Animal Free Sauce

James Cameron to launch America’s first all-vegan elementary school

Proving that he can dream up more than white savior stories, James Cameron is reportedly preparing to launch America’s first vegan—sorry, plant-based—elementary school this fall. That would be the MUSE School in Calabasas, California, a parody Twitter account come to life that was founded by Cameron’s wife Suzy Amis Cameron and her sister in 2005. At a fundraiser for the school at the Chateau Marmont in Hollywood, Cameron said that as of fall 2015, the school would serve an all-plant cafeteria menu. But don’t call it vegan: “The average person would say vegan, but we say whole food, plant-based. It’s about raising kids who don’t think it’s strange or exotic or worthy of a pat on the back to be doing the right thing for the living biosphere,” Cameron says. Whether the Camerons got the idea from an unaired Portlandia sketch is unknown.

I got to 'living biosphere' and snotted all over my keyboard.

And this is bad why? I mean the month I went vegan I almost died.....but I know a few who make it a good lifestyle.

Seems nice. A lot of the Vegan Crowd holds their beliefs pretty strongly. I don't see any reason to begrudge or chuckle at this over say, religious schools.

They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

 Chongara wrote:
Seems nice. A lot of the Vegan Crowd holds their beliefs pretty strongly. I don't see any reason to begrudge or chuckle at this over say, religious schools.

I begrudge religious schools because it has no place in education, much like veganism.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

Human production of animal products does have a pretty adverse affect on the environment. We're not guys on foot chasing around prey animals with wooden sticks anymore. The kind of methods required to produce meat at an obtainable price point for any meaningful portion of the population are inherently destructive. It's land and energy intensive and produces a lot of waste.

I'm not about give up BBQ or anything, but it's silly to pretend like the products I enjoy don't have a pretty steep environmental cost. It's downright nonsense to compare the process that gets me a burger or plate of ribs to Lions hunting.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

And now I'm hungry. :(

We're not guys on foot chasing around prey animals with wooden sticks anymore.

Speak for yourself.

The psychic powers aren't a bad side effect, though.

 Stonebeard wrote:
I got to 'living biosphere' and snotted all over my keyboard.

I didn't even get that far on my first attempt. Really had to wade through the BS to get to that...

Vegan?



That's the food that my food eats!

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

And now I'm hungry. :(

But where can you get a good zebra at this hour?

That is always the question. Most places will claim it's zebra, but then turns out it was just horse meat. The sharpie on the cooked meat was a dead giveaway.

 gorgon wrote:
The psychic powers aren't a bad side effect, though.

Until you've had one too many Chicken Parmesan.

So, what's so wrong about this?

1. Humans are omnivores.
2. Meat tastes good.
3. Its a simple sign that your menfolk are no longer menfolk.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Humans are omnivores.
2. Meat tastes good.
3. Its a simple sign that your menfolk are no longer menfolk.

I know men who are vegans that can wipe the floor with most near eaters on this forum

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Humans are omnivores.
2. Meat tastes good.
3. Its a simple sign that your menfolk are no longer menfolk.

I know men who are vegans that can wipe the floor with most near eaters on this forum

Please with the phone speak!

Also, please dial back the hyperbole - thanks!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. Humans are omnivores.
2. Meat tastes good.
3. Its a simple sign that your menfolk are no longer menfolk.

I know men who are vegans that can wipe the floor with most near eaters on this forum

I'm not certain what near eaters have to do with this thread. I'm certain if you have a regular diet of near you might be a badass.

You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

This is an old secret learned from the Iroquois. Sadly after Napoleon's defeat the French couldn't afford meat, and look what happened to them.

Vegan or not, my number one criteria regarding what I eat is: does it taste good?

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

You've never seen a ticked off javalina.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

Incorrect. there may be nourishment, but that aint food.

Suffer not the Vegetarian to live!
-General Borodino,

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.

Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

As a teen, I used to spank as a replacement for having sex. Sex is better. So is meat.

But, hey, no judging. If you prefer meatless food and spanking over red meat and sex, it's no problem for me.
____

 Frazzled wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

You've never seen a ticked off javalina.

No, I've not. I've seen many a pig at the farm and fair, and know they are Perfectly Edible and Tasty Animals.

Is it bad that I'm vegitarian due to the fact that I've never come across a meat I think actually tastes good? All the meat I've ever tried has been... bleh. And it's not poorly prepared either by brother loves meat, but he's the least manly man I know. (Geeky not girly)

I dunno. I'm not against carnivores. I've just never tasted a meat I enjoy.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.

Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

As a teen, I used to spank as a replacement for having sex. Sex is better. So is meat.

But, hey, no judging. If you prefer meatless food and spanking over red meat and sex, it's no problem for me.

This is the same reasoning, verbatim, for why I go for methamphetamine over any opium. It's just good science.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

Clearly you've never been to the Southeastern part of the US:




Wild Boar are fething ridiculous...



Also, On Topic, I think that, as a Private School this place has as much right to exists as do all the religious based schools that teach junk as "science"... I don't think it's a good idea, but sadly, knowing that part of the country, it will probably take off a bit.


On the plus side, the school will probably be filled with anti-vaxxer kids and the school will probably wipe itself out in short order.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

Full on vegetarian?

Like you still eat dairy eggs and what not?

Vegans get no dairy and non flesh animal products.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

gak, those lions cook their steak the way i like it too.

I have no problem with vegans ; as long as they go be vegan somewhere else when i'm eating my bloody, 130 degree ribeye medium rare steak.

I view veganism like religion ; you're welcome to it, but i want no part of it, and don't come to my house and espouse it please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

Clearly you've never been to the Southeastern part of the US:

Spoiler:

Wild Boar are fething ridiculous...

As i scrolled down too quickly, pretty sure i screamed like homer simpson at that.

On the plus side, the school will probably be filled with anti-vaxxer kids and the school will probably wipe itself out in short order.

LOL, agreed. Anti-vaxxers are the absolute worst.

So they eat vegamite on that school?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

I guess you never ran into a herd of feral hogs... eh?

They're a f'n pest here in some places.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
So they eat vegamite on that school?

(Is now imagining hundreds of children smearing gallons and gallons of Vegemite over a school house)

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

He literally, at no point in that post, said people were dumb because they were vegetarians. He said they were vegetarians because they were dumb. Distinct difference.

Really though, he said neither of those. Well, kinda the second, but just a little bit.

 whembly wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

I guess you never ran into a herd of feral hogs... eh?

They're a f'n pest here in some places.

As above, nope. I have seen urban coyotes, though. Also raccoons & opossums.

Sounds like FREE bacon to me.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

Are you implying that because animals murder, steal and gak in the woods, that we should too? While nature might be ingenious, animals are not. They do what they are programmed to do in order to survive, and will usually continue that behavior even if they are introduced to a new ecosystem where the behavior is destructive. Humans, on the other hand, have a choice.

I think morality is all about choice. In times of desperation, e.g. war/famine, people will stoop to all manner of depravity to survive: killing, stealing, cannibalism. If the only alternative is death, then it could be argued that they have no choice (at least not a choice they can live with). We do not live in a time of desperation. We do not need to kill, or steal, or resort to cannibalism. So we have the freedom to act in a way that is moral rather than just necessary.

I might not be a vegetarian, but I don't want to see animals suffer and treated cruelly to be my food. Given a choice I would rather have food that is treated ethically. I think in the future more and more people will start to see killing for food as something that is unnecessary entirely, and they will make a moral choice not to support it.

 Desubot wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

Full on vegetarian?

Like you still eat dairy eggs and what not?

Vegans get no dairy and non flesh animal products.

Yes.

Anyone who thinks being a vegetarian is the same as being a vegan, or confuses the two, is clearly lacking in intellect.
Comparing it with sex and spanking is dumb, too, seeing as they're completely unrelated and not good comparisons at all - although I guess it's pointless to argue against people's "vegetarians are all dumb and evil!!!11!"-opinion, seeing that eating meat is appatently required to be "cool" and "manly".

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

Full on vegetarian?

Like you still eat dairy eggs and what not?

Vegans get no dairy and non flesh animal products.

Yes.

Anyone who thinks being a vegetarian is the same as being a vegan, or confuses the two, is clearly lacking in intellect.
Comparing it with sex and spanking is dumb, too, seeing as they're completely unrelated and not good comparisons at all - although I guess it's pointless to argue against people's "vegetarians are all dumb and evil!!!11!"-opinion, seeing that eating meat is appatently required to be "cool" and "manly".

