Sometimes there are no words. [Archive] - Debate Policy

Noir

05-07-2012, 08:42 AM

Eating meat is one thing, being inhumane to animals do to it wrong. killing and animals quickly is proper. This other is just wrong.

Exactly, a UK group that I volunteer for, Animal Aid, is trying to get a bill raised in parliament that requires all slaughterhouses to have CCTV in operation on the killing floor, which can be reviewed by groups like AniAid, after a three year investagation in 9 slaughter houses they found 8 to be in serious breech of animal rights, the workers were kicking, spitting on, urinating etc on the animals.

Two workers were arrested after kicking a pig to death, but the response from the slaughte house industry has been less than inspiring, rather than seein what has happened and agreeing to voluntarily put CCTV inside the building, several of them have now installed new CCTV outside their buildings...this is nothing tto do with meat eating, it's aanimal suffering, regardless of whetger or not someone eats meat they'd have to be something verging on sick to regard is treatment of animals to be fine.

Noir

05-07-2012, 08:50 AM

I encourage folks to get on the Youtube and find Food, Inc. Eye-opening.

+1, a must watch.

logroller

05-07-2012, 10:29 AM

Eating meat is one thing, being inhumane to animals do to it wrong. killing and animals quickly is proper. This other is just wrong.
I get there are differences. But the USDA, iirc, allows a 5 percent failure rate for swift kill. You see a video with back to back failures with some statistic listing any number of these occurrences, failing to mention the tens of thousands of humane kills. Its disingenuous IMO.

Not to mention, I'll accept critical analysis on this subject with grain of salt from anyone who's not killed a higher order animal. I do know the difference between a swift kill and one that isn't. I've had both and both bring a feeling of loss, and a hint of regret that I assuage with the belief I'm doing this for a reason which justifies the act. Maybe it doesn't justify it to all, but it does me.
Now there are ample reasons to reduce meat consumption; such graphic scare tactics, however, I find offensive.

tailfins

05-07-2012, 10:40 AM

Eating meat is one thing, being inhumane to animals do to it wrong. killing and animals quickly is proper. This other is just wrong.

I know that kosher beef eats better. Some of it has to do with the way it's killed.

jimnyc

05-07-2012, 10:45 AM

tailfins

05-07-2012, 10:48 AM

I love steaks and such just as much as others. But I'm more of an animal lover than most. I'm ignorant and admit it. It saddens me to see stuff like in the OP and I can only wish its false. If it's not, the slaughterhouses should invest a LOT of $$$ to make their "ways" better so it never happens to any of them.

What do you have to say about lobsters that are no good if not cooked alive? I'm against unnecessary cruelty, but some processes are a culinary necessity. What do you think of California's ban on Foie Gras?

jimnyc

05-07-2012, 10:51 AM

What do you have to say about lobsters that are no good if not cooked alive?

I grew up going to Forked River, NJ where my grandparents lived and went crabbing right in their backyard. A crab would bite me in the bucket and I wanted to decapitate the little bastard. 20 mins later I would be upset when my Grandma put it in the boiling water.

Same thing, I'm ignorant. I love crabs and lobster but can no longer cook them. My brain somehow blocks out their impending doom.

DragonStryk72

05-07-2012, 11:13 AM

What do you have to say about lobsters that are no good if not cooked alive? I'm against unnecessary cruelty, but some processes are a culinary necessity. What do you think of California's ban on Foie Gras?

I think dead is dead, and I don't hear them trying to stop tuna from getting sold, just make sure no dolphins are getting caught in the nets. I generally believe that you should get as much out of an animal as possible when you kill it, and the kill should be the quickest possible.

libertine

05-07-2012, 11:29 AM

Poor critters.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1z14raf.jpg

I agree, Noir. Have you seen 'Earthlings'?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/

logroller

05-07-2012, 01:20 PM

I encourage folks to get on the Youtube and find Food, Inc. Eye-opening.
Ive seen most, if not all those documentaries; but there's an agenda, always is.
GMO crops scare me worse. Yet, by the same token, GMO rice for example, increased the protein content of rice enabling more rural people in China to stave off malnutrition and cognitive difficulties helping drive their economic growth and increasing their standard of living. There's always two sides; rarely presented in these documentaries.

