h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
There should be a website, and a law, fitting all animal slaughter houses with a network of webcams.
This shall help provide public transparency, and breed consumer trust that the brand they brought was created humanly (to a minimum standard).
To encourage companies to use this system, provide
a label signifying that the process is monitored to ensure these animals are treated well.
Of course if abuse is detected, there should be a report button for the website owner to check and if necessary, alert the company or authorities to the problem.
P.s. I'm a HUNGRY MEAT EATING MONSTER. But even I have standards
Temple Grandin tried to insure this...
http://www.grandin.com/
[xandram, Apr 19 2011]
Cruelty in a Chino Slaughterhouse
http://youtu.be/CrxvxewC-gA
WARNING: Graphic, Disturbing & Disgusting [Klaatu, Apr 19 2011]
Interesting and relevent
http://en.wikipedia...umane_Slaughter_Act
[Voice, Apr 20 2011]
(?) Idea may be illegal in some places soon:
http://www.dairyher...tion-123825704.html
[ixnaum, Jun 17 2011]
A Modest Proposal
http://en.wikipedia...i/A_modest_proposal
The epitome of reason ... [8th of 7, Jun 17 2011]
The Food Of The Gods
http://oldforums.ev...opic&threadID=41586
Arthur C. Clarke [8th of 7, Nov 22 2014]
CCTV to be made compulsory in all animal slaughterhouses, Government announces
http://www.independ...dairy-a8050196.html
independent newspaper clipping [mofosyne, Nov 12 2017]
[link]
|
| |
It could become as popular as the Food Channel itself. |
|
| |
I think they're coming out with the exact opposite
law, though? |
|
| |
Along the same lines. There is a restaurant chain in
Vancouver Canada called the cactus club which has
closed circuit TVs so that diners may watch the
cooks. |
|
| |
Old debate, and I have been a vegetarian for 25 years, so you know where I stand, but a webcam would certainly deter unnecessary cruelty, ie kicking and otherwise abusing animals. |
|
| |
Animals have as much right