Science and Technology news... :: View topic

server · Guest

message unavailable

Kathleen Crawford · Guest

Hi!
Did you ever find out what it was? I had my money on a small raccoon.
They can get through some very small holes and do amazing damage. The loss
of heads is their M.O.

Kathleen
Straw Barry Fields Farm
Beefalo
Kentucky, USA

--
"texasclaw" <texasclaw@valornet.com> wrote in message
news:e7f0dd0e-0dd1-44d0-b24a-06470f33477c@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
[quote]For the past several weeks I have been missing young goslings and
could not figure it out. Then a gosling in a pen close to the house
lost it>s head and the predator tried to pull it through the fence.
A chicken in the chicken yard (x>s2) with head off at dusk dark. Then
18 or so guinea keats 8-10 weeks,dead in the hut. Sealed the hut or
so I thought then more dead from the next batch. Sealed hut more then
the rest dead. Holes no bigger than 2"s by 3"s. Some bodies totally
eaten others mangled, others just dead. What can possibly get through
such small holes and be so vicious?

Help!
[/quote]

texasclaw · Guest

On Jul 13, 9:46 pm, "Kathleen Crawford" <magnoli...@windstream.net>
wrote:
[quote]Hi!
Did you ever find out what it was? I had my money on a small raccoon.
They can get through some very small holes and do amazing damage. The loss
of heads is their M.O.

Kathleen
Straw Barry Fields Farm
Beefalo
Kentucky, USA

--"texasclaw" <texasc...@valornet.com> wrote in message

news:e7f0dd0e-0dd1-44d0-b24a-06470f33477c@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

For the past several weeks I have been missing young goslings and
could not figure it out. Then a gosling in a pen close to the house
lost it>s head and the predator tried to pull it through the fence.
A chicken in the chicken yard (x>s2) with head off at dusk dark. Then
18 or so guinea keats 8-10 weeks,dead in the hut. Sealed the hut or
so I thought then more dead from the next batch. Sealed hut more then
the rest dead. Holes no bigger than 2"s by 3"s. Some bodies totally
eaten others mangled, others just dead. What can possibly get through
such small holes and be so vicious?

Help!
[/quote]
I did not find out what caused all the damage. I plan to fortify the
house with very small wire and put cement all around the bottom.

I had set live traps but nothing there. Normally I can catch the
raccoons in my live traps. Hope this next sealing works, otherwise I
will have to build another hut for the guineas.

A_ L _P · Guest

texasclaw wrote:
[quote]On Jul 13, 9:46 pm, "Kathleen Crawford" <magnoli...@windstream.net
wrote:
Hi!
Did you ever find out what it was? I had my money on a small raccoon.
They can get through some very small holes and do amazing damage. The loss
of heads is their M.O.

Kathleen
Straw Barry Fields Farm
Beefalo
Kentucky, USA

--"texasclaw" <texasc...@valornet.com> wrote in message

news:e7f0dd0e-0dd1-44d0-b24a-06470f33477c@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

For the past several weeks I have been missing young goslings and
could not figure it out. Then a gosling in a pen close to the house
lost it>s head and the predator tried to pull it through the fence.
A chicken in the chicken yard (x>s2) with head off at dusk dark. Then
18 or so guinea keats 8-10 weeks,dead in the hut. Sealed the hut or
so I thought then more dead from the next batch. Sealed hut more then
the rest dead. Holes no bigger than 2"s by 3"s. Some bodies totally
eaten others mangled, others just dead. What can possibly get through
such small holes and be so vicious?
Help!

I did not find out what caused all the damage. I plan to fortify the
house with very small wire and put cement all around the bottom.

I had set live traps but nothing there. Normally I can catch the
raccoons in my live traps. Hope this next sealing works, otherwise I
will have to build another hut for the guineas.
[/quote]

For rabbit fencing the best thing is to put netting about a foot into
the ground so they tunnel down into soil and then can>t get through. I
wonder if they>d find a solid barrier too easy to "decipher" and realise
they could tunnel underneath it? Don>t know their habits so this is
just a query/suggestion.

A L P

Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

[quote]dh@. wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments
exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.

