shock collar would be more emotionally happy than one kept without or one put on a long leash?

I would listen to the experts while leaning towards making them illegal.

If you were a politician, how would you balance this act? You say the goal of those products isn't to torture animals, but to control them, and you also mentioned that you agree with my position about those devices.
Would you completely ban them since the dog would be emotionally unhappy? Would you completely allow them because the goal isn't to torture animals, but to control them? or would you come to a middle ground and say "allow the use of those devices on certain breeds such as pitbulls and rottweilers but ban them on all other breeds"?

Dude, where are you going with this? Are you interested about this specific issue? Or are you trying to point out some inconsistency that you think I have?

 

[gaidensensei]

It's similar,but not the same. They do not have the same brain, even if things are similar, so they can not possibly be the same. Not to mention what worth is an emotion if the animal doesn't actually comprehend what it feels? I am not condoning the poor treatment of animals, I just think this whole emotion/feelings bullshit when it comes to animals is just projection and it's stupid.

I can find something that I think you would agree holds the same across for a majority of animals. Just about each species understands fear if or when pain is present. Touch an ant, it starts speeding up multiple times its normal pace. Run towards a bird, it takes off. Walk towards a fish, it'll swim away. Yell at the family dog, it may cower under the table. Walk with a stick towards pigs that get beat, it'll probably squeal.

Humans unequivocally share the same feelings of anxiety and fear. The only difference is that we can rationalize to control what we fear, which is a completely different topic.

Straw is cheap, it is grown en masse on the eastern USA in abundant supply, enough for some people so that it can last a long time. If it's the least to treat some pigs to have some fun at the expense of pennies per pig, it should not matter too much!

 

[Throckmorton]

How's that exactly? How is regulation supporting the industry?

You made the same assertions as Throckmorton, so I'll ask you exactly the same questions:

How much is it then? How much straw do we have to give to each animal to placate you? How much will this raise the final price of meat? One cent per pound? Ten? How much is too much? How much farmland will have to be repurposed to grow straw to feed this new market? What will you do to people who don't provide what you deem an adequate amount of straw to their pigs? And, last but not least, can you show that it will in any way benefit the animals or produce better food?

If I had to guess I'd say less than 1 cent per pound. If you think straw adds a significant amount to the cost of pork, it's probably because you're unfamiliar with livestock.

 

[lothar]

All of these are fairly abstract principles, actually. People disagree on what constitutes endangered and what constitutes torture too. It doesn't mean we can't pass laws about all of them.


I would listen to the experts while leaning towards making them illegal.


Dude, where are you going with this? Are you interested about this specific issue? Or are you trying to point out some inconsistency that you think I have?

Yes, I am. I'm interested in what they mean by happiness and how they plan to measure it. The straw requirement is essentially nothing. Every farmer should easily be able to provide that.

Nope.
I'm just trying to let you know that things are not as clear cut and dry as you seem to think they are.
You came to the conclusion that I didn't care about animal welfare when that is not the case. I support animal welfare to "some" degree.
The only person I know who doesn't support that to any degree at all based on responses so far in this thread is Spidey.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, I am. I'm interested in what they mean by happiness and how they plan to measure it. The straw requirement is essentially nothing. Every farmer should easily be able to provide that.

Happiness can't be measured perfect in humans either. I think some common sense and empathy would go along way. The fact that you agree with the hay exemplifies that.

You came to the conclusion that I didn't care about animal welfare when that is not the case. I support animal welfare to "some" degree.

Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else but it seems to me your only concern with animals is that they are someone's property. (I mean you started out with the car window example.) Properties rights in animals have always been around. That's not real animal welfare. Animal welfare is premised on the idea that an animal has some limited rights outside of any human's interest. Again, you can correct me if I'm wrong but your car window analogy tells me you see animals merely as physical objects.

So sure it's a matter of degree if you say, "I think animals deserve hay but no toys in their pen" but it's not a matter of degree if you say, "you are only prohibited from injuring animals that belong to other humans."

 

[werepossum]

My first impulse is to make fun of this touchy feeley law like the good right winger I am. However - I have been around pigs, and pigs are damned intelligent as animals go. Much more so than dogs. I had a neighbor that had a pet pig, several hundred pounds of pet pig, and it was pretty smart. And it played like a dog, too. And while pigs do like to be in contact with other pigs, no animals like to be forced into close contact, with no choice - that's stressful. Forcing the animals we use to exist in squalid, stressful conditions is not humane, so I'll support the law. Give the pig some straw, something to root around in and manipulate, and a bit of room to move around. The West collectively is quite rich, so I think we can afford it.

EDIT: I'll also say that while I do not believe animals have rights per se, we do have responsibilities to G-d on their behalf. So while we have no moral responsibility to stop a wolf from ripping a deer's stomach open and eating it as it screams, we do have a moral responsibility to not do the same ourselves. And personally I'll pay another 10 or 20 percent for meat that is raised and killed with less stress.

 

[CycloWizard]

If I had to guess I'd say less than 1 cent per pound. If you think straw adds a significant amount to the cost of pork, it's probably because you're unfamiliar with livestock.

And if you claim it's one cent per pound without any figures to back it up, it's probably because you're overly familiar with livestock and hope giving them a few toys will distract them while you're diddling. See what I did there? Same as you, but arbitrarily arguing the opposite side without any real information and an attack on your education level. It's an absolutely worthless argument.