Funny how you were quick to attack when you were still blind to the year this occurred. Basically your point was that you always think you're right? Because you clearly weren't, yet you still think you were.
Thank you for being condescending and arrogant. We all enjoy people like you trying to put everyone down by being a closed minded 'know it all'.
I just dislike people trying to put other people down for their own ignorance. Especially people with good intentions, like you.
And I took that picture when I was ascending on a flight back home from Cincinnati, Ohio. I love sunsets as well and wish I could take more pictures in that sort of situation.
The sun sets right outside the front doors of my work and every night I'm closing I get to watch the sun slowly creep past the horizon. It amazes me every time. :)
Miss Anthrope hasn't been able to answer for her original attack although I do note she has continued to post - albeit choosing to ignore my direct replies.
Keep reading to see if we can make sense of her post ;o) I'm not as daft as I may seem ;o) I'm not quite sure what she's actually saying - we only shoot them on farms if we care? But then it's efficient to process the killing line?
As I say, I saw the killings first hand and they didn't know what hit them - literally! But Miss Anthrope obviously has other ideas - can't wait to hear them.
I'm interested to know, how they kill them more efficiently now?
This was particularly quick and painless as the animal didn't see the guy leaning over the pen and the shot on the top of the head went straight through the brain.
Have I missed something in this discussion?
These abbatoirs are both closed as the copany was taken over and the land used for development - not because of how the animals were killed. In the UK the European regulations meant we could only export our best meat to Europe and we were left with the average to rubbish stuff.
So, tell me what you know your experience of the killing is.
It's more "efficient" in the sense that more animals are killed in a shorter amount of time, and more are dispatched.
There aren't any "quick and painless" ways to kill an animal unless the animal is fed/injected a sedative that makes the animal go to sleep, and then stop breating/stop heartbeat. That would be the closest to "quick and painless." Every other way is neither "quick" and certainly ever "painless." This is made-up fallacies promoted by those who profit from the sale of other species, period. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports any of the "methods" currently in use which cause no stress, fear, injury or pain to the animal intended for death. Again, this is merely human propaganda to ease any queasy feelings and guilty consciences about harming other creatures for human greed, profit, convenience, and selfishness.
The discussion at hand was not which regulation resulted in which type of animal parts were used domestically and which were exported. It was entirely about the assertion that slaughterhouses are "quick and painless" places for animals to die, and that "shooting an animal in the head" was considered humane - which it is not.
But if you're saying, "Where was this, in The Land of Denial? Unless this is a small family farming operation, this isn't done anywhere because it's not "efficient" enough" then what do they do now in the abbatoirs?
I can't see them injecting animals to go to sleep first because of the sheer weight of the animal and trying to move a dead one.
Don't forget that every abattoir has govenment vets on site to guarantee animal welfare and I guarantee that if someone came up behind you and shot you through the brain you will feel very little pain for a very short period of time, coz you would be brain dead in a split second.
My thoughts on it are that if we didn't breed them to eat, they would never have a life at all. Cattle aren't farmed like chickens, they need to be able to move about to develop muscle.
So tell me how you think they kill them nowadays in a more "efficient" way.
Yes, and don't forget that the physical presence of a veterinarian does not equate with "quick and painless." It only means that the requisite professional was physically present, by law.
And *my* thoughts are that your conceptualization of "life" needs some serious re-evaluation. Just because a creature is physically alive doesn't mean that existence is tolerable (for the animal) or moral. Would *you* volunteer to change places with even ONE of the animals sent to a slaughterhouse, even for a few hours? You wouldn't so don't tell us that you'd willingly do this.