I love steaks and such just as much as others. But I'm more of an animal lover than most. I'm ignorant and admit it. It saddens me to see stuff like in the OP and I can only wish its false. If it's not, the slaughterhouses should invest a LOT of $$$ to make their "ways" better so it never happens to any of them.
Well see now here's a troubling idea IMO. Make companies spend more money, which they pass unto the customer. Of course the vegetarians have no problem with this, but it's odd to hear it from a meat eater. I happen to buy my beef from the grower and have it slaughtered myself. I pay about $7.50-$8.00 per pound; but thats wholesale on half an animal. The market average is around $6.00 retail. Now I choose to pay more to get a product, that's my choice. If people care so much, why don't they do the same? Perhaps theyre short on recipes or o-bone cuts. (slow roast BTW, makes a great base meat for burritos and sandwiches) Instead they'd rather stick the nose of government in it and drive up the cost for everyone; including those who were humane all along. Look I respect vegetarians; I just expect the same in kind.

ConHog

05-07-2012, 01:32 PM

I get there are differences. But the USDA, iirc, allows a 5 percent failure rate for swift kill. You see a video with back to back failures with some statistic listing any number of these occurrences, failing to mention the tens of thousands of humane kills. Its disingenuous IMO.

Not to mention, I'll accept critical analysis on this subject with grain of salt from anyone who's not killed a higher order animal. I do know the difference between a swift kill and one that isn't. I've had both and both bring a feeling of loss, and a hint of regret that I assuage with the belief I'm doing this for a reason which justifies the act. Maybe it doesn't justify it to all, but it does me.
Now there are ample reasons to reduce meat consumption; such graphic scare tactics, however, I find offensive.

Agreed, there are humane ways to go about it and there are inhumane ways to go about it, I believe that for the most part the USDA does a good job of making sure no one is making animals suffer unnecessarily.

tailfins

05-07-2012, 01:34 PM

Ive seen most, if not all those documentaries; but there's an agenda, always is.
GMO crops scare me worse. Yet, by the same token, GMO rice for example, increased the protein content of rice enabling more rural people in China to stave off malnutrition and cognitive difficulties helping drive their economic growth and increasing their standard of living. There's always two sides; rarely presented in these documentaries.

Well see now here's a troubling idea IMO. Make companies spend more money, which they pass unto the customer. Of course the vegetarians have no problem with this, but it's odd to hear it from a meat eater. I happen to buy my beef from the grower and have it slaughtered myself. I pay about $7.50-$8.00 per pound; but thats wholesale on half an animal. The market average is around $6.00 retail. Now I choose to pay more to get a product, that's my choice. If people care so much, why don't they do the same? Perhaps theyre short on recipes or o-bone cuts. (slow roast BTW, makes a great base meat for burritos and sandwiches) Instead they'd rather stick the nose of government in it and drive up the cost for everyone; including those who were humane all along. Look I respect vegetarians; I just expect the same in kind.

It's not just price, it's availability. If you enjoy splurging every so often to have a dining experience that would make Gordon Ramsay proud, this idiocy limits your choices. A California ban on Foie Gras goes into effect July 1 because of ALLEGED animal cruelty.

ConHog

05-07-2012, 01:35 PM

Noir

05-07-2012, 01:37 PM

Well see now here's a troubling idea IMO. Make companies spend more money, which they pass unto the customer. Of course the vegetarians have no problem with this, but it's odd to hear it from a meat eater. I happen to buy my beef from the grower and have it slaughtered myself. I pay about $7.50-$8.00 per pound; but thats wholesale on half an animal. The market average is around $6.00 retail. Now I choose to pay more to get a product, that's my choice. If people care so much, why don't they do the same? Perhaps theyre short on recipes or o-bone cuts. (slow roast BTW, makes a great base meat for burritos and sandwiches) Instead they'd rather stick the nose of government in it and drive up the cost for everyone; including those who were humane all along. Look I respect vegetarians; I just expect the same in kind.

It shows the mentality of the meat industry as far as 'passing on costs' etc go when they were presented with raw footage of animal abuse and asked to instal CCTV inside, the prefered to spend the money on installing CCTV outside instead.

Noir

05-07-2012, 01:46 PM

It's not just price, it's availability. If you enjoy splurging every so often to have a dining experience that would make Gordon Ramsay proud, this idiocy limits your choices. A California ban on Foie Gras goes into effect July 1 because of ALLEGED animal cruelty.

