Author Topic: I'm Not a Liberal: My Conversation with a Quacko  (Read 461 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I'm Not a Liberal: My Conversation with a Quacko
« on: April 17, 2009, 09:20:38 pm »

What follows is a transcript of a conversation between myself and a true Liberal nutcase. Insofar as I have been called a Liberal, I wish to refute these accusations. The website in question presents some very extreme views on animal rights which I believe are untrue, and I have sought to refute them, and even justify eating a non-Vegan diet. My arguments are laid out for the consideration of Gaius Iulius, Dictator Perpetuo and Stummelflügel of the Roman Eagle.



As a poultry hobbyist and a biologist with a B.A. and Bachelor's Degree in Biological Sciences, I found a few inaccuracies on your website:

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html

The first and most glaring:

"(Chicken - Egg Production - 13)  Many hens get their heads stuck beneath the feeding trough and die of dehydration.  We believe this happens because the hens are trying to rescue their newly laid eggs which have rolled away. To us, this proves how emotionally distressing these "torture chambers" are to the chickens, who on top of all of their other suffering, lose their children over and over again day after day."

The hens are not trying to rescue their newly laid eggs, unless it is out of nutritional depravation and they seek to eat them. These factory egg chickens are Leghorns, and would never go broody, or in layman's terms incubate their own eggs. In freer conditions, these Leghorns would rove around the yard laying an egg each day and paying no more attention to them than perhaps laying them in the same spot day after day. They seem to have the instinct to make a clutch, but not to hatch the eggs. Besides which, the eggs are not fertile and would never become "children". Finally, the hatcheries must hatch the chicks, and as they are Leghorns and nonbroody, they would not "mother" their offspring. It is very natural for baby chickens to be born in incubators, I have hatched out some like this myself. They are Birds, so they imprint, and will accept a Human as a "mother" rather readilly.

The second:

Debeaking, or removing the last quarter or third of the end of the beak, when done correctly, does not harm the chickens. I have never debeaked my own except in very rare instances on problem individuals because I have never had much of a problem with picking. However, not only does the end of the beak feel no actual pain, but like hair and nails, it actually grows back.

The third:

Yes, the sacrifice of male chicks is regrettable, but most of the natural selection in the wild of such a species would go on at the male level. In a backyard flock, it is not advisable to have more than two males to ten or fifteen females, and a ratio above one male to two females will mean certain fights, some of which would be brutal, and though not as brutal as the enhanced deadliness of cockfighting, a natural state would involve the extra males being brutalized by more dominant males, until they left the flock to be eaten by a predator, or were chased away from food sources again and again, 'til they starved. There are other male animals in the wild that mirror this behaviour, from which I can only gather that the ancestor of the chicken - the red jungle fowl - behaved much the same way, because of the natural intolerance of the birds for a high male-to-female ratio. Lions, for example; almost all the male cubs are naturally sacrificed.

Besides which, you have a species that experiences a 50% survival ratio from the outset. A chick, just for being female, is virtually guaranteed to reach adulthood. That is much better than in the wild, where an animal that would naturally have around ten babies sustains population if 2-3 out of that clutch reach adulthood, and Nature usually doesn't provide for better than that except in very good conditions, which unfortunately lead to population explosion and subsequent starving back to a sustainable level.

Also, diseases to some degree are natural, and you will find wild birds afflicted with swollen feet and eyes as well. Those diseases do not die out because there is always something to infect. The best treatments for chickens are available for nonveterinary use, as the cost of taking a chicken to the vet would be ridiculously more than the dollar value of the chicken. And even with these treatments, some birds will get sick, and some will die. All the best vaccinations, water additive vitamins, and food supplements do not buy you a 100% survival ratio. I usually lose two out of 25, and even though you can be sure they get the best care, plenty of free space to roam, and even special attention of they fall ill, this loss cannot be helped. Nor should it be helped, because the best way to minimalize suffering is to select for strength, disease resistance, and hardiness, the same way ature would, and that is by, occasionally, letting the weak perish.