Telling us that "if animals weren't bred for food they'd never have a life" won't justify what is done to them, ever. You're conveniently forgetting about quality of life, and that is an important distinction. You have (oh-so human!) audacity and temerity as to suggest that incarceration and abject torture of other species for human convenience, greed and selfishness justifies subjecting them to this sort of "existence." You actually believe that a life of horrors is preferable to NOT having to endure ongoing misery for the duration of one's life, especially since we as humans know (and are obligated to admit) that there is no hope for change for these creatures - their situation will never improve...you actually believe this "life" under these conditions is better than not having to be put through this? And ESPECIALLY since most of these animals come into existence through artificial insemination (rape of other species by humans) to begin with!
Unbelievable and *truly* disturbing.
I'll shove you into tiny cage, immobilize you, shove tubes down your throat, grab you by your neck and throw you around, kick you, punch you, slam you back into a cage, shackle you by your feet, and send you down an assembly line to be "processed" and THEN we'll see what YOU have to say about how you'd never have "gotten to live" if you hadn't been bred to suffer that torture.
The *nerve* of you to suggest that their suffering, misery, and torture at human hands for your thoughtless and selfish pleasures justifies how they treated and that this actually constitutes and acceptable "existence" in your bloody *opinion.*
As *if.*
I learned a very, very valuable lesson many years ago, and it's not about being "arrogant and condescending" as NothingxCrazy so defensively and insecurely accuses. It's just the opposite, in fact: I learned that life does NOT revolve around humans, and that the human who thinks this such is little more than nasty little child who tortures and destroys others out of fear and selfishness.
I've just had a thought - I don't think humans could eat meat polluted with sedative in the bloodstream and it would take quite a lot to knock out an animal this size.
Is it normal that I killed a deer with a .22 pistol?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"Admittedly, this was in 1990 and these abbatoirs are both closed."
That was my point. Thank you for confirming it.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm going to parboil you for ten minutes and then fry you in butter with some basil.
--
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Good luck with that.
Funny how you were quick to attack when you were still blind to the year this occurred. Basically your point was that you always think you're right? Because you clearly weren't, yet you still think you were.
Thank you for being condescending and arrogant. We all enjoy people like you trying to put everyone down by being a closed minded 'know it all'.
Please keep up the good work!
--
joybird
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Don't worry about Miss Anthrope - I might learn something.
I just read your profile. I love sunsets and actually had my house spun round for the sun to set right through the middle of it.
Before it was built of course and still on plan ;o)
--
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I just dislike people trying to put other people down for their own ignorance. Especially people with good intentions, like you.
And I took that picture when I was ascending on a flight back home from Cincinnati, Ohio. I love sunsets as well and wish I could take more pictures in that sort of situation.
The sun sets right outside the front doors of my work and every night I'm closing I get to watch the sun slowly creep past the horizon. It amazes me every time. :)
--
joybird
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
chewy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
joybird
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Haha :o) I WIN!!
Miss Anthrope hasn't been able to answer for her original attack although I do note she has continued to post - albeit choosing to ignore my direct replies.
Dick!
Long live gorgeous sunsets!
--
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is a day to celebrate!
Victory!
Wine and a lovely sunset? It sounds too perfect.
Hey remember me?
--
NothingxCrazy
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
.. kind of. Weren't you that kid?
Beautiful :o)
Keep reading to see if we can make sense of her post ;o) I'm not as daft as I may seem ;o) I'm not quite sure what she's actually saying - we only shoot them on farms if we care? But then it's efficient to process the killing line?
As I say, I saw the killings first hand and they didn't know what hit them - literally! But Miss Anthrope obviously has other ideas - can't wait to hear them.
Oh, I wasn't "blind" about anything at all, it's why I asked you the question that I did.
If you feel that other's knowledge about the world is threatening or intimidating, that's unfortunate, but it's not anyone's problem but yours.
--
joybird
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm interested to know, how they kill them more efficiently now?
This was particularly quick and painless as the animal didn't see the guy leaning over the pen and the shot on the top of the head went straight through the brain.
Have I missed something in this discussion?
These abbatoirs are both closed as the copany was taken over and the land used for development - not because of how the animals were killed. In the UK the European regulations meant we could only export our best meat to Europe and we were left with the average to rubbish stuff.
