- Jun 2014
nonsense. We compound the issue by putting a species that was originally a wandering omnivorous opportunistic hunter and put the majority of them in small little apartments in giant cities where the amount of greenery is minimal. NY is probably a far more artificial environment than any chicken cage.Yes, and then when you start to feel uncomfortable or decide you want to do something else, you exit those enclosures and go about your business. When you can't leave an enclosure if you feel uncomfortable and want to do something else, it's called prison, and we use it as a form of punishment. But even in prison we generally don't subject one another to conditions as extreme as those of factory-farmed chickens. ]
yet no empathy for lions, killer whales or sharks, apparently, since your post implies a lack of morality in being a meat eater.=Fox;2047217]
It's not anthropomorphism, it's just basic empathy.
I really hope that your "Holding up a woman" isn't as sexist as it appears to be. I don't care what sex a researcher is. Apparently you do?Fox;2047217
Yet look at your own quote from Dr. Mensch:
It seems to me that she very much recognizes the benefits hens derive from freedom of movement, and has tried to put forward a viable third option which grants the hen increased access to them. Holding up a woman who very clearly acknowledges the problematic character of traditional battery cages as some sort of strike against my stated position doesn't make much sense.
I presume you are referring to the first part of the first sentence in my quote? You apparently missed the SECOND part of that sentence.
So yes, hens in cage free have more freedom of movement. They are also sicker and DIE more frequently.Cage-free systems permit much more freedom of movement and also allow the hens to perform the behaviors that they cannot perform in conventional cages, but hens in cage-free systems also tend to have more health problems and higher mortality than hens in conventional cages
And allowing children to have freedom and no restrictions results in ? more seriously, if one allows say, sheep, to be where they want one finds that they by preference tend to hang out all together in a small group. Now I'm all in favor of allowing herdsmen to reintroduce a system of tending where sheep can be brought into a city to graze the grass lawns instead of the use of ecologically unsound lawn mowers.Fox;2047217
Again, the wolf finds it "just right," until it wants to exit the enclosure, at which time it does. It is very easy to tell if an animal actually wants to do something or not, one simply must allow them a little freedom and observe their actions.
Factory farming (as opposed to some other techniques) has it's issues and a discussion on what would or would not be better is fine -- but it isn't really related to actual meat eating, since one would still be a meat eater if one kept a largely free roaming flock of chickens on 20 acres and occasionally went out and gathered eggs or killed a chicken for the pot. Asserting that meat eating is morally wrong because of an issue in how animals are handled is conflating two separate issues. Further, asserting human care of domestic animals is morally evil --compared to what? wild zebra have far less life span and health than captive domestic horses, who aren't generally subject to being eaten alive by hyenas or lions. In return, yep, they are usually obliged to wear saddles and being ridden by someone, bits are used to control them and they usually aren't allowed to just go whereever they want to (nor can humans. Playing on the middle of a freeway is not likely to end up well. and most people would charge someone with trespassing if somone decided they'd just like to wander in and occupy any house that appealed to them. Humans are probably one of the most constrained animals on the planet given all the rules and regulations we surround ourselves with).
I find that people who assert eating meat is "morally" wrong to be touting a religious view. I wasn't singling you out. See above where you seem to be accusing me of some sexist behavior simply because of the sex of the researcher I quoted (really? I used the quote because it was part of the UC Davis study that refuted the claims made by PETA/HSUS in the California egg proposition. That study -- feel free to read the entirety -- showed that the "free range" chickens were, as the quote shows, less healthy and more likely to die than the chickens that were confined in the existing cages used in California.). As for debeaking -- that is done more often in free range or communal chicken flocks -- individually caged animals don't need to be debeaked. The debeaking is done so they don't attack and kill each other.Fox;2047217
I eat meat, so if you think I've got some sort of "quasi religious" objection to eating meat, you're wrong (and it's a shame that you felt the need to project all this onto the few words I wrote on this topic).
I don't happen to be in favor of debeaking, but I'll note that the beak is made of keratin, and it has no nerve endings. The chicken feels no more pain from having it cut than you would from trimming your fingernails. It may LOOK bad and it certainly impinges on the animal's ability to live in the wild, but the assertion that it is painful is erroneous.
Project Beak: Adaptations: Beaks
And I can eat meat and recognize that the assertion of suffering (as with the claims about debeaking being "suffering") is often based on illusion by people who don't actually bother to do the research. I can also recognize that eating meat is a separate issue from "how one obtains the meat" -- an entirely different discussion item which should, IMO, be conducted based on actual science and not mistaken "empathy". When you object to bird beaks being removed, do you also object to farriers trimming horse hooves or a shepherd trimming sheep hooves? They are made of exactly the same substance. Have you ever seen a sheep with overgrown hooves or hoof rot? (and yes, it occurs in the wild, so it isn't an artifact of confinement).Fox;2047217
But I can eat meat while realizing the suffering that many farms inflict upon animals; I don't have to pretend that chickens being debeaked and locked up in small cages is somehow optimal or pleasant for them in order to reconcile myself with reality here.
If you wish to discuss the pros and cons or possible improvements of animal husbandry, I have no objection. It's an area where improvements can easily be made in many aspects -- as well as one where a lot of misinformation abounds. It is, however, entirely separate from the OP premise that eating meat is inherently "immoral" -which is a quasi religious view. I repeat, there is nothing moral or amoral about eating meat (being a predator), about being a herbivore or about being an omnivore. These are all conditions of biology which is not a moral issue.