Or it just tastes good.

 Desubot wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
You know, from a medical standpoint, cutting out meat and fish is not healthy.


Anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in intellect. Or research.

Thank you for saying I'm dumb because I'm a vegetarian!

There's plenty of replacement products for meat, though I guess they aren't as "manly" or something like that.

Full on vegetarian?

Like you still eat dairy eggs and what not?

Vegans get no dairy and non flesh animal products.

Yes.

Anyone who thinks being a vegetarian is the same as being a vegan, or confuses the two, is clearly lacking in intellect.
Comparing it with sex and spanking is dumb, too, seeing as they're completely unrelated and not good comparisons at all - although I guess it's pointless to argue against people's "vegetarians are all dumb and evil!!!11!"-opinion, seeing that eating meat is appatently required to be "cool" and "manly".

Or it just tastes good.

Taste is subjective, and arguing that others should "not be suffered to live" () because you like something and they don't is ridiculous, and the argument that eating meat makes you a "real man" has been presented several times ITT.

The talk about meat being manly is people joking. The original point about cutting out animal products being unhealthy is correct (if a little missunderstood). You can live without meat, but to be healthy you do need animal products, such as eggs and milk. Many vegans claim otherwise, but vitamin B12 deficiency is incredably common in vegans, and to some extent vegitarians, and to a lesser extent iorn, zinc, calcium and some fatty acids. Now, these can be obtained by supliments, but that requires industrialisation and diat management to remain healthy.

The issue with vegetarianism is that many vegetarians rely heavily on milk for animal protine and vitamins. They ignore the issues in the milk industry with they wholesale slaughter of calves, who's bodies are often just disposed of, because the animal rights lobby have made veal so unfashionable that people still have an issue with rosey veal (which is not the same as white/crate veal).

I have no problem with people eating or not eating what they wish, making the choices they wish, and do think people eat far too much meat, but let's not pretend it is an absolute, black and white issue, that "meat is murder" or that cutting meat out of your diat is automatically healthy.

What gets me is how organisations that promote vegetarianism all are anti hunting. Apparently factory farming of milk and eggs is better than me shooting a wild rabbit, that is a pest, and lives it's life free and wild until one day it's shot in the head and instantly dead.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The talk about meat being manly is people joking. The original point about cutting out animal products being unhealthy is correct (if a little missunderstood). You can live without meat, but to be healthy you do need animal products, such as eggs and milk. Many vegans claim otherwise, but vitamin B12 deficiency is incredably common in vegans, and to some extent vegitarians, and to a lesser extent iorn, zinc, calcium and some fatty acids. Now, these can be obtained by supliments, but that requires industrialisation and diat management to remain healthy.

The issue with vegetarianism is that many vegetarians rely heavily on milk for animal protine and vitamins. They ignore the issues in the milk industry with they wholesale slaughter of calves, who's bodies are often just disposed of, because the animal rights lobby have made veal so unfashionable that people still have an issue with rosey veal (which is not the same as white/crate veal).

I have no problem with people eating or not eating what they wish, making the choices they wish, and do think people eat far too much meat, but let's not pretend it is an absolute, black and white issue, that "meat is murder" or that cutting meat out of your diat is automatically healthy.

What gets me is how organisations that promote vegetarianism all are anti hunting. Apparently factory farming of milk and eggs is better than me shooting a wild rabbit, that is a pest, and lives it's life free and wild until one day it's shot in the head and instantly dead.

This guy....... makes too much sense!


Also, noobbomb I think you need to step off the offended train, and realize that most of what is in this thread is a joke. This feels a bit like when my buddies and I make fun of shaven men for being girly and not manly due to no facial hair. Obviously beard doesn't make a man a man, but it's fun to poke at them none the less.

 Steve steveson wrote:


The issue with vegetarianism is that many vegetarians rely heavily on milk for animal protine and vitamins. They ignore the issues in the milk industry with they wholesale slaughter of calves, who's bodies are often just disposed of, because the animal rights lobby have made veal so unfashionable that people still have an issue with rosey veal (which is not the same as white/crate veal).

There's the REAL victim in all this: All those poor dead, uneaten baby cows!!! (I love veal, and lamb... and heck, I'd probably like caviar too, if I ever tried it, and eggs perhaps theres a trend here )

Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Vegan or not, my number one criteria regarding what I eat is: does it taste good?

I can make a lentil stew to knock the socks off someone who says "it's not a meal without meat!" But all vegan, all the time? No. Let's make a school next that only allows meat: we don't serve no greens here!!

Now I want a rack of fething ribs. Slathered in BBQ sauce. Fraz, can you airmail me some? World knows Texans make the best bbq. I'll skip the brontosaurus meat though.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Taste is subjective, and arguing that others should "not be suffered to live" () because you like something and they don't is ridiculous, and the argument that eating meat makes you a "real man" has been presented several times ITT.

Not sure who was telling you to no live or that meat makes you man but that is not indicative of how every omnivore or carnivore thinks.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Vegan or not, my number one criteria regarding what I eat is: does it taste good?

I can make a lentil stew to knock the socks off someone who says "it's not a meal without meat!" But all vegan, all the time? No. Let's make a school next that only allows meat: we don't serve no greens here!!

Now I want a rack of fething ribs. Slathered in BBQ sauce. Fraz, can you airmail me some? World knows Texans make the best bbq. I'll skip the brontosaurus meat though.

All meat all the time, here at this school, your kid will be constantly constipated

 cincydooley wrote:
Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

I'm in!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

I agree with Nuggz!

....it had to happen sometime.

Sorry, but not eating meat is like saying "Nah, I don't want to have sex. Not my thing".

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

Clearly you've never been to the Southeastern part of the US:



Wild Boar are fething ridiculous...

They are just piggies right.......
Wild boar are VERY dangerous, up there with Hippos.

The reason for this is that they are both aggressive and territorial but dont have the dangerous rep of a big cat. Hippos kill far more people than big cats do, and a Wild boar can really mess you up. Just ask Robert Baratheon.
Apologies for the fictional example but its not a myth that you had a stopper bar on a boar spear to stop a boar from killing you after you had already skewered it at spearpoint, and you don't need to impale a boar to make it mad enough to gore you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Sorry, but not eating meat is like saying "Nah, I don't want to have sex. Not my thing".

Abstinence is workable and more prevalent than you might think. The average age at which people lose their virginity is higher than the age people assume is the case. Though in both cases getting lower.

Todays society especially with the internet is incompatible with abstinence, but it is still common in the religious community. Problems arise where this is enforced, as with Catholic dogma, and us the roiot cause of th massive abuse. Other religions and denominations that have abstinent subsects one an volunteer to join are more healthy. There are a lot of women in this category, its generally an easier path for women as the sex drive is generally less and not always enjoyable. Still have a reduced sexual libido is considered amongst the gifts, I can understand why.

Vegetarianism is indeed similar, its a withdrawal from part of the natural order for moral reasons. A reduce sex drive is seen as a refocusing, a removal of meat intake is an ethical choice of its own, In thr christian tradition vegetarianism is considered not a gift but an 'acceptable weakness'. Vegetarianism is considered unnecessary abstinence (it a an agrarian society back then) but one where the moral reasons were acknowledgable as spiritually healthy.

I go along with this and don't criticise vegetarianism. the way I see it, veggies are giving up on one of the joys of life, eating meat in favour of a moral code. I cant find any fault in that and acknowledge their sacrifice. Vegan are the same but a little extreme, its ok to drink milk surely, even if its understandably not ok to kill the cow. vegans tend to explain thier cvhoices by the way the dairy industry also exploits animals. I can go along with that and approve of mandatory labeling of the sources of dairy products an eggs . Sometimes I buy cheaper eggs because I cannot afford, and feel ia little bad about that, but I am not wealthy. I would if I could have just free range and have no problem morally whatsoever in doing so, A free range hen is not exploited in any meaningful way, in fact i would say they have decent lives.

Got to go now, I really want a fried egg and bacon sandwich all of a sudden.

 cincydooley wrote:
Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

I want to roast a pig.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Anyone who thinks being a vegetarian is the same as being a vegan, or confuses the two, is clearly lacking in intellect.
Comparing it with sex and spanking is dumb, too, seeing as they're completely unrelated and not good comparisons at all - although I guess it's pointless to argue against people's "vegetarians are all dumb and evil!!!11!"-opinion, seeing that eating meat is appatently required to be "cool" and "manly".

You were the one who said there were acceptable replacements.