"It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt

Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
positive value is better than not experiencing it,

It>s an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the
thought...

Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
benefitting from their lives.

If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the
good things in it, then nothing.
[/quote]
Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you>re able
to continue appreciating that fact.

[quote]There is no doubt that every life contains some juice, some joy,
[/quote]
Yes there is. Some lives never contain any joy, like those of poor
little beasts who are torturously killed by ants as they>re attempting
to hatch from their shells, for example.

[quote]and we should be focused on promoting
more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a
being comes into existence.
[/quote]
You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
lives for livestock just happen instantly, and probably by some
sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered
until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
people to believe it is?

[quote]What is wrong is to believe that we can take
this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food
animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.
[/quote]
In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY
to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
or not it>s cruel for them to be raised for food.

[quote][..]

There>s nothing that you have ever written, said, or
thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
explaining it NOW:
How did you get this confused?

The confusion is on your end, not mine.

No, it>s not. You have never shown that you understand the inherent
contradiction in the phrase "benefit from life".
[/quote]
I>m aware of some things:

1. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
2. Some people/person insists that something to do with
pre-existent entities prevents existing ones from benefitting
from their own existence, but can>t explain exactly how they
think it is accomplished.

[quote]You argue for the idea
in the rhetorical sense to mean "get enjoyment from life" but in the
Logic of the Larder it is used literally, as in "to benefit by coming
into existence". That>s where the fundamental error in the whole
argument lies.
[/quote]
Some lives are of positive value and some are not. You
still can>t make a distinction between:
_________________________________________________________
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
between when life has positive value for animals and when
it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.

[quote]I point out that you
have never explained it, can>t explain it, and therefore never
will be able to explain it. You want to pretend that you>ve already
explained it even though you can>t do it now nor can you provide
any examples of you having done it in the past, nor will there ever
be any examples of you doing it in the future.

I did just above.
[/quote]
You did when you wrote: "nothing". Your referrence to the
talking pig is as always meaningless.

[quote]"Pre-existent entities" are not ruining
anything, the concept is postulated as a way to allow the idea "coming
into existence is a benefit" to make logical sense. Of course common
sense says that no such entities "exist", therefore coming into
existence cannot be a benefit.

What you need to do in order to back up your claim, is explain
how you think your own pre-existence or/and that of any other
entity is preventing you from benefitting from your own existence.
But you can>t, meaning that you give us nothing to even consider
much less put faith in. Amusingly for me, you have obviously put
your faith in the idea even though you are completely unable to
explain why or how. If you think you can explain it, try doing it

You>re missing the point.
[/quote]
I>m WAY beyond you on all of this, and you can>t catch up.
Billions of animals DO experience decent lives of positive value
because they are raised for food. The fact that you don>t want
people to take that into consideration shows several things:

1. you yourself are completely inconsiderate of the animals.
2. most likely you are very disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food.
3. you do not want people to raise animals for food.
4. you are opposed to providing and appreciating decent lives
for livestock, ie: decent animal welfare.
5. you are in favor of eliminating livestock, and almost certainly
all other domestic animals as well.
6. you are opposed to people deliberately supporting decent
lives for livestock with their livestyle, because it works directly
against the elimination objective.

[quote]Once an animal exists, THEN there are many
ways to enhance that life.
[/quote]
I cannot believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and
naive to understand that livestock need to be planned
for a number of different ways IN ADVANCE. I can not
believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and naive to
understand that one of the ways they need to be planned
for in advance is to decide whether or not to raise them
at all in the first place.

[quote]That>s all very admirable.
[/quote]
How do you think it would work then? Explain exactly
how instead of planning for future hens, you think existing
hens in battery cages can be provided with decent lives.
Then try explaining why you don>t think we should consider
future hens even if existing ones are somehow provided with
decent lives by your plan that you have (could/can not!!!)
explained in detail.

[quote]If you insist on
saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is
wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.
[/quote]
Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
be of negative value and not worth living. People like
yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
can>t even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.

Dutch · Guest

dh@. wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments
exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.

"It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt
Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
positive value is better than not experiencing it,
It>s an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the
thought...
Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
benefitting from their lives.

If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the
good things in it, then nothing.

Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you>re able
to continue appreciating that fact.
[/quote]
I have always appreciated that animals can enjoy life. Can you grasp
that there is a difference between "enjoying life", and "benefiting by
coming into existence"

[quote]and we should be focused on promoting
more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a
being comes into existence.

You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
lives for livestock just happen instantly,
[/quote]
I don>t appear to think anything of the sort, stop playing the fool.

and probably by some
[quote]sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered
until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
people to believe it is?
[/quote]
The planning of animal welfare is predicated on the knowledge that
animals *will* exist, *will* be raised.

[quote]
What is wrong is to believe that we can take
this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food
animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.

In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY
to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
or not it>s cruel for them to be raised for food.
[/quote]
It is necessary to consider if we will be able to provide decent care
for the animals before we decide to raise them for food. If we cannot,
then we should not. It>s never necessary to believe that we do the
animals a favor by bringing them into existence, the very suggestion is
self-serving.

[quote]
[..]
There>s nothing that you have ever written, said, or
thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
explaining it NOW:
How did you get this confused?
The confusion is on your end, not mine.
[/quote]
If that were the case then you would not have asked how "pre-existent
entities are ruining are lives". Nothing I have ever said suggests such
a nonsensical question.

[quote]No, it>s not. You have never shown that you understand the inherent
contradiction in the phrase "benefit from life".

I>m aware of some things:

1. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
[/quote]
Life is not a benefit. Life may be *good*, but it can>t be a benefit.
Life is a prerequisite for the ability to obtain a benefit.

[quote]2. Some people/person insists that something to do with
pre-existent entities prevents existing ones from benefitting
from their own existence, but can>t explain exactly how they
think it is accomplished.
[/quote]
That>s the confusion I was talking about.

[quote]
You argue for the idea
in the rhetorical sense to mean "get enjoyment from life" but in the
Logic of the Larder it is used literally, as in "to benefit by coming
into existence". That>s where the fundamental error in the whole
argument lies.

Some lives are of positive value and some are not. You
still can>t make a distinction between:
_________________________________________________________
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
[/quote]

Your statements above show that although you can copy and paste from a
dictionary, you don>t understand the underlying concepts.

[quote]¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
between when life has positive value for animals and when
it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.
[/quote]
That>s just another silly statement. It>s not difficult to see when
conditions for animals are good or not.

[quote]
I point out that you
have never explained it, can>t explain it, and therefore never
will be able to explain it. You want to pretend that you>ve already
explained it even though you can>t do it now nor can you provide
any examples of you having done it in the past, nor will there ever
be any examples of you doing it in the future.
I did just above.

You did when you wrote: "nothing". Your referrence to the
talking pig is as always meaningless.
[/quote]
There>s that confusion again.

[quote]
"Pre-existent entities" are not ruining
anything, the concept is postulated as a way to allow the idea "coming
into existence is a benefit" to make logical sense. Of course common
sense says that no such entities "exist", therefore coming into
existence cannot be a benefit.
What you need to do in order to back up your claim, is explain
how you think your own pre-existence or/and that of any other
entity is preventing you from benefitting from your own existence.
But you can>t, meaning that you give us nothing to even consider
much less put faith in. Amusingly for me, you have obviously put
your faith in the idea even though you are completely unable to
explain why or how. If you think you can explain it, try doing it
You>re missing the point.

I>m WAY beyond you on all of this, and you can>t catch up.
Billions of animals DO experience decent lives of positive value
because they are raised for food. The fact that you don>t want
people to take that into consideration shows several things:

1. you yourself are completely inconsiderate of the animals.
2. most likely you are very disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food.
3. you do not want people to raise animals for food.
4. you are opposed to providing and appreciating decent lives
for livestock, ie: decent animal welfare.
5. you are in favor of eliminating livestock, and almost certainly
all other domestic animals as well.
6. you are opposed to people deliberately supporting decent
lives for livestock with their livestyle, because it works directly
against the elimination objective.

Once an animal exists, THEN there are many
ways to enhance that life.

I cannot believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and
naive to understand that livestock need to be planned
for a number of different ways IN ADVANCE. I can not
believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and naive to
understand that one of the ways they need to be planned
for in advance is to decide whether or not to raise them
at all in the first place.