Foie Gras is beyond disgusting, what they do to those poor birds. For anyone who doesn't know a brief description of what happens - The birds are penned into cages they can't even spread their wings in, and are force-feed grain by having a tube pushed down their throat, this force feeding causes their livers to swell (causing extreme agony) to 10-12 times their normal size, they're then slaughtered.

Ive been campaigning for a places that sell Foie Gras in places near we're I live to look into the process and consider cutting off support to the companies who produce it, buy stopping selling it.

logroller

05-07-2012, 01:46 PM

It shows the mentality of the meat industry as far as 'passing on costs' etc go when they were presented with raw footage of animal abuse and asked to instal CCTV inside, the prefered to spend the money on installing CCTV outside instead.
I don't know the details of this story off the top of my head; but rest assured, there's a gaggle of activists rearing to get into a meat processing facility and expose whatever they can. If that includes breaking the law, so be it. A company wishing to protect themselves and gather evidence to prosecute criminal activity isn't as heinous as what one may be led to believe by agendas as apparent as your own. So as far the mentality of whomever, people in glass houses...

Noir

05-07-2012, 02:06 PM

I don't know the details of this story off the top of my head; but rest assured, there's a gaggle of activists rearing to get into a meat processing facility and expose whatever they can. If that includes breaking the law, so be it. A company wishing to protect themselves and gather evidence to prosecute criminal activity isn't as heinous as what one may be led to believe by agendas as apparent as your own. So as far the mentality of whomever, people in glass houses...

All of animal aids work is a) peaceful and b) legal. It is precisely because of this that I support them, and they are able to uninhibitedly campaign for animal rights and laws.

They also receive no state sponsorship, and are not registered as a legally as a charity (even though they only exist through donations) even though that means missing out on tax-breaks if they were a registered charity, it does mean they can lobby without shame and never have to censor themselves to protect their charity status. No glass houses here.

tailfins

05-07-2012, 02:12 PM

Exactly, a UK group that I volunteer for, Animal Aid, is trying to get a bill raised in parliament that requires all slaughterhouses to have CCTV in operation on the killing floor, which can be reviewed by groups like AniAid, after a three year investagation in 9 slaughter houses they found 8 to be in serious breech of animal rights, the workers were kicking, spitting on, urinating etc on the animals.

Two workers were arrested after kicking a pig to death, but the response from the slaughte house industry has been less than inspiring, rather than seein what has happened and agreeing to voluntarily put CCTV inside the building, several of them have now installed new CCTV outside their buildings...this is nothing tto do with meat eating, it's aanimal suffering, regardless of whetger or not someone eats meat they'd have to be something verging on sick to regard is treatment of animals to be fine.

This plan would run afoul of the Fourth Amendment here in the US.

tailfins

05-07-2012, 02:15 PM

Ive been campaigning for a places that sell Foie Gras in places near we're I live to look into the process and consider cutting off support to the companies who produce it, buy stopping selling it.

What entitles you to restrict consumers from having Foie Gras with their "Viande de Veau" aka Veal?

logroller

05-07-2012, 02:21 PM

What entitles you to restrict consumers from having Foie Gras with their "Viande de Veau" aka Veal?the throne.

Noir

05-07-2012, 02:35 PM

This plan would run afoul of the Fourth Amendment here in the US.

In what sense? As in, asking for the CCTV tapes would be an illegal seizure?

Noir

05-07-2012, 02:39 PM

What entitles you to restrict consumers from having Foie Gras with their "Viande de Veau" aka Veal?

I am not restricting anyone from doing anything,

logroller

05-07-2012, 02:40 PM

In what sense? As in, asking for the CCTV tapes would be an illegal seizure?
Requiring them would be illegal search.

jimnyc

05-07-2012, 02:43 PM

Foie Gras is beyond disgusting, what they do to those poor birds. For anyone who doesn't know a brief description of what happens - The birds are penned into cages they can't even spread their wings in, and are force-feed grain by having a tube pushed down their throat, this force feeding causes their livers to swell (causing extreme agony) to 10-12 times their normal size, they're then slaughtered.

Ive been campaigning for a places that sell Foie Gras in places near we're I live to look into the process and consider cutting off support to the companies who produce it, buy stopping selling it.