I disagreed, with an example of an equivalently poor replacement (spanking) for the real thing (sex).

You have failed to refute that.

So if anyone is "dumb", it's you.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

I want to roast a pig.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Anyone who thinks being a vegetarian is the same as being a vegan, or confuses the two, is clearly lacking in intellect.
Comparing it with sex and spanking is dumb, too, seeing as they're completely unrelated and not good comparisons at all - although I guess it's pointless to argue against people's "vegetarians are all dumb and evil!!!11!"-opinion, seeing that eating meat is appatently required to be "cool" and "manly".

You were the one who said there were acceptable replacements.

I disagreed, with an example of an equivalently poor replacement (spanking) for the real thing (sex).

You have failed to refute that.

So if anyone is "dumb", it's you.

Quite some substitutes. Some of them taste like crap, but quite a lot of them are nice enough, and provide your body with everything that meat does, too (save for the taste, I guess)., such as Quorn.
I don't eat meat, and I'm perfectly healthy - haven't even been ill for a day the past two years. Truth is, you don't need meat at all, as long as you eat suitable replacement products. It's also cheaper!

 Desubot wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Taste is subjective, and arguing that others should "not be suffered to live" () because you like something and they don't is ridiculous, and the argument that eating meat makes you a "real man" has been presented several times ITT.

Not sure who was telling you to no live or that meat makes you man but that is not indicative of how every omnivore or carnivore thinks.

While the "suffer not the vegetarian to live" on this thread was quite clearly a joke, I've actually been told "Vegeterian? Go kill yourself" several times (in a non-joking manner, that is). The 'anti-vegetarian' mentality is absolutely ridiculous.

I think you misunderstand: they aren't telling you "go kill yourself," they're screaming at you "you're killing yourself!!" Clearly, you need meat to make the audio-receptors work. Let's hear it for the scientific method!!

 cincydooley wrote:
Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

Sure thing, let me grab my gun:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

You've clearly never been in the same general vicinity as an angry pig. You do NOT mess with an angry pig, they're one of the more dangerous animals. Wild pigs do actually hunt and kill things.

Its why you always carry a sidearm when hunting pigs. An injured pig is likely to turn and attack you instead of trying to run, and you're not going to win if it gets you.

Had wild boar once, was very tastey.

Dangerous hunting but good eating.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

You've clearly never been in the same general vicinity as an angry pig. You do NOT mess with an angry pig, they're one of the more dangerous animals. Wild pigs do actually hunt and kill things.

Its why you always carry a sidearm when hunting pigs. An injured pig is likely to turn and attack you instead of trying to run, and you're not going to win if it gets you.

Damn right:

Boar

Though not carnivores, these wild swine are bad-tempered and usually charge anyone who disturbs them. A boar is covered in coarse, grayish-black fur. Adult males are about 4 feet long and 3 feet high at the shoulder.

Ferocity (Ex)
A boar is such a tenacious combatant that it continues to fight without penalty even while disabled or dying.

Size/Type: Medium Animal
Hit Dice: 3d8+12 (25 hp)
Initiative: +0
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares)
Armor Class: 16 (+6 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 16
Base Attack/Grapple: +2/+4
Attack: Gore +4 melee (1d8+3)
Full Attack: Gore +4 melee (1d8+3)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Ferocity
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent
Saves: Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +2
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 10, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 4
Skills: Listen +7, Spot +5
Feats: Alertness, Toughness
Environment: Temperate forests
Organization: Solitary or herd (5-8)
Challenge Rating: 2
Advancement: 4-5 HD (Medium)
Level Adjustment: —





Way tougher than most orcs, a solitary boar is a challenge for a party of four second level characters.
Don't mess with feral piggies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

I want to roast a pig.

Want to combo that?

 cincydooley wrote:
Thread makes me want to go wild boar hunting in Arkansas. Who's up for a trip to Big Lake with me?

I'm down. I'll bring my FAL and Garand.

 Orlanth wrote:
Adult males are about 4 feet long and 3 feet high at the shoulder.

You got some tiny pigs around wherever they took that measurement. They can be way bigger than that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Adult males are about 4 feet long and 3 feet high at the shoulder.

You got some tiny pigs around wherever they took that measurement. They can be way bigger than that.

I want my babybackbabybackbabybackribs

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Adult males are about 4 feet long and 3 feet high at the shoulder.

You got some tiny pigs around wherever they took that measurement. They can be way bigger than that.

Please tell me that's some camera trickery.... if not, that's a MONSTER!

Nope, it really was that big. Pigs can get big.

Mind you its definitely not a common occurrence, but pigs can theoretically grow to any size. They never stop growing. They don't die of old age usually, they die of organ failure caused by continued growth.

I am not sure, I think thats one of those photoshopped images like the 50' snake, and megalodon found.

That pig is rhino sized.

Lets take a look:

Doing a search now on 'worlds largest pig'

The Liaoning Provincial Agricultural Museum is appealing to the Guinness Book of Records to recognise a 900 kg (1984 pounds) pig which died on February 5 as the biggest pig ever. When the pig died it was 2.5 metres long, had a waistline of 2.23 metres and a tusk of 14.4 centimetres long. According to XU Changjin, a farmer of Wafangdian city, the pig was only 5 years old. He kept his pig in a good built sty and gave it quality food all its life.



On the balance the image posted was about 20% bigger than the largest pigs on record, from various sources, so its not entirely incredible. But on the balance I think it's photoshopped.
A pig that big wont be a threat, we have half ton humans, and they tend not to be mobile. So a one ton pig is also going to have problems, I seriously doubt one could live in the wild, and the mega pigs are hand fed domestic animals, a bit like supersized humans are.
So in conclusion, I call fake.

And the kid killed it with that peashooter?

Thats not exactly a peashooter. Looks like a pretty big pistol.

Vs. That pig?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And the kid killed it with that peashooter?

Kid shoots mega fat pig with BB target pistol.

Mega fat pig gets angry.

Mega fat pig charges.

Mega fat pig makes about 10 yards.

Mega fat pig dies of heart attack.

Kid poses with trophy.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Vs. That pig?

On a target that large, the kill area is quite large.

 Orlanth wrote:




On the balance the image posted was about 20% bigger than the largest pigs on record, from various sources, so its not entirely incredible. But on the balance I think it's photoshopped.
A pig that big wont be a threat, we have half ton humans, and they tend not to be mobile. So a one ton pig is also going to have problems, I seriously doubt one could live in the wild, and the mega pigs are hand fed domestic animals, a bit like supersized humans are.
So in conclusion, I call fake.

Also... why do people seem to forget that muscle weighs more than fat does??? As such, an apparently much longer and larger pig, especially one that is wild should weigh more than the 1600 lbs. "domestic" pig living on a farm.


I agree that the wild pig picture is shopped... It appears, to me at least, that the upper part of the pig is "blurry" almost like it's falling or something, maybe my eyes are just getting bad, I dunno... but anyhow, I kind of doubt the pic is legit.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Vs. That pig?

On a target that large, the kill area is quite large.

You are still acting as if the pig was real. Ok lets run with this. What does it actually say about Americans.

You have a ten foot pig out in the bush, its big its vast its living out in the wild forraging. Its properly proportioned not like the overfat megapigs recoded of similar size which cant even move around their sty because they are so obese. This pig however is fully functional somehow, a porcine with the metabolism of a very large bovine. It's a miracle of nature, a freak of evolution, a treasure of planet earth.
So you fething shoot it.

Americans! What is up with you guys. It reminds me of the college teacher who disproved the theory that this ancient tree was not in fact the oldest living thing by counting its rings. Something normally done with a core sample. He was in fact proven right on a technicality, but only because he counted the rings by checking the stump after cutting down the tree with a chainsaw.

That pig wasn't a wild one. It was an escaped domestic pig as I recall from the followup article.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That pig wasn't a wild one. It was an escaped domestic pig as I recall from the followup article.

Yep BB gun kid is some serious game hunter.



If you take a look at the original image the pig is real and properly proportioned, look at the grainyness and shading of the image, its consistent with the pig and its background. It died near those trees. The photoshopped part is actually the kid, who was reduced before being added. The photoshop looks ok because the pig isnt altered and the trees dont give aimmeidate indication of scale as you see no foreground foliage and must rely on the human for scale. The kid is a very clear image, everything else is equally and much more grainy.

Super bunny here doesn't fit in the image background, the edges are blurry in a different way and the grainyness of the image differs between the kid, the bunny, and the background.