That>s all very admirable.

How do you think it would work then? Explain exactly
how instead of planning for future hens, you think existing
hens in battery cages can be provided with decent lives.
Then try explaining why you don>t think we should consider
future hens even if existing ones are somehow provided with
decent lives by your plan that you have (could/can not!!!)
explained in detail.

If you insist on
saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is
wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.

Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
be of negative value and not worth living. People like
yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
can>t even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.
[/quote]
That was all the same misguided garbage you>ve been spewing for years.
We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
lives. Livestock never being born in the first place, never coming into
existence at all, is NOT a negative alternative. That alternative has no
moral significance at all, it is not part of a valid critique of
vegetarians, not part of any rational person>s thinking. You>ve been
chasing your tail for ten years.

Guest

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

[quote]dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments
exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.

"It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt
Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
positive value is better than not experiencing it,
It>s an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the
thought...
Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
benefitting from their lives.

If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the
good things in it, then nothing.

Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you>re able
to continue appreciating that fact.

I have always appreciated that animals can enjoy life. Can you grasp
that there is a difference between "enjoying life", and "benefiting by
coming into existence"
[/quote]
I point out the difference to you in almost every post.

[quote]and we should be focused on promoting
more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a
being comes into existence.

You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
lives for livestock just happen instantly,

I don>t appear to think anything of the sort,
[/quote]
As far as I can recall this is the FIRST time you>ve indicated
that you>re even aware that there is good reason to take the
lives of future animals into consideration. Up until now you>ve
maniacally ridiculed and opposed it whenever I>ve pointed out
that they should be taken into consideration.

"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

[quote]stop playing the fool.

and probably by some
sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered
until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
people to believe it is?

The planning of animal welfare is predicated on the knowledge that
animals *will* exist, *will* be raised.
[/quote]
That>s quite a complete turn-around from the insistence that they
never be considered until after they exist.

[quote]What is wrong is to believe that we can take
this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food
animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.

In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY
to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
or not it>s cruel for them to be raised for food.

It is necessary to consider if we will be able to provide decent care
for the animals before we decide to raise them for food. If we cannot,
then we should not. It>s never necessary to believe that we do the
animals a favor by bringing them into existence, the very suggestion is
self-serving.
[/quote]
It is NECESSARY to consider the animals themselves and
whether life has a positive or negative value FOR THEM in
order to determine whether or not it>s cruel TO THEM to be
raised for food. Why do you so very badly not want to accept
the fact, do you have any idea?

[quote][..]
There>s nothing that you have ever written, said, or
thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
explaining it NOW:
How did you get this confused?
The confusion is on your end, not mine.

If that were the case then you would not have asked how "pre-existent
entities are ruining are lives". Nothing I have ever said suggests such
a nonsensical question.
[/quote]
In contrast to that, EVERY time you>ve tried to explain what
you think prevents life from being a benefit it has been entirely
dependant on assigning some great significance to the concept
of pre-existence, yet you have never been able to explain exactly
HOW you think pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from
existence. Try doing it NOW. GO:

.. . .
[quote]and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
between when life has positive value for animals and when
it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.

That>s just another silly statement. It>s not difficult to see when
conditions for animals are good or not.
[/quote]
Then try explaining why you believe people should not
appreciate the distinction between when life has positive
value and when it has negative value for the animals, and
insist that they not include it in their thoughts regarding
raising animals for food. Go:

.. . .
[quote]If you insist on
saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is
wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.

Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
be of negative value and not worth living. People like
yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
can>t even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.

That was all the same misguided garbage you>ve been spewing for years.
We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
lives.
[/quote]
Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of
positive value and some don>t. You have been
opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing
me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
animals any consideration at all, and you have
certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
promoting decent AW over elimination.

Burkie · Guest

On Jul 24, 11:34 am, dh@. wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments
exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.

"It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt
Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
positive value is better than not experiencing it,
It>s an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the
thought...
Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
benefitting from their lives.

If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the
good things in it, then nothing.

Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you>re able
to continue appreciating that fact.