I understand the conditions in the egg factories are not good, but neither will I stop eating eggs from my own chickens, and yes, it is necessary to kill or sell to be killed, the extra males, or they may well kill eachother. The domestic chicken only exists because Man has a need for it. Ask yourself what would happen to the species if everyone did as you said and stopped consuming poultry products. The species would go extinct. There would be no large hatcheries for small hobbyists like myself to purchase an order of pet birds. Honestly, how is it different that those animals suffer for the benefit of man, trading in quality of life for the sure survival of their species, than if they were to live in the wild, lose most of their offspring to predators eating them anyway, and on top of that, potentially go extinct? Certainly conditions could be stepped up in egg factories, however, demanding that everyone stop eating eggs is not only unreasonable, but irrational, as all the laying chickens would be put to death.


Dear Alia:

Thank you for your comments, but you are using a circular argument to try to
justify farming animals.  If we simply stop farming animals and eat a plant based diet, all these problems and suffering would go away.

In the Love of the Lord,

Frank and Mary
Please visit our web site, and refer your family, friends, and others.
http://www.all-creatures.org
-
If we REALLY want God to bless America and the earth, GO VEGAN!


First off, the plants we farm are in anything but good conditions. Added chromosomes for rapid growth make for a fast-growing, overtaxed plant. The trees that produce our fruits have reduced lifespans because of their alterations, and when they grow old, they are simply cut down to make way for new trees rather than allowed to die a natural death.

I was a vegetarian. Was. That ended when someone like you, claiming to be a Vegan, who was allowed to eat fish but not cheese or eggs, told me I wasn't a real vegetarian. I actually disagree with eating fish, because it's not rational to expect the ocean to sustain 10 billion Humans. However, if we farm what we eat, we do not cause the extinction of the animal we eat. Nature intended Man to farm - not in industrial factories where the animals are tortured, no - both animals and plants. Nature intended parasites to exist, along with viruses, bacteria, and Humans. These organisms all live off others, to the detriment of those others, and are natural parts of the world. No matter what we do, as non-plants who cannot draw sustenance from sunlight, we will be destroying life to survive.

I don't want to live in a world without chickens, they're sweet, intelligent animals and you need to own up to the fact that they exist to serve man, just as a worker exists to serve a business. Those animals would not exist if people converted to an all-Vegan diet. What you're saying is that the fact that some members of the species suffer is worse than extinction. That's a faulty argument if I ever heard one.


I have not yet recieved a response to this, and I don't imagine I shall.

Social Buttons


Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Bravissimo!

You are definitely not a moonbat, or a modern liberal.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What is the etymology of "moonbat"?

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Nin

  • Censura
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Irrelevant morality response, another cheap tactic.

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Do either of you think I lost the argument? I can't shake the feeling that I did.

Nin

  • Censura
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
You can not apply logic to illogicy, it can't be won simply because no matter how perfect your argument, is, it will mean nothing.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Do either of you think I lost the argument? I can't shake the feeling that I did.

No, you won it. But it had no effect on the people who got beaten, arguing with moonbats is like arguing with boulders, they can't produce a legitimate rebuttal, but they are almost impossible to move.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
God damnit... I hate vegetarians... god I just want to bite off the head of a small bird and naw it's bloody neck every time I see one.

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
That's gnaw, sweetie. Naw is what rednecks say to indicate negation.

So, Sandy... Do you think I lost the argument? I still can't shake the feeling that I did.

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
That's gnaw, sweetie. Naw is what rednecks say to indicate negation.

So, Sandy... Do you think I lost the argument? I still can't shake the feeling that I did.


Well I do have a bit of redneck in me so you'll have to excuse this good ole southern boy hun. ;)

And no I think it's pretty much impossible to lose an argument against vegetarianism, seeing as how it is fundamentally flawed on the most basic of levels as an ideology.

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I don't think vegetarianism is flawwed. In fact I made the attempt. I only think the argument that everyone should be vegetarian is flawwed, since it intends to minimalise the suffering of animals, but will actually cause extinction on those animals.