 Orlanth wrote:
It's a miracle of nature, a freak of evolution, a treasure of planet earth.
So you fething shoot it.

Americans! What is up with you guys. It reminds me of the college teacher who disproved the theory that this ancient tree was not in fact the oldest living thing by counting its rings. Something normally done with a core sample. He was in fact proven right on a technicality, but only because he counted the rings by checking the stump after cutting down the tree with a chainsaw.

They're none of of those things. They're not native to the country, they're ecologically destructive, and they're major nuisances.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Sounds like FREE bacon to me.

Could also be FREE heartworm at no added cost

Heartworm?

Pork should always be fully cooked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It's a miracle of nature, a freak of evolution, a treasure of planet earth.
So you fething shoot it.

Americans! What is up with you guys. It reminds me of the college teacher who disproved the theory that this ancient tree was not in fact the oldest living thing by counting its rings. Something normally done with a core sample. He was in fact proven right on a technicality, but only because he counted the rings by checking the stump after cutting down the tree with a chainsaw.

They're none of of those things. They're not native to the country, they're ecologically destructive, and they're major nuisances.

Native tribes agree on this.
But back to talking about the pigs.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It's a miracle of nature, a freak of evolution, a treasure of planet earth.
So you fething shoot it.

Americans! What is up with you guys. It reminds me of the college teacher who disproved the theory that this ancient tree was not in fact the oldest living thing by counting its rings. Something normally done with a core sample. He was in fact proven right on a technicality, but only because he counted the rings by checking the stump after cutting down the tree with a chainsaw.

They're none of of those things. They're not native to the country, they're ecologically destructive, and they're major nuisances.

Well that doesn't just apply to the pig

Beat you to it! Wakey wakey.

heartworm in feral pigs is rife, i wouldn;t even chance cooking it.

btw it should be wakey wakey hand of snakey unless you intend to cook it, manly man you.

Idiocy aside, chimps eat meat, wtf would a human not eat meat, friggin throwbacks deserve to be left on the evolutionary scrap heap where they belong ( more idiocy )

I have no time for vegetarians. If humanity went low tech again all the vego's would die out at a fast rate, meat is essential for humans specifically at a tribal level as it is one of the few easily prepared high fat , high protein, high calorie foods.

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

http://greatist.com/health/eating-meat-build-brain-121112

http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

Don't think you are morally superior Vegetarians, you are just a bunch of plant baby killers.

I keep insects for my food and i don't see the difference to killing them vs plants. HUMANS UP!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

Clearly, you have never seen how a pig can rip someone up.

Relapse wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a Texan, it is required that we eat animals, especially terrifying ones. We honor them by eating them, and thus gaining their strength.

Pigs are not what I would consider terrifying.

But they are *very* delicious.

Mmm... Bacon.

Clearly, you have never seen how a pig can rip someone up.

Have you?

I havert either, but I wonder how common it is. We have wild boar in the UK but attacks are unheard of. Either because those who wander the New Forest are woodwise enough to know not to provoke a boar, and those who dont know don't care to walk in the New Forest. One of the nice things about chavs is that they leave the countryside alone, Glastonbury excepted.

Let's be clear that we're not talking about pigs here, we're talking about feral wild boars. They can get pretty damn big (500lbs+ no problem) and are mean, nasty cusses. I've had buddies get hurt hunting boar, and they cause a ridiculous amount of property damage every year in the South where they're a serious pest problem.

who's with me in protesting this school?

We'll sit in our scooters eating triple bacon burgers!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Let's be clear that we're not talking about pigs here, we're talking about feral wild boars. They can get pretty damn big (500lbs+ no problem) and are mean, nasty cusses. I've had buddies get hurt hunting boar, and they cause a ridiculous amount of property damage every year in the South where they're a serious pest problem.

Technically wild boars and domestic pigs are the same species. Sus Scrofa

So are wolves and dogs.

Yes they are. But the difference between domestic pigs and wild ones is less than the difference between dogs and wolves.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes they are. But the difference between domestic pigs and wild ones is less than the difference between dogs and wolves.

Are you arguing that the mighty Chihuahua is more closely related to a wolf than a potbellied pig is to a wild boar?

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes they are. But the difference between domestic pigs and wild ones is less than the difference between dogs and wolves.

Are you arguing that the mighty Chihuahua is more closely related to a wolf than a potbellied pig is to a wild boar?

I said the exact opposite.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I said the exact opposite.

No, you didn't. You claimed that domestic pigs are less distinct from wild ones than wolves are from dogs.

Ok, Dogma. I don't know what is up with you today. Your reading comprehension is really bad.

In your first post.

Are you arguing that the mighty Chihuahua is more closely related to a wolf than a potbellied pig is to a wild boar?

You claim I said Dogs are closer to wolves than Pigs are to Wild Boar.


What I actually said is

But the difference between domestic pigs and wild ones is less than the difference between dogs and wolves

The difference between Pig and Boar is less than the difference between Dogs and Wolves.

IE: Pigs are closer to boars than dogs are to wolves.

The word "less" modifies the word "difference".

Yeah, Dogma, you understood that backwards. Its pretty clear he said pigs n boar are more alike than dogs n wolves.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Yeah, Dogma, you understood that backwards. Its pretty clear he said pigs n boar are more alike than dogs n wolves.

How. Size doesn't matter only genetics do, are we counting chromozomes here? If so how.

Lets stick to which is tastier and which makes a better companion, it's simpler.

 Smacks wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


They have a lot of nerve saying veganism is the "right thing for the living biosphere." Here are a couple living biosphere inhabitants...go tell them they're doing it wrong.

Are you implying that because animals murder, steal and gak in the woods, that we should too? While nature might be ingenious, animals are not. They do what they are programmed to do in order to survive, and will usually continue that behavior even if they are introduced to a new ecosystem where the behavior is destructive. Humans, on the other hand, have a choice.

I think morality is all about choice. In times of desperation, e.g. war/famine, people will stoop to all manner of depravity to survive: killing, stealing, cannibalism. If the only alternative is death, then it could be argued that they have no choice (at least not a choice they can live with). We do not live in a time of desperation. We do not need to kill, or steal, or resort to cannibalism. So we have the freedom to act in a way that is moral rather than just necessary.

I might not be a vegetarian, but I don't want to see animals suffer and treated cruelly to be my food. Given a choice I would rather have food that is treated ethically. I think in the future more and more people will start to see killing for food as something that is unnecessary entirely, and they will make a moral choice not to support it.

Why would you care about the suffering your food may or may not endure? Unless its a companion animal, the only purpose we give farm animals to exist is to be bred, slaughtered, and eaten. Their health does not even factor in unless it would have an adverse effect on the quality of the meat and potentially harm the humans eating it. Oh, and FYI, there is no such thing as morality, or at least not in the way people normally define it. There is nothing objectively "bad", merely that which is subjectively viewed by the observing party as a negative action, however what they think is ultimately irrelevant and without worth.

Also, for people who don't understand what a Boar is and just how dangerous they are-



This is a medieval Boar Sword, used by ballsy hunters who preferred the sword to the spear to take down wild boar in the hunt. See that crossbar mounted in the blade? That was installed because Boar would impale themselves on the blade of the sword after you stabbed them, sinking their body down the entire two feet or more of the sword just to gore you to death before it died of blood-loss. This was such a large threat that in the later periods, this kind of guard was common place.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Why would you care about the suffering your food may or may not endure?

Indeed, why would you care...


NSFW

You realize that undercover videos are almost always staged and fabricated. People deliberately infiltrate places where they can film themselves doing horrible things to get the company in trouble.

Also... if they are "true" videos, that just saves me money on the tenderizer




I kid I kid... Im not some PETA type, but I also think that anything other than a quick clean death in the process of becoming food is bad. Not really for an animal's sake, but it's bad for business. I've read too much that suggests/says that if an animal, including humans die in a painful/stressful way that there are chemicals naturally released by the body that make the meat less desirable. It becomes tougher/gamey, etc. Not to mention, it just doesn't make sense economically to "torture" an animal. The plant, Im sure, has quotas to meet, and wasting time beating something to death is counter productive to that end.

Indeed. Those activities are NOT good for business, and thats even without bad PR. Abused animals don't make good product.

I mean, how many off use do not know just how bad the meat industry is and how the meat gets to our table?
I know several vegetarians who are accutely aware of that, and cannot morally handle meat knowing that an animal suffered fors it entire life for a chicken nugget.

Most of those people are far too ill informed to make a call if an animal is suffering. They have no idea how things actually work.

So you are saying that all those books and all those authors are wrong about just how bad those animal farms are, and just how screwed up the meat industry is?

Yes. They take isolated instances, bald faced lies, and a general vendetta against using animals as food and mash it all up into a spewing mass of filth packaged as the truth.

It is extremely illogical for a business to treat their animals badly because animals which suffer don't produce profits. Animals which suffer lose weight, become sick, and generally don't thrive. Meat from said animals would taste absolutely awful, nobody would eat it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

IE: Pigs are closer to boars than dogs are to wolves.

Fair enough, I may or may not have been hungover when I typed that. That admission made, I think that you're splitting hairs as domestic pigs can interbreed with wild boars just as domestic dogs can interbreed with wolves.

Except they do treat animals badly, they pump them full of hormones and chemicals to make them fatter, tons of anti-biotics are used.
I recommend you read Omnivores Dilemma by Micheal Pollan. great book. He is an author who talks about just this.
Except he eats meat. Weird I know, but you can be against the meat industry and still eat meat. They arent all stupid vegetarians.

Anything PETA says is suspect considering they regularly slaughter animals at a scale to make the worst carnivore blush, and steal animals to boot.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Except they do treat animals badly, they pump them full of hormones and chemicals to make them fatter, tons of anti-biotics are used.
I recommend you read Omnivores Dilemma by Micheal Pollan. great book. He is an author who talks about just this.
Except he eats meat. Weird I know, but you can be against the meat industry and still eat meat. They arent all stupid vegetarians.

A meat eater has a vested interest in reform of the meat industry, a hardcore vegan has not, they just want it shut down.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Except they do treat animals badly, they pump them full of hormones and chemicals to make them fatter, tons of anti-biotics are used.
I recommend you read Omnivores Dilemma by Micheal Pollan. great book. He is an author who talks about just this.
Except he eats meat. Weird I know, but you can be against the meat industry and still eat meat. They arent all stupid vegetarians.

Hormones haven't been used in a large scale for decades. They've been totally illegal in poultry since the 60s. rBST is unpopular and so most dairies don't use it anymore, even though it doesn't have any side effects on the animal or humans. You could drink a cup of rBST and have nothing happen. Its a protein, thus it gets totally broken down by your digestive tract(you can't absorb whole proteins) and even if you were injected with it it wouldn't do anything. The B in BST stands for Bovine, Human Somatrophin is radically different chemically. Your body would just treat it as another protein coming down the digestive tract.

Antibiotics are important for animal health. You call all those people who are against vaccines crazy right? How is it ok for humans to take, but animals are off limits? There are cases where animals are given too much, but again its the exception and not the rule. Medications are expensive, businesses have zero motivation to overmedicate if they don't have to.

The Omnivores Dillema is one of the more sane books from the other side, but its still full of misinformation.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Antibiotics are important for animal health. You call all those people who are against vaccines crazy right? How is it ok for humans to take, but animals are off limits? There are cases where animals are given too much, but again its the exception and not the rule. Medications are expensive, businesses have zero motivation to overmedicate if they don't have to.

Sorry thats a strawman argument, which is odd as factory farm animal normally avoid straw to save costs.

There is a world of difference between taking antibiotics when ill and taking large amounts of antibiotics as standard in order to help counter appalling sanitary conditions.

Anitbiotic veterinary care is not a problem, slaughtering livestock which have been fed antibiotics is also ok, its however not ok on large scale. Factory farming is one of the major causes of anti-biotic resistent bacteria because its systemically throwing antibiotics into an arena where disease naturally thrives.

Animals give a choice will avoid sick members of their own kind this can even be achieved in pen conditions to some extent. However packed gulag farming doesn't allow this, also farming of this intensity is intended to minimise costs and due to lower staffing animal welfare priorities are lower and dead or sick animals are not isolated as quickly as in other farming conditions.

You are basing your stance on misinformation, as usual for that position.

Cleanliness is one thing factory farms do quite well. Cement floors and cages keep animals out of their feces. Which reduces disease transfer.

Laying chickens are actually less likely to injure themselves if kept in tighter cages. Leghorns are extremely flighty birds, they're easily startled. If they are given more space, they both waste energy running around their cage instead of laying eggs AND they're prone to injuring themselves because they can get running starts. And an injured bird will quickly get eaten by its penmates as chickens are extremely cannibalistic, once they taste blood they won't stop.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Why would you care about the suffering your food may or may not endure?

Because I'm not a sadist. Why on Earth would you want an animal to suffer unnecessarily? Just because an animal is destined to be eaten, doesn't mean it has to live a life of abuse.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Oh, and FYI, there is no such thing as morality, or at least not in the way people normally define it. There is nothing objectively "bad", merely that which is subjectively viewed by the observing party as a negative action, however what they think is ultimately irrelevant and without worth.

FYI, no one needs "good and bad being a human creation" explained to them by Captain Obvious. Morality might be a somewhat subjective human notion, but since humans and their cultures do exist, I can categorically say that there is such a thing as morality. To say that it is irrelevant and without worth is asinine. I'm sure there are plenty of people in prison who thought that other people's ideas about right and wrong were irrelevant. Now they have a lot of spare time to contemplate just how relevant other people's ideas turned out to be. Morality has as much worth as any other human endeavor, it is part of the glue that holds societies and cultures together. It might all exist in people's heads, but there is still no escaping it.

 Smacks wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Why would you care about the suffering your food may or may not endure?

Because I'm not a sadist. Why on Earth would you want an animal to suffer unnecessarily? Just because an animal is destined to be eaten, doesn't mean it has to live a life of abuse.

While true, the people crying abuse over the meat industry have zero idea what abuse actually is. It requires context, which is something they don't have.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While true, the people crying abuse over the meat industry have zero idea what abuse actually is. It requires context, which is something they don't have.

Regardless of the context, less abuse is nearly always going to be preferable to more abuse.

I'm just wondering what happens when it comes to teaching a healthy balanced diet which IIRC is compulsary to teach, or at least should be. Because there's a reason some people almost die from switching to a balanced diet. We're omnivorous creatures designed to eat meat. Milk, maybe not, but eggs and meat, certainly, are vital parts of human diet.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Cleanliness is one thing factory farms do quite well. Cement floors and cages keep animals out of their feces. Which reduces disease transfer.

How does a cement floor keep an animal out of its feces?

 Grey Templar wrote:

If they are given more space, they both waste energy running around their cage instead of laying eggs AND they're prone to injuring themselves because they can get running starts.

That sounds like a factory farm mentality.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Cleanliness is one thing factory farms do quite well. Cement floors and cages keep animals out of their feces. Which reduces disease transfer.

How does a cement floor keep an animal out of its feces?

Because the floors are regularly hosed down and sloped. Thus ensuring feces are removed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If they are given more space, they both waste energy running around their cage instead of laying eggs AND they're prone to injuring themselves because they can get running starts.

That sounds like a factory farm mentality.

Its true. My own school did a study which proved conclusively that larger cages were detrimental to the health and production of the birds.

 Deadshot wrote:
I'm just wondering what happens when it comes to teaching a healthy balanced diet which IIRC is compulsary to teach, or at least should be. Because there's a reason some people almost die from switching to a balanced diet. We're omnivorous creatures designed to eat meat. Milk, maybe not, but eggs and meat, certainly, are vital parts of human diet.

Well... it's one of those oddities where the human digestive system is kind of adaptable. Remember that article a few years back that teenaged girl from Scotland (IIRC) who ate nothing but Ramen squares? As in, the claim was made that she could "only eat" ramen as everything else she ate, from carrots to chicken made her sick. I have no doubts that this person was not a healthy individual and that the reason she became "sick" from eating real foods was her body's attempting to repair the damage done by her piss poor diet.

But, I think that, as per your first question: how to teach healthy balanced diets; I don't think that private schools are required to teach that. As such, I don't think that there would be anything to teach an actual diet other than the proposed Vegan only stuff. If there were more compulsory teachings, then Creationism wouldn't be allowed to be taught, even in a religious school.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Because the floors are regularly hosed down and sloped. Thus ensuring feces are removed.

Fair, but that's the argument you should have led with.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its true. My own school did a study which proved conclusively that larger cages were detrimental to the health and production of the birds.

How was "health" defined?

I mean I'm sure production was negatively impacted by larger cages, but health is a very different thing.

Death, rate of cannibalism, and injury.

Fair, but that's the argument you should have led with.