I have always appreciated that animals can enjoy life. Can you grasp
that there is a difference between "enjoying life", and "benefiting by
coming into existence"

I point out the difference to you in almost every post.

and we should be focused on promoting
more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a
being comes into existence.

You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
lives for livestock just happen instantly,

I don>t appear to think anything of the sort,

As far as I can recall this is the FIRST time you>ve indicated
that you>re even aware that there is good reason to take the
lives of future animals into consideration. Up until now you>ve
maniacally ridiculed and opposed it whenever I>ve pointed out
that they should be taken into consideration.

"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

stop playing the fool.

and probably by some
sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered
until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
people to believe it is?

The planning of animal welfare is predicated on the knowledge that
animals *will* exist, *will* be raised.

That>s quite a complete turn-around from the insistence that they
never be considered until after they exist.

What is wrong is to believe that we can take
this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food
animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.

In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY
to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
or not it>s cruel for them to be raised for food.

It is necessary to consider if we will be able to provide decent care
for the animals before we decide to raise them for food. If we cannot,
then we should not. It>s never necessary to believe that we do the
animals a favor by bringing them into existence, the very suggestion is
self-serving.

It is NECESSARY to consider the animals themselves and
whether life has a positive or negative value FOR THEM in
order to determine whether or not it>s cruel TO THEM to be
raised for food. Why do you so very badly not want to accept
the fact, do you have any idea?

[..]
There>s nothing that you have ever written, said, or
thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
explaining it NOW:
How did you get this confused?
The confusion is on your end, not mine.

If that were the case then you would not have asked how "pre-existent
entities are ruining are lives". Nothing I have ever said suggests such
a nonsensical question.

In contrast to that, EVERY time you>ve tried to explain what
you think prevents life from being a benefit it has been entirely
dependant on assigning some great significance to the concept
of pre-existence, yet you have never been able to explain exactly
HOW you think pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from
existence. Try doing it NOW. GO:

. . .

and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
between when life has positive value for animals and when
it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.

That>s just another silly statement. It>s not difficult to see when
conditions for animals are good or not.

Then try explaining why you believe people should not
appreciate the distinction between when life has positive
value and when it has negative value for the animals, and
insist that they not include it in their thoughts regarding
raising animals for food. Go:

. . .

If you insist on
saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is
wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.

Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
be of negative value and not worth living. People like
yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
can>t even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.

That was all the same misguided garbage you>ve been spewing for years.
We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
lives.

Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of
positive value and some don>t. You have been
opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing
me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
animals any consideration at all, and you have
certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
promoting decent AW over elimination.
[/quote]
I don>t know who you are, and that>s probably just as well. However,
the reproduction of animals is not limited to the UK....it>s a world-
wide affair. While you may have your opinion and are entitled to it,
is fine and good. But you live in a so-called "civilized" country,
which has now gotten the reputation of having some, if not the most
serious animal health problems in the world. It seems your UK can>t
handle any animal diseases as well as others, from which you are now
being supplied beef, chicken and other poultry, pork and other meats,
which others in your own country readily buy, at the expense of your
own producers.

You have a very bad habit of stating that your problems are
attributable to livestock owners and keepers of livestock and poultry,
thereby sliding "ALL" in a category of being guilty of heinous animal
and animal welfare abuses. That, is not a fair assumption, by any
means.

The EU has done its part to supply itself with meat from any foreign
country that produces enough quality meat for its own Hilton Quota,
and has repeatedly chosen that alternative, while insisting that your
producers meet all it>s oft-times maniacal rules. Again, at the
expense of your own producers.

So how does one that earns a living, trying to produce a quality
product for your public to purchase for their own use?

Not everyone has chosen to become a vegan or vegetarian. And you
have your right to be one. However, it is you that is causing the
very problem that you so oppose: reduction of animal welfare quality
with your ridiculous statements for which you have never provided much
proof.

Burkie in Kansas

ooptec · Guest

Sorry,

Been so busy I haven>t been here for awhile.

It was my dog, and it was stalking all the birds for awhile and try as
i might it wouldn>t stop and been my experience that once they start
killing birds I>ve never been able to stop it, and now i don>t even
try.

The other three dogs chase coyotes and don>t even look at the birds or
cats etc.

I love the dogs but they are also 'stock' and they either put up or I
put down.

They>re not people or children substitutes.

May sound harsh but have experienced one time my dog doing in a whole
flock and not gonna be any repeats.

Chicks are grown, just starting to crow and 'boink' lol

One guinea is off and shows up once in awhile and then disappears so
expect some keets anytime now.

Coyotes have been successfully kept at bay and found some bottle
rockets that whistle on the way up and then a little pop that seems to
move them back for a week or two. The whistle puts the dogs under
things for quite awhile lol

cheers

peter

Guest

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Burkie <Burkie50@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 11:34 am, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
dh@. wrote:

Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.

That was all the same misguided garbage you>ve been spewing for years.
We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
lives.

Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of
positive value and some don>t. You have been
opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing
me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
animals any consideration at all, and you have
certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
promoting decent AW over elimination.

I don>t know who you are, and that>s probably just as well. However,
the reproduction of animals is not limited to the UK....
[/quote]
What makes you think I wasn>t already more than well
aware of that?

[quote]it>s a world-
wide affair. While you may have your opinion and are entitled to it,
is fine and good. But you live in a so-called "civilized" country,
which has now gotten the reputation of having some, if not the most
serious animal health problems in the world. It seems your UK
[/quote]
There is no "my" UK, since I live in the US.

[quote]can>t
handle any animal diseases as well as others, from which you are now
being supplied beef, chicken and other poultry, pork and other meats,
which others in your own country readily buy, at the expense of your
own producers.
[/quote]
The terrorist activities of eliminationists in the UK regularly involve
the introduction and spread of disease among that country>s livestock,
imo. No one can convince me that eliminationist terrorism is not one of,
if not the biggest reason for problems with diseased livestock in the UK.

[quote]You have a very bad habit of stating that your problems are
attributable to livestock owners and keepers of livestock and poultry,
[/quote]
Do you have any examples?

[quote]thereby sliding "ALL" in a category of being guilty of heinous animal
and animal welfare abuses. That, is not a fair assumption, by any
means.
[/quote]
I believe it>s a fair assumption to say that eliminationist terrorism
is guilty of heinous animal abuses...not only for animals who are
victims to their fur farm terrorism which include the farmed animals
as well as those they kill when they are "liberated", but also the
animals who suffer when the terrorists deliberately spread disease
among livestock, and also the countless animals who have suffered
and will suffer in the future as a result of terrorism directed at animal
research.

[quote]The EU has done its part to supply itself with meat from any foreign
country that produces enough quality meat for its own Hilton Quota,
and has repeatedly chosen that alternative,
[/quote]
That all gets back to the influence of eliminationists, imo. It is
their fault entirely.

[quote]while insisting that your
producers meet all it>s oft-times maniacal rules. Again, at the
expense of your own producers.

So how does one that earns a living, trying to produce a quality
product for your public to purchase for their own use?

Not everyone has chosen to become a vegan or vegetarian. And you
have your right to be one.
[/quote]
Yes, but I>m not one. By consuming animal products I>m glad to
contribute to the lives of beef and dairy cattle, broiler chickens and
their parents, turkeys, and cage free egg producers and their parents,
the vast majority of which I believe have decent lives of positive value.

[quote]However, it is you that is causing the
very problem that you so oppose: reduction of animal welfare quality
[/quote]
I>m in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
elimination objective:
_________________________________________________________
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement>s Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[quote]with your ridiculous statements
[/quote]
Like what?

[quote]for which you have never provided much proof.

Burkie in Kansas[/quote]

ooptec · Guest

[quote]
I did not find out what caused all the damage. I plan to fortify the
house with very small wire and put cement all around the bottom.

I had set live traps but nothing there. Normally I can catch the
raccoons in my live traps. Hope this next sealing works, otherwise I
will have to build another hut for the guineas.

A L P
[/quote]

Hey,

Around here we don>t have stoats but weasels and the missing head
thing is the clue for us.

We have raccoons and skunks too but mostly they will steal eggs but
not unheard of killing chickens..

Could you try baiting your live trap w/a live chick or small chicken?

If you have likely holes and not too many, setting a wire snare right
at the hole might do it,

Leave the cats out at night? I have one who gets pretty good at it.

No dogs at your place?

Dogs and cats are worth their feed if left to patrol at night. As well
makes for well adjusted pets.

Building another bldg. or fencing is expensive, hard work and doesn>t
always work and then you>re back to square one but have done all that
for naught.

You will have to eliminate the threat.

The only thing easier to eat than a sheep is a chicken lol esp.
at night.

Was a thread about a vampire weasel I think in this group. Wow good
story that.

Good luck, it can be a trial

cheers

peter

enigma · Guest

ooptec <ooptec@gmail.com> wrote in
news:232550be-5963-4a03-bc71-f60bd8030ccb@v26g2000prm.googlegr
oups.com:

[quote]Coyotes have been successfully kept at bay and found some
bottle rockets that whistle on the way up and then a little
pop that seems to move them back for a week or two. The
whistle puts the dogs under things for quite awhile lol
[/quote]
really? coyotes got my little old pygmy/dwarf nubian wether a
few weeks ago. it>s NOT helping my insomnia at all. the does
are sticking tight to the barn, even though it>s open (it>s
still not finished. no floor yet. even if i shut the stall
door a coyote could come in under & that>d be killing fish in
a barrel) & the llamas are patroling the fence line, to the
detriment of the local fox. he>s regarded in the same light as
the coyotes now.
i>d be up for a few bottle rockets if it moves the coyotes to
other areas.
lee <my much maligned Mal is a coyote chaser>
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn>t there
It wasn>t there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia,
lied and presented no challenge:
[quote]On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Burkie <Burkie50@yahoo.com> wrote:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia, lied and presented no challenge:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia, lied and presented no challenge:

Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.
That was all the same misguided garbage you>ve been spewing for years.
We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
lives.
Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of
positive value and some don>t. You have been
opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing
me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
animals any consideration at all, and you have
certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
promoting decent AW over elimination.
I don>t know who you are, and that>s probably just as well. However,
the reproduction of animals is not limited to the UK....

What makes you think I wasn>t already more than well
aware of that?
[/quote]
Because of your obvious and severe mental limitations.

Dutch · Guest

dh@. wrote:

[quote]I>m in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
elimination objective:
[/quote]
That>s actually true, but I suspect not in the way you
mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR
agenda which relies on images of animals being abused,
not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement
recognized this a number of years ago and many AR
leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a
goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other
groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main
plank in their public platform. That does not mean
they always take the best care of the animals in their
care, but it>s part of their public face, just as AW
is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you
do not always act in accord with it.

If you mean that elimination would mean no more
livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW,
that is and always will be an absurd argument.

Guest

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

[quote]dh@. wrote:

I>m in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
elimination objective:

That>s actually true,
[/quote]
Unlike yourself, I don>t lie about the fact.

[quote]but I suspect not in the way you
mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR
agenda which relies on images of animals being abused,
not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement
recognized this a number of years ago and many AR
leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a
goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other
groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main
plank in their public platform.
[/quote]
They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their
true objective which is completely different. They use
the money people send them trying to promote better
lives for livestock, to try to eliminate the very animals
people are sending them money in an attempt to help.

[quote]That does not mean
they always take the best care of the animals in their
care, but it>s part of their public face, just as AW
is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you
do not always act in accord with it.
[/quote]
No, I support AW while you try to prevent people
from taking it into consideration more often than not,
though from time to time you do attempt the dishonest
trick of pretending that the objective to provide decent
lives and the objective to prevent lives are somehow
the same thing.

[quote]If you mean that elimination would mean no more
livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW,
that is and always will be an absurd argument.
[/quote]
LOL! It will always be one of those facts you hate.
Why do you hate that particular fact so insanely, do
you have any idea? I>ve asked you a number of times
and you never will say why, but it obviously freaks you
out. Well, remember you suggested that I kill myself
rather than point out the fact that AW and the misnomer
are completely different ideas which work against each
other:
_________________________________________________________
dh pointed out:

[quote]AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they>re
the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
[/quote]
"Dutch" insanely howled in response:

Shut the f ck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture - Poultry Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3