Lucid

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Texas
    • View Profile
I think you phrased your argument quite well.  It's insane to demand that everyone become a vegetarian.  I think Americans should eat less meat, but that's a personal decision, and one that shouldn't be forced on anyone.

I'm not sure if everyone becoming vegetarian would cause the outright extinction of foodstock animals, since cattle and most forms of poultry can still manage to live in the wild, but it's a silly proposition none-the-less.

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I don't think vegetarianism is flawwed. In fact I made the attempt. I only think the argument that everyone should be vegetarian is flawwed, since it intends to minimalise the suffering of animals, but will actually cause extinction on those animals.

It's a proven scientific fact that meat is and has always been part of the natural human diet. Vegetarians frequently say that it's not... which makes sense seeing as how they have to find so many meat substitutes human's would never normally eat in the wild.

Vegetarians claim eating meat makes you fat. WRONG! In fact, eating diets high in carbohydrates and fatty oils found in most plant foods as well as starches is what is causing the American Obesity epidemic (that and lack of exercise). Natural human diet consists of balanced portions of whole grain carbohydrates, fruits, and vegetables, as well as meat not huge portions of carbohydrates and sugars as many vegetarians would have us believe.

Vegetarians claim eating meat causes heart disease. Also a distortion, eating large amounts of red meat can contribute to heart disease but it is not the primary cause. Obesity and arterial plack as well as high sugar diets are. High protein diets (including high amounts of lean protein) have actually shown clinical results to reduce both bad cholesterol levels and risk for heart disease.

Vegetarians claim eating meat is immoral because animals have rights. Firstly they need to prove how it is animals acquire the same rights as humans, and how eating meat is any more "immoral" logically speaking then eating plant life. Both are living, just because one can feel pain and the other does not does not make something immoral. I haven't seen any convincing arguments as to the immorality of meat eating.

Vegetarians claim meat eaters encourage and sustain animal cruelty, that is flat out wrong. Consumers are not responsible for the actions of companies they buy from.

I am all for less animal cruelty in the meat industry, I am all for strict fishing regulations because I see a logical necessity to protect the oceanic environment by not causing entire species of fish to go extinct.

I do not see how chicken coups are equivalent to Auschwitz, I don't see how animals have rights comparable to those of humans, and I don't see how eating meat is both bad for people and immoral.

Thus is why I say Vegetarianism is fundamentally flawed. I'm not going to begrudge anyone being a vegetarian or a vegan though, I just absolute hate their air of moral superiority, their attempts to force their ideology on the entire human populous, their complete distortions and lies of known scientific evidence about both vegetarianism and meat eating, ect...

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
It's definitely true that the moral superiority is disgusting. It was the reason I quit vegetarianism, though the vegans would have you believe I was never a vegetarian to begin with.

However, to some degree consumers are responsible for the companies that sell to them. If those consumers are willing to pay a penny more for a product from a company that does not engage in such cruelty, then such a company will flourish and even dominate. However, if consumers are not willing to pay the extra penny, there will be no development of such a company, or it will fail. So you see, the company rises or falls because of the consumer. People have forgotten that.

Meat was never meant to be the staple in the Human diet. At some points Humans naturally had to go without. If they could not kill an animal, they went without. If game became scarce, they went without. If their main hunter or hunters fell ill or died, they went without. In the wild, the easiest thing to find, and the most healthy for you, is vegetable and fruit. Harder to find and process is grain, and thus neither was grain meant to be the staple of Human diet; breads and their many brethren are a relatively new invention, with regards to the development of the Human animal evolutionarilly.

As to eating meat being immoral, I maintain that it is. I think that higher sentience should equal higher consideration, thus a retarded baby would have no rights in my viewing, but an animal as intelligent as a Human such as a Porpoise, would have more rights. But, as higher animals, I think we have some right to eat lower ones.

Chickens don't actually live in coops anymore, but in tiny cages. What they show on that website is indeed disturbing. I just don't agree with the interpretation. Because chickens have been bred to the role of egg production, they can now either serve that function, or become extinct, since the average domestic chicken would have a very hard time eeking out a living in the wild.