I would hope that its pretty dang obvious. Cement is put in so you can clean.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Death, rate of cannibalism, and injury.

Death, or rate of death?

 Grey Templar wrote:

I would hope that its pretty dang obvious. Cement is put in so you can clean.

I suspect that most of us haven't worked on farms, so it isn't obvious that cement floors slope into a drain.

Rate of course.

Death was about 5% higher in the lower density cages, this includes death caused by cannibalism(which starts due to injury or disease opening a wound which chickens have a compulsion to pick at). While it is a small increase, it does show that having more space doesn't improve the bird's welfare like proponents of larger cages claimed.

What does "Lower Density Cages" mean?

Less birds in the same space.


Also, Prop2 is actually very badly constructed law because it doesn't define how big the new cages are supposed to be. The law literally only says the birds need to be able to fully extend their wings while turning around. But it doesn't give any hard numbers. It doesn't say if the birds need to be able to turn around while their wings are clipped, unclipped, pinioned(wing tip removed at the first joint while the bird is a chick), or anything else. That's a good 6-10 inches of ambiguity, plus no accounting for actual size of the bird. So anyone who builds new cages has no idea what standard they're being judged by.

Egg producers are basically stuck with either making cages so huge they'll never make money or leave the state.

I was talking to a duck farmer who keeps his ducks in sheds on wood shavings and under lights to keep them warm. He said he needs his birds clean as any kind of skin blemish gets him much much lower price from his asian buyers. Interestingly the wood shavings are turned regularly, changed regularly, and are i think 3-5 foot deep, all to keep the ducks clean. He said a water pond whilst probably be good for the ducks (my opinion) is a bad idea as it spreads too much disease. Duck water gets filthy as they clean their noses in it. I guess a trough that's changed regularly is actually better for the ducks health .

 Grey Templar wrote:


Cleanliness is one thing factory farms do quite well. Cement floors and cages keep animals out of their feces. Which reduces disease transfer.

Actually not so. Factory farms exist to maximise density for profit so the extra maintenance to slop out often just doesn't happen.
Factory farming due to its ethos of maximising productivity regardless of moral consequence is more likely to skip on animal care than non factory farming.
Wheras free range farming doesn't require this extra maintenance.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Laying chickens are actually less likely to injure themselves if kept in tighter cages. Leghorns are extremely flighty birds, they're easily startled. If they are given more space, they both waste energy running around their cage instead of laying eggs AND they're prone to injuring themselves because they can get running starts. And an injured bird will quickly get eaten by its penmates as chickens are extremely cannibalistic, once they taste blood they won't stop.

So your argument is that if an animal likes to has more space due to its instincts better control can be achieved by giving them less space. Which is needlessly cruel when free range eliminates this problem.
Also chickens fight each other because of the conditions they are kept, as do pigs. Take livestock out of a gulag and while they will compete they are less likely to peck/bite each other to death because of mental collapse.

Also the type of tight cages you approve of, that restrict an animal so that it cant peck.bite , also restrict an animal so that it cannot turn around, and in the case of fowl cannot spread its wings. They are reduced to machine components given enough room to feed gak and produce piglets/eggs. Wings atrophy of chickens caged in these conditions, which I suppose is OK to you because the egg servitors don't need wings to lay eggs, they do need to be able to stretch their wings for their health, both physical and mental.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I would hope that its pretty dang obvious. Cement is put in so you can clean.

I suspect that most of us haven't worked on farms, so it isn't obvious that cement floors slope into a drain.

This assumes unreasonably that the staff regularly hose down, ignores that the animals have to lie in slurry between hose downs especially in fattener pens, and that the drains are often blocked by the amount of effluence produced by large numbers of animals being stored in a very small space.

Also the run off of fairly concentrated slurry cause local environmental problems. Free range and open pen swine fertilise their surrounding territory, factory farm swine produce too much concentrated slurry it causes produces a toxic bog.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Cleanliness is one thing factory farms do quite well. Cement floors and cages keep animals out of their feces. Which reduces disease transfer.

Actually not so. Factory farms exist to maximise density for profit so the extra maintenance to slop out often just doesn't happen.
Factory farming due to its ethos of maximising productivity regardless of moral consequence is more likely to skip on animal care than non factory farming.
Wheras free range farming doesn't require this extra maintenance.

As if you know better about this than someone who's made it their profession.

Farms which are not regularly cleaned are not profitable. They do indeed clean regularly. Good animal care = profit. Its not an inconvenience like you seem to think.

Free Range is one of those terms which doesn't man what you think it means. It means the animal isn't in a cage and has access to dirt. It does not mean it has a Pasteur to run around in.

Orlanth probably has me on ignore, but i thought my post outlined why a poultry (not egg) farmer would take good care of his charges and how they do.

It did indeed.

Meat chickens are actually not raised in cages to prevent their breasts from getting bruised. But even if they were given more space they wouldn't use it. Those birds gain weight so fast(due to genetics) that they do nothing but eat, drink, and sleep. Even if given all the space in the world.

UC Davis did a study with them giving them access to a grassy outside space. They wouldn't even go outside till they forced them to by putting their water outside. And they only ever went out there to drink.

 Bullockist wrote:
Orlanth probably has me on ignore, but i thought my post outlined why a poultry (not egg) farmer would take good care of his charges and how they do.

I don't have anyone on ignore, and never will, I am not the sort to be afraid of what anyone else has to say.

I read your post and from your descriptions including the deep piles of shavings its obviously not the same as the tiny cage battery farming discussed.

 Gogsnik wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Why would you care about the suffering your food may or may not endure?

Indeed, why would you care...


NSFW

Spoiler:

And I care about the treatment of an animal bound to be butchered for my own consumption why? It's not a pet. It's not mine. It's not human. While if it is real, it's certainly unnecessary, but compared to other gak that happens even in my own nation, it's not even a problem. I won't even bother losing sleep or feeling remorse for the treatment of fodder until other far more important problems are solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Why would you care about the suffering your food may or may not endure?

Because I'm not a sadist. Why on Earth would you want an animal to suffer unnecessarily? Just because an animal is destined to be eaten, doesn't mean it has to live a life of abuse.

And it's not my ward. I haven't a care for its existence- it's life is inconsequential and utterly meaningless to me, for its existence is purely to end up on my plate. Unless it adversely effects the quality of the meat, I couldn't care less. I don't want it to suffer, but I also don't care if it suffers.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Oh, and FYI, there is no such thing as morality, or at least not in the way people normally define it. There is nothing objectively "bad", merely that which is subjectively viewed by the observing party as a negative action, however what they think is ultimately irrelevant and without worth.

FYI, no one needs "good and bad being a human creation" explained to them by Captain Obvious. Morality might be a somewhat subjective human notion, but since humans and their cultures do exist, I can categorically say that there is such a thing as morality. To say that it is irrelevant and without worth is asinine. I'm sure there are plenty of people in prison who thought that other people's ideas about right and wrong were irrelevant. Now they have a lot of spare time to contemplate just how relevant other people's ideas turned out to be. Morality has as much worth as any other human endeavor, it is part of the glue that holds societies and cultures together. It might all exist in people's heads, but there is still no escaping it.

Except morality is easily escaped, and only exists as long as there others to observe and exact retribution depending on your actions. Outside of the eye of society and the contempt and retribution it directs, morality evaporates and loses all "worth' it has in a nation. Also as you seem to forget, there is no such thing as right, and there is no wrong. Saying something is morally "horrible" "sadistic" etc is without worth- it's a heavily biased view sourced from the culture of your upbringing. You are no more correct then the person or thing you label if you source your statement from your own morality- and thus it's worthless. Pointless. It has no value in a discussion, you're simply screaming a word that in truth has no actual definition. It's subjective. Fact on the other hand, that does hold meaning, as it is either objective, or as close to an objective statement that is physically possible.

 Wyzilla wrote:
I won't even bother losing sleep or feeling remorse for the treatment of fodder until other far more important problems are solved.

Which is a perfect example of the fallacy of relative privation. Appealing to bigger problems is a tried and tested way to make no argument at all.

 Wyzilla wrote:
And it's not my ward. I haven't a care for its existence- it's life is inconsequential and utterly meaningless to me, for its existence is purely to end up on my plate. Unless it adversely effects the quality of the meat, I couldn't care less. I don't want it to suffer, but I also don't care if it suffers.

In the grand scheme of things, all lives are inconsequential and utterly meaningless. Existentially speaking, meaning is something we bring ourselves. You would not like to be tortured and enslaved. Fortunately for you, other people cared enough about your inconsequential life to make laws protecting you. If you don't feel it is worth your time to save other living creatures from harm (or at least speak out against it) then that is your decision. But other people do feel they have time to care about that stuff, and they see great value and meaning in protecting other things from harm.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Except morality is easily escaped, and only exists as long as there others to observe and exact retribution depending on your actions. Outside of the eye of society and the contempt and retribution it directs, morality evaporates and loses all "worth' it has in a nation. Also as you seem to forget, there is no such thing as right, and there is no wrong. Saying something is morally "horrible" "sadistic" etc is without worth- it's a heavily biased view sourced from the culture of your upbringing. You are no more correct then the person or thing you label if you source your statement from your own morality- and thus it's worthless. Pointless. It has no value in a discussion.

You are trying to argue that morality has no "value" and no "meaning" because it is a human construct, but value and meaning are themselves human constructs. You can't use one fictitious construct to deny another. I never argued that anything was "objectively wrong". All I said is that people will start to view it as wrong.

Also, there is nothing especially subjective about harm or sadism. Those things can be objectively defined and quantified (within reason). Any reasonable person would agree that beating an animal constitutes harming it. A lot of human morality is based on the idea of doing no harm. Even outside a cultural context, non-psychopaths usually feel guilt and remorse when they harm others. Likely because empathy and kindness serve some evolutionary purpose. Nothing is entirely subjective (nor is anything entirely objective). Things mean what we as people agree that they mean. Most words are fuzzy and subjective in their "objective" definition. At what point does a lake become a sea, or a boat become a ship? If someone wants to go around saying "words have no meaning" then that is something they can rightly claim (philosophically speaking), but you can't have a discussion that way.

I ate four different animals tonight in honor of this school.

I agree with the sadistic temperament of your palate. Nothing shows a lack of morals like masticating somethings remains beyond recognition. Now I'm off to eat some sausages , I think that counts as a double mastication .

 Grey Templar wrote:

As if you know better about this than someone who's made it their profession.

Have you ever made it your profession to farm animals?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Good animal care = profit.

Sure, assuming "good animal care" is meant to lead to "profit". But "good animal care" often does not consider the well-being of the animal, which seems to be the issue here.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Good animal care = profit.

Sure, assuming "good animal care" is meant to lead to "profit". But "good animal care" often does not consider the well-being of the animal, which seems to be the issue here.

Jesus, some of you witches have a bad view of farming. I work with a lot of primary industry people and i can tell you the health of their charges is #1 . It is NOT some by product of growing things faster. It is about getting maximum money (as you have said). Any good primary producer (whether that be grain to cows) will tell you in order to do that you need the right conditions (and low stress) otherwise the big growth doesn't happen.

In regard to highest feed to weight conversion the common thing is in all livestock above chicken ( and judging by ducks chicken is similar) is to grass/natural feed then take em to a feed lot for a few weeks and make em gorge for a few weeks to get the fat content up. chickens are a little more accelerated but in my country that's how it is.
You can argue gak from the 90's , i think most western farming is a lot different now.
I work with a lot of beekeepers, yeah sure they could just rip out the honey with no care for the hive, point is if they care for the hive they get more honey and the hive is happy. Yeah , happy, bees just want to work.The same stands for live stock, if you are breeding generations then you definitely do not want to stress out your breeding cows, same with chickens, everyone has heard of broody chickens?
Whilst i talk with bee keepers i also get a LOT of primary industry contact, and i can tell you animal care is highest on their agenda.

It isn't a happy accident, it is about getting the best return, and not some other moralistic crap.

IN farming why would anything other than return be applicable? that's what it is about ,like any other business. OK then, you want to be morally superior , don't eat ANY food from a supermarket, and i mean ANY coz i'm sure that broccoli grown in a super short time doesn't feel that great. it's not natural.it's natural rhythums have been strained and (shock horror) it cannot even breed naturally.

This focus on mammals is weird, plants and insects are things to, or we just chuck a gak about things that are closely related to us?
feths sake every time you eat a fruit/vegetable you are killing something before it had it's natural chance to reproduce.

Maybe living with bees for over 27 years has inflicted my view, but for gods sake, every time you eat, every time you walk, SOMETHING DIES.
There are things smaller than mammals. This whole moralistic crap breaks down when you realise every step you take on a natural substance something either dies or that step inhibits somethings growth.The "bioshphere" is a competition, not a fething inclusive party.
so don't walk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
to me there isn't a difference between a cow and a bee.

 Bullockist wrote:

to me there isn't a difference between a cow and a bee.

You can't get a 12 oz steak of a bee.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

to me there isn't a difference between a cow and a bee.

You can't get a 12 oz steak of a bee.

I dunno those Japanese ones are getting big.

you can get far more than 12 pounds out of a beehive. continuously, forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

to me there isn't a difference between a cow and a bee.

You can't get a 12 oz steak of a bee.

and a 12 oz steak of bee would be horribly exoskelitony.

then again every 12 pound of vegetables is due to a bee

and the whole difference between a bee ect... is a mod edit....so take it up with them.


mods doin the good job.

This focus on mammals is weird, plants and insects are things to, or we just chuck a gak about things that are closely related to us?
feths sake every time you eat a fruit/vegetable you are killing something before it had it's natural chance to reproduce.

At least in terms of the "living biosphere" comments that kicked this off initially, a great deal of it is because mammals are grossly inefficient in a lot of cases. Unless you're raising them strictly on marginal land that has no other real human use besides feeding animals you're probably taking a net resource loss on them for humanity, and certainly for the planet.

In terms of overall energy, land and waste costs you need to produce them mammals are going to give you less human edible output for the same input when contrasted with a great deal of the alternatives.

 Bullockist wrote:
you can get far more than 12 pounds out of a beehive. continuously, forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

to me there isn't a difference between a cow and a bee.

You can't get a 12 oz steak of a bee.

and a 12 oz steak of bee would be horribly exoskelitony.

then again every 12 pound of vegetables is due to a bee

and the whole difference between a bee ect... is a mod edit....so take it up with them.




mods doin the good job.

You've never had a good 12 ounce steak? In Texas we'd call child protective services if someone mistreated their kid like that.
12oz is a minimum.

True fact. Once TBone the mighty ate a 3/4 burger. AT the time he was fighting weight at 8 lb, and wanted more. Thats 10% of your body weight.

 Bullockist wrote:
you can get far more than 12 pounds out of a beehive. continuously, forever.

Honey is good, but even 12lbs is no replacement for a good steak

 Chongara wrote:

This focus on mammals is weird, plants and insects are things to, or we just chuck a gak about things that are closely related to us?
feths sake every time you eat a fruit/vegetable you are killing something before it had it's natural chance to reproduce.

At least in terms of the "living biosphere" comments that kicked this off initially, a great deal of it is because mammals are grossly inefficient in a lot of cases. Unless you're raising them strictly on marginal land that has no other real human use besides feeding animals you're probably taking a net resource loss on them for humanity, and certainly for the planet.

In terms of overall energy, land and waste costs you need to produce them mammals are going to give you less human edible output for the same input when contrasted with a great deal of the alternatives.

While plants do give more calories for energy expended than animals do, not all food is equal. Protein is a necessary component of our diet and meat is the only way we could provide enough for the world.

for what its worth, we're not even close to running out of land to grow food on. Be it plant or animal. We'd be able to support many times Earth's current population before food became a limiting factor.

for what its worth, we're not even close to running out of land to grow food on. Be it plant or animal. We'd be able to support many times Earth's current population before food became a limiting factor.

And just think of all the soylent green....

 Grey Templar wrote:


While plants do give more calories for energy expended than animals do, not all food is equal. Protein is a necessary component of our diet and meat is the only way we could provide enough for the world.

for what its worth, we're not even close to running out of land to grow food on. Be it plant or animal. We'd be able to support many times Earth's current population before food became a limiting factor.

yup, and there are very good reasons why carnivores or omnivores tended to develop larger brains then pure herbivores.

"It’s likely that meat eating “made it possible for humans to evolve a larger brain size,” said Aiello. Early human ancestors probably consumed more animal foods — termites and small mammals – than the 2 percent of carnivorous caloric intake associated with chimpanzees.

The social implications of increased meat eating were interesting, said Aiellio. In most primates, there’s no food sharing between females and offspring, she said. But the difficulty of getting meat led to cooperative food sharing among early humans, strengthening the bond between a female and her offspring."

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/

either way,

its much simpler for a vegan or vegetarian to take the meat out of a school meal, or choose the vegetarian option, then it is for someone to have to add meat to a meatless menu.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

This focus on mammals is weird, plants and insects are things to, or we just chuck a gak about things that are closely related to us?
feths sake every time you eat a fruit/vegetable you are killing something before it had it's natural chance to reproduce.

At least in terms of the "living biosphere" comments that kicked this off initially, a great deal of it is because mammals are grossly inefficient in a lot of cases. Unless you're raising them strictly on marginal land that has no other real human use besides feeding animals you're probably taking a net resource loss on them for humanity, and certainly for the planet.

In terms of overall energy, land and waste costs you need to produce them mammals are going to give you less human edible output for the same input when contrasted with a great deal of the alternatives.

While plants do give more calories for energy expended than animals do, not all food is equal. Protein is a necessary component of our diet and meat is the only way we could provide enough for the world.

for what its worth, we're not even close to running out of land to grow food on. Be it plant or animal. We'd be able to support many times Earth's current population before food became a limiting factor.

If you don't mind, a question before I respond to this post:

Exactly how much time have you spent looking into food production, the relative return on plant vs animal-based protein sources and like the current state of and projected trends for the availability of arable land?

Its a simple matter of looking at the total available arable land on earth vs how much is currently in use and how much food is currently produced. As it is we produce far more food than is necessary for earth's population, lots of it just gets wasted. Arable land also only includes land which is used to grow plant crops, it doesn't count land which is only suitable for pasture and grazing of herd animals. This means there is plenty of land which could only be used to raise animals.

This is all without considering aquaculture or other methods of growing food on normally unfarmable land. It also assumes we use modern farming techniques everywhere and grow applicable crops.

I'm an Ag student at university so I have studied this in some detail.

Plant vs Animal protein is a clear winner for the animal. Some essential amino acids are not available from plant sources too.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some essential amino acids are not available from plant sources too.

Could you please name them? It's clear one of us is grossly ignorant on the matter and if it's me I loathe to remain uneducated.

Here is an interesting article by Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html

Hunger isn't caused by a lack of ability to grow food, nor our future ability to grow food. We don't lack the resources, and won't have a shortage for a long time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Here is an interesting article by Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html

Hunger isn't caused by a lack of ability to grow food, nor our future ability to grow food. We don't lack the resources, and won't have a shortage for a long time.

...you gonna name those Amino Acids or...?

EDIT: You should also like, read the articles to post to make sure they conclusion they reach at least vaguely resemble the one you're trying to use them to support.

Can conventional agriculture provide the yields we need to feed 10 billion people by 2050? Given climate change, the answer is an unsustainable "maybe." The question is, at what social and environmental cost? To end hunger we must end poverty and inequality. For this challenge, agroecological approaches and structural reforms that ensure that resource-poor farmers have the land and resources they need for sustainable livelihoods are the best way forward.

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some essential amino acids are not available from plant sources too.

Could you please name them? It's clear one of us is grossly ignorant on the matter and if it's me I loathe to remain uneducated.

It appears I misspoke on this.

While you can get all essential Amino acids from plants, only animal proteins contain all the essential amino acids together. IE: no plant foods are complete proteins. Meaning that without meat its far harder to get all your essential proteins. They are histidine, lysine, threonine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine and tryptophan. Only meat has all 9 together in useful quantities.

Vegetarians and Vegans are also often deficient in several other important nutrients, like Vitamin B12.

The Catholics tried this track, saying that earth could sustain 15 billion people, so there is no need for birth control.

We cant feed the people we have properly as to do so requires a perfect society and ethical distribution.

Earth is also home to everything else, and we shouldn't be looking at the usable landmass as entirely space for human need.

We're still a far cry away from all those people crying that we don't have enough food when its blatantly false. Food isn't the problem, its the equitable distribution of it.

never mind... To late. I was not on the page I thought I was.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some essential amino acids are not available from plant sources too.

Could you please name them? It's clear one of us is grossly ignorant on the matter and if it's me I loathe to remain uneducated.

It appears I misspoke on this.

While you can get all essential Amino acids from plants, only animal proteins contain all the essential amino acids together. IE: no plant foods are complete proteins. Meaning that without meat its far harder to get all your essential proteins. They are histidine, lysine, threonine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine and tryptophan. Only meat has all 9 together in useful quantities.

Vegetarians and Vegans are also often deficient in several other important nutrients, like Vitamin B12.

gak. You mean Vegetarians might have to eat Rice and Beans? feth that gak. Who in the world eats more than one thing? Game over plants.

That's more than misspeaking, that's total reversal of the previous statement.

A well planned diet of strictly plant material can provide every nutrient in sufficient amounts save the only one you've correctly cited here - B12 which is unavailable at all from plants and mostly only from animals. That said a meat is far from the most efficient way to get B12 from animals, certainly the flesh of large mammals are a horrible way of getting it from an ecological standpoint.

What's more true is that the good plant sources for every nutrient are not always widely available to or readily accepted by all populations everywhere.

I'm a meat eater. I'm not about to stop eating meat. I'm not about to stop eating mammals. Pigs are pretty much pure deliciousness given physical form, a sort of flavor elemental if you would. That said it's silly to go about pretending that Pork Chops, Chicken Legs or even the odd squirrel are an essential part of the human diet.

Meat is something humans are adapted for eating. Meat is something that's perfectly good for us. Meat also has an high energy cost to produce, has huge ecological footprints and is not necessary.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rate of course.

Death was about 5% higher in the lower density cages, this includes death caused by cannibalism(which starts due to injury or disease opening a wound which chickens have a compulsion to pick at). While it is a small increase, it does show that having more space doesn't improve the bird's welfare like proponents of larger cages claimed.

I think your being somewhat disingenuous here. To a point violence and canabilism among chickens does increase as stocking densities go down, but then quickly decrease as stocking densities reduce further. Reduction in stocking rates however does reduce other effects on birds, from reduced illness to less damage from waste. If you look at high density birds you will see red marks on their legs. This is from ammonia burns. Cannibalise, ammonia burns and violence disappears in stocking levels required to be called free range in the EU.

Sure, if you actually give them a ton of space. But then at that point you lose out on making any profit without jacking prices up to exorbitant levels.

The increase in space mandated by Prop2 doesn't increase bird welfare, but it does hurt businesses who are already barely making money. They only clear a few pennies per dozen over expenses. And now businesses will have to pay millions to update their cages to comply with a nebulous and undefined standard or move out of state, and then ship eggs into California. Increasing prices for consumers, do nothing for bird welfare, and increase pollution due to longer shipping.

Its not disingenuous, its applied to the specific situation. Free range is better for the bird, but its not better for people. And ultimately people > birds.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sure, if you actually give them a ton of space. But then at that point you lose out on making any profit without jacking prices up to exorbitant levels.

If you slap it with a "Free range organically grass fed" blah blah blah label, you sure as gak can jack up the prices

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sure, if you actually give them a ton of space. But then at that point you lose out on making any profit without jacking prices up to exorbitant levels.

The increase in space mandated by Prop2 doesn't increase bird welfare, but it does hurt businesses who are already barely making money. They only clear a few pennies per dozen over expenses. And now businesses will have to pay millions to update their cages to comply with a nebulous and undefined standard or move out of state, and then ship eggs into California. Increasing prices for consumers, do nothing for bird welfare, and increase pollution due to longer shipping.

Its not disingenuous, its applied to the specific situation. Free range is better for the bird, but its not better for people. And ultimately people > birds.

Or you could argue that meat has become far to cheap at the expense of animal welfare. I would argue it is not "exorbitant levels", but that £8/kg for chicken is reasonable price, and £2/kg is far too cheap. Eggs only go up by a small amount. You were claiming that welfare was the highest concern of farmers, as higher welfare makes for a better price, now your arguing the opposite. You specifically states "it does show that having more space doesn't improve the bird's welfare like proponents of larger cages claimed" with no disclaimer or context. That is why I was saying you were being disingenuous. Had you mentioned that a specific regulation was not appropriate or achieve what it sets out to do, I would not disagree, but you have been making sweeping statements about how factory farming is not a problem, more space is not a good thing and that birds must be fine because otherwise farmers would not do it. Your claim that "it is not better for people" is working on the assumption that the only defining factor in the equation should be getting the most product for the least money, but the change in welfare standards in the UK and EU show that this is not the case.

"Living biosphere"

So basically a school to raise pretentious little gaks most people will want to bitch slap down a flight of stairs?

Exactly.