So, tell me what you know your experience of the killing is.
--
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's more "efficient" in the sense that more animals are killed in a shorter amount of time, and more are dispatched.
There aren't any "quick and painless" ways to kill an animal unless the animal is fed/injected a sedative that makes the animal go to sleep, and then stop breating/stop heartbeat. That would be the closest to "quick and painless." Every other way is neither "quick" and certainly ever "painless." This is made-up fallacies promoted by those who profit from the sale of other species, period. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports any of the "methods" currently in use which cause no stress, fear, injury or pain to the animal intended for death. Again, this is merely human propaganda to ease any queasy feelings and guilty consciences about harming other creatures for human greed, profit, convenience, and selfishness.
The discussion at hand was not which regulation resulted in which type of animal parts were used domestically and which were exported. It was entirely about the assertion that slaughterhouses are "quick and painless" places for animals to die, and that "shooting an animal in the head" was considered humane - which it is not.
--
joybird
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But if you're saying, "Where was this, in The Land of Denial? Unless this is a small family farming operation, this isn't done anywhere because it's not "efficient" enough" then what do they do now in the abbatoirs?
I can't see them injecting animals to go to sleep first because of the sheer weight of the animal and trying to move a dead one.
Don't forget that every abattoir has govenment vets on site to guarantee animal welfare and I guarantee that if someone came up behind you and shot you through the brain you will feel very little pain for a very short period of time, coz you would be brain dead in a split second.
My thoughts on it are that if we didn't breed them to eat, they would never have a life at all. Cattle aren't farmed like chickens, they need to be able to move about to develop muscle.
So tell me how you think they kill them nowadays in a more "efficient" way.
--
Miss_Anthrope
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
-
joybird
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes, and don't forget that the physical presence of a veterinarian does not equate with "quick and painless." It only means that the requisite professional was physically present, by law.
And *my* thoughts are that your conceptualization of "life" needs some serious re-evaluation. Just because a creature is physically alive doesn't mean that existence is tolerable (for the animal) or moral. Would *you* volunteer to change places with even ONE of the animals sent to a slaughterhouse, even for a few hours? You wouldn't so don't tell us that you'd willingly do this.
Telling us that "if animals weren't bred for food they'd never have a life" won't justify what is done to them, ever. You're conveniently forgetting about quality of life, and that is an important distinction. You have (oh-so human!) audacity and temerity as to suggest that incarceration and abject torture of other species for human convenience, greed and selfishness justifies subjecting them to this sort of "existence." You actually believe that a life of horrors is preferable to NOT having to endure ongoing misery for the duration of one's life, especially since we as humans know (and are obligated to admit) that there is no hope for change for these creatures - their situation will never improve...you actually believe this "life" under these conditions is better than not having to be put through this? And ESPECIALLY since most of these animals come into existence through artificial insemination (rape of other species by humans) to begin with!
Unbelievable and *truly* disturbing.
I'll shove you into tiny cage, immobilize you, shove tubes down your throat, grab you by your neck and throw you around, kick you, punch you, slam you back into a cage, shackle you by your feet, and send you down an assembly line to be "processed" and THEN we'll see what YOU have to say about how you'd never have "gotten to live" if you hadn't been bred to suffer that torture.
The *nerve* of you to suggest that their suffering, misery, and torture at human hands for your thoughtless and selfish pleasures justifies how they treated and that this actually constitutes and acceptable "existence" in your bloody *opinion.*
As *if.*
I learned a very, very valuable lesson many years ago, and it's not about being "arrogant and condescending" as NothingxCrazy so defensively and insecurely accuses. It's just the opposite, in fact: I learned that life does NOT revolve around humans, and that the human who thinks this such is little more than nasty little child who tortures and destroys others out of fear and selfishness.
I've just had a thought - I don't think humans could eat meat polluted with sedative in the bloodstream and it would take quite a lot to knock out an animal this size.
Maybe I'm wrong and you know better.....