I've seen the "food" advertised before but never had it, never even saw it. That is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. And obviously I'll never have it now going forward. I could see myself becoming an activist against stuff such as this, but then I would be a hypocrite I suppose. But I do think the level of suffering differs amongst various animals. I am always at odds with myself when it comes to animals. I'll always eat meat, but I would hope that any suffering is eliminated, or they should strive for the best. But anything that is set purposely to suffer, solely for others, I think is wrong.

Noir

05-07-2012, 02:44 PM

Requiring them would be illegal search.

Mkays, so like, do you guys have no standardized agency that giverns food standards?

logroller

05-07-2012, 02:55 PM

All of animal aids work is a) peaceful and b) legal. It is precisely because of this that I support them, and they are able to uninhibitedly campaign for animal rights and laws.

They also receive no state sponsorship, and are not registered as a legally as a charity (even though they only exist through donations) even though that means missing out on tax-breaks if they were a registered charity, it does mean they can lobby without shame and never have to censor themselves to protect their charity status. No glass houses here.

FWIW, I support animal AIDS work. But so far legality, I don't know about the UK, but as was mentioned, forcing a private company to install CCTV cameras would run afoul of privacy laws:: which would be illegal. But then again, if its for a good cause, maybe its worth it. The same logic, however, allows for a certain degree of failures in the required humaneness of a kill. If this were an absolute wrong, with absolutely no opportunity cost, it'd be done that way already.

As for geese, music will save the world.

http://youtu.be/8yvEYKRF5IA

jimnyc

05-07-2012, 02:55 PM

Mkays, so like, do you guys have no standardized agency that giverns food standards?

FDA I believe.

logroller

05-07-2012, 03:10 PM

Mkays, so like, do you guys have no standardized agency that giverns food standards?
Of course, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA). There are rules though. Searches mustn't be announced, but they do have to appear and provide paperwork which details the conditions of the search and specific items of interest ; its not a cart blanc. Many packing houses actually have full-time USDA inspectors, even have an office within; but again, this is consented to with the added benefit of USDA labeling (prime, choice etc). Its a market driven approach which consumers are free to endorse or ignore; a far cry from 24/7 monitoring by big brother. Such things favor the megacorps though; as not every small-time meat packer can afford such expenses. A mandated expense, such as CCTV monitoring would be a barrier to entry. Maybe good, maybe bad; but I happen to enjoy annual meetings (no pun intended) with the grower which include a sample spread of their product, new recipes and fine wine. Truth be told, I'd bet they're more humanely and cleanly produced than most USDA 'Organic' growers; but they don't pay the USDA inspectors to monitor their activities; saving me money, but they can't label it as "organic". I'd pay $14/ lb at the market for such meat; but why? I foster my own peace of mind, I don't need the government to do it for me.

DragonStryk72

05-07-2012, 03:34 PM

Of course, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA). There are rules though. Searches mustn't be announced, but they do have to appear and provide paperwork which details the conditions of the search and specific items of interest ; its not a cart blanc. Many packing houses actually have full-time USDA inspectors, even have an office within; but again, this is consented to with the added benefit of USDA labeling (prime, choice etc). Its a market driven approach which consumers are free to endorse or ignore; a far cry from 24/7 monitoring by big brother. Such things favor the megacorps though; as not every small-time meat packer can afford such expenses. A mandated expense, such as CCTV monitoring would be a barrier to entry. Maybe good, maybe bad; but I happen to enjoy annual meetings (no pun intended) with the grower which include a sample spread of their product, new recipes and fine wine. Truth be told, I'd bet they're more humanely and cleanly produced than most USDA 'Organic' growers; but they don't pay the USDA inspectors to monitor their activities; saving me money, but they can't label it as "organic". I'd pay $14/ lb at the market for such meat; but why? I foster my own peace of mind, I don't need the government to do it for me.

We also have bureaus specifically covering animals, which also get to chime in, so that we essentially have things double covered. However, many meat producers are switching to cruelty free methods anyway due to consumer trends, not government intervention, which can be gotten around.

As a society we are becoming much more aware of how our food gets made now, and chains are starting to pop up, like Chipotle Mexican Grill, that offer food that is completely cruelty and hormone free. Their cows get to just be cows, they are fed Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, which is basically other cows, and their pigs actually get to have the own enclosure (pen isn't really the right word), so they can slop about in the mud and such. On the grocery end of thing, Farm Fresh gets the lion's share of its produce from farms within 100 miles of the store its being sold in.

DragonStryk72

05-07-2012, 04:30 PM

We also have bureaus specifically covering animals, which also get to chime in, so that we essentially have things double covered. However, many meat producers are switching to cruelty free methods anyway due to consumer trends, not government intervention, which can be gotten around.

As a society we are becoming much more aware of how our food gets made now, and chains are starting to pop up, like Chipotle Mexican Grill, that offer food that is completely cruelty and hormone free. Their cows get to just be cows, they are not fed Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, which is basically other cows, and their pigs actually get to have the own enclosure (pen isn't really the right word), so they can slop about in the mud and such. On the grocery end of thing, Farm Fresh gets the lion's share of its produce from farms within 100 miles of the store its being sold in.

Lol, whoops

libertine

05-07-2012, 05:14 PM

Mkays, so like, do you guys have no standardized agency that giverns food standards?

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). However, factory-farm animals are exempt from animal cruelty laws - they are seen as 'production units'.

jimnyc

05-07-2012, 05:31 PM

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). However, factory-farm animals are exempt from animal cruelty laws - they are seen as 'production units'.

So there is no recourse if the OP picture is true? That sucks if its the case. I hope as businesses though that they will realize that even most meat eaters don't want the animals tortured or to suffer.

logroller

05-07-2012, 05:39 PM

So there is no recourse if the OP picture is true? That sucks if its the case. I hope as businesses though that they will realize that even most meat eaters don't want the animals tortured or to suffer.
I wish it weren't so, but most people make their decision in a cost based manner. Unless we require meat vendors to place a warning, similar to the OP post, I sincerely doubt most people would change their buying habits. As you said earlier, people enjoy their ignorance.

libertine

05-07-2012, 05:55 PM

So there is no recourse if the OP picture is true? That sucks if its the case. I hope as businesses though that they will realize that even most meat eaters don't want the animals tortured or to suffer.

Of course there's no recourse. What the OP describes is called 'business as usual'. There is no law protecting the production units from the inevitable suffering that is part of the process of bringing a factory farm animal to market.

Most meat eaters don't want to know what happens in a slaughterhouse.

Most meat eaters go out of their way NOT to read/view videos that describe/illustrate the suffering that goes on behind closed doors at factory farms - in battery cages, turkey farms, etc., because they prefer remaining in the dark so as not to be forced to re-consider what they eat.

fj1200

05-07-2012, 09:44 PM

There is no law protecting the production units from the inevitable suffering that is part of the process of bringing a factory farm animal to market.

Humane Slaughter Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act)

The Humane Slaughter Act, or the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act, (P.L. 85-765; 7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) designed to decrease suffering of livestock during slaughter.

fj1200

05-07-2012, 09:48 PM

This plan would run afoul of the Fourth Amendment here in the US.

Not necessarily. They could agree to it.

Requiring them would be illegal search.

If it were a law passed by Congress? Sending the feed to an independent third party would be out there though.

logroller

05-07-2012, 09:53 PM

Humane Slaughter Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act)

Besides that one though...;)

logroller

05-07-2012, 09:58 PM

Not necessarily. They could agree to it.

If it were a law passed by Congress? Sending the feed to an independent third party would be out there though.
Huh? Like, for inspection? IMO having a private inspector under authority of the us govt is the worst of both worlds.

fj1200

05-07-2012, 10:04 PM

Huh? Like, for inspection? IMO having a private inspector under authority of the us govt is the worst of both worlds.

True, but a free-market solution would be third party validation to ensure transparency.

SassyLady

05-07-2012, 10:35 PM

Lol, whoops

I love Chipolte and would eat there everyday if we had one in this town. Had one across the street from where I used to work and had a burrito bowl to go for lunch every day. For less than $10 I could get one that would be my lunch and dinner the bowls are so big.

tailfins

05-07-2012, 10:47 PM

I love Chipolte and would eat there everyday if we had one in this town. Had one across the street from where I used to work and had a burrito bowl to go for lunch every day. For less than $10 I could get one that would be my lunch and dinner the bowls are so big.

Eating food prepared with no pride is a chore. I only eat at Chipotle if it means building goodwill with someone who specifically asks to eat there with me.

logroller

05-07-2012, 10:50 PM

True, but a free-market solution would be third party validation to ensure transparency.
Government should be transparent. In practice, collusion between regulator and regulated is a problem; third-party validation is no less susceptible, though

libertine

05-08-2012, 12:12 AM

Humane Slaughter Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act)

And we see how utterly useless it is in mitigating the suffering of factory-farm animals. It serves as a formality on paper, nothing more.

logroller

05-08-2012, 12:19 AM

And we see how utterly useless it is in mitigating the suffering of factory-farm animals. It serves as a formality on paper, nothing more.

Are you saying it doesn't mitigate suffering at all? Be realistic; we've laws against murder, yet murders occur everyday. Do you think those laws, too, are mere formalities, nothing more?

libertine

05-08-2012, 12:27 AM

Are you saying it doesn't mitigate suffering at all? Be realistic; we've laws against murder, yet murders occur everyday. Do you think those laws, too, are mere formalities, nothing more?

Okay, yes - it mitigates suffering to an extent - but enforcement of this law is inconsistent;poultry and other food animals aren't included in the law and as numerous reports and undercover footage continue to show, the Act is woefully insufficient. The fact that its enforcement is so inconsistent is why I called it a 'formality'. Penalties for cruel acts committed against animals cannot be compared to laws we have regarding humans and murder because animals are seen as lesser beings, hence their exploitation and suffering carry minimal consequences to perpetrators.

logroller

05-08-2012, 02:07 AM

Okay, yes - it mitigates suffering to an extent - but enforcement of this law is inconsistent;poultry and other food animals aren't included in the law and as numerous reports and undercover footage continue to show, the Act is woefully insufficient. The fact that its enforcement is so inconsistent is why I called it a 'formality'. Penalties for cruel acts committed against animals cannot be compared to laws we have regarding humans and murder because animals are seen as lesser beings, hence their exploitation and suffering carry minimal consequences to perpetrators.
Can't they though? Look at the statistics on murder convictions and associated penalties and you'll see a clear racial bias; an inconsistency, if you will. What I see as your issue is the collusion between regulator and regulated. This is, indeed, a cause for concern; but one which grows with increased authoritative control: law/rule/code enforcement. As economic growth matures to the level we, in the developed world, enjoy, there is an inherent disconnect from the means of production provided by primary(ag, mining, fishing etc) and secondary sectors (manufacturing); becoming entranced in the tertiary sector (service) and quaternary sector composed of education, research and technological advancement. The countenance of this condition being the quinary sector, government and other persons of power and influence, whose role then defines our well-being. This is a foundational concept of socialism, with varied degrees of state interest in the means of production(the lrimary and secondary sectors) Certain protections are necessary, I'll not deny that; but over-reliance on the quinary sector is an afront to liberty; and it is liberty which hath delivered unto our society the level of development we now enjoy. For every restrictive action, there's an opportunity cost. By all means, look at China's system to see the effects of primary socialistic control in action. I assure you, you'll find it less appreciable.

fj1200

05-08-2012, 07:43 AM

And we see how utterly useless it is in mitigating the suffering of factory-farm animals. It serves as a formality on paper, nothing more.

But there IS a law right?

libertine

05-08-2012, 10:06 AM

But there IS a law right?

Yes there is. And it's ineffective regarding protection from cruelty, which is the whole point of having the law.

libertine

05-08-2012, 10:15 AM

Can't they though? Look at the statistics on murder convictions and associated penalties and you'll see a clear racial bias; an inconsistency, if you will. What I see as your issue is the collusion between regulator and regulated. This is, indeed, a cause for concern; but one which grows with increased authoritative control: law/rule/code enforcement. As economic growth matures to the level we, in the developed world, enjoy, there is an inherent disconnect from the means of production provided by primary(ag, mining, fishing etc) and secondary sectors (manufacturing); becoming entranced in the tertiary sector (service) and quaternary sector composed of education, research and technological advancement. The countenance of this condition being the quinary sector, government and other persons of power and influence, whose role then defines our well-being. This is a foundational concept of socialism, with varied degrees of state interest in the means of production(the lrimary and secondary sectors) Certain protections are necessary, I'll not deny that; but over-reliance on the quinary sector is an afront to liberty; and it is liberty which hath delivered unto our society the level of development we now enjoy. For every restrictive action, there's an opportunity cost. By all means, look at China's system to see the effects of primary socialistic control in action. I assure you, you'll find it less appreciable.

Don't forget the main objective here - money. Meat and dairy lobbies have effectively de-fanged many regulatory measures that would've ensured more oversight and enforcement, all in the name of cutting corners and boosting their bottom line(s). The prices paid have come in the form of mad cow concerns, pressure to perform the work faster (and sloppier), the level of filth in these factories and slaughterhouses has increased, requiring the use of staggering amounts of antibiotics, and increased suffering for the animals themselves.

The answer isn't less regulation. Further, the lobbies for factory-farmers who've bought Congress guarantee that their candidates will decry regulation and the 'evils' of the 'big governement' entities - their efforts and the actions of their purchased legislators help to tie the hands of oversight, 'starve the beast' of FDA funding to where there are too few inspectors to enforce with consistency, etc.

fj1200

05-08-2012, 12:15 PM

Yes there is. And it's ineffective regarding protection from cruelty, which is the whole point of having the law.

Good, now that you acknowledge that there is a law it's a short leap to acknowledge that there is some protection from cruelty.

logroller

05-08-2012, 01:43 PM

Don't forget the main objective here - money. Meat and dairy lobbies have effectively de-fanged many regulatory measures that would've ensured more oversight and enforcement, all in the name of cutting corners and boosting their bottom line(s). The prices paid have come in the form of mad cow concerns, pressure to perform the work faster (and sloppier), the level of filth in these factories and slaughterhouses has increased, requiring the use of staggering amounts of antibiotics, and increased suffering for the animals themselves.

The answer isn't less regulation. Further, the lobbies for factory-farmers who've bought Congress guarantee that their candidates will decry regulation and the 'evils' of the 'big governement' entities - their efforts and the actions of their purchased legislators help to tie the hands of oversight, 'starve the beast' of FDA funding to where there are too few inspectors to enforce with consistency, etc.
The objective is capitalization of resources. The suppliers are price takers; meaning the consumer sets the price. If the consumer wants it cheap, then suppliers find a way to do so. It's not as though they profit from being cruel to animals; its just more expensive to ensure no cruelty occurs. If people feel so strongly about the cruelty, they would accept the higher prices. The answer isn't more regulation; its getting the consumer to, literally, put their money where their mouth is. Most aren't willing to; you think government should enforce that will upon others. That is an affront to liberty, libertine.

Gator Monroe

05-08-2012, 02:15 PM

Chorizo & Machaca & Spicy Korean

MtnBiker

05-08-2012, 03:17 PM

logroller

05-08-2012, 03:34 PM

tailfins

05-08-2012, 03:47 PM

After viewing this thread perhaps someone will be inspired to write a detailed description of a number of Chinese factory workings toiling in Apple factories. A vivid and gruesome glimpse of the final moments when a worker's only solution is to free himself from the bounds of life. Jumping from a high building, falling with great velocity to sudden bone crushing impact on pavement.

Then the author can ponder his story as he presses send on his Ipad.

I don't do Apple. I have been put off by their decades of contempt for the customer, proprietary everything, inflated prices and software that resists do-it-yourselfers. I'll settle for Android, put prefer full Windows with an i5 or better processor.

MtnBiker

05-08-2012, 03:53 PM

I don't do Apple. I have been put off by their decades of contempt for the customer, proprietary everything, inflated prices and software that resists do-it-yourselfers. I'll settle for Android, put prefer full Windows with an i5 or better processor.

Ok, subsistute a Google factory with an Apple factory in China, the story can be the same. Consumers enjoy the end product without full knowledge of the process by which it is brought to market. Horrible conditions result in suffering and even death by many mass produced products be it food or electronics.

I suppose a person should feel really bad if they are eating a big mac surfing the internet with their tablet in their SUV. Oh the horror!

Noir

05-08-2012, 04:16 PM

After viewing this thread perhaps someone will be inspired to write a detailed description of a number of Chinese factory workings toiling in Apple factories. A vivid and gruesome glimpse of the final moments when a worker's only solution is to free himself from the bounds of life. Jumping from a high building, falling with great velocity to sudden bone crushing impact on pavement.

Then the author can ponder his story as he presses send on his Ipad.

Currently on my iMac, not iPad, and i can only assume that you too have read the Foxconn suicide reports? Including of course the statements by the shamed (but at least admitted) lier Mike Daisy, and the subsequent reports by the likes of Rob Schmitz? If you'd like to talk with me about the details of the reports i'd be more than willing to discuss them, but not in this thread, don't want it getting derailed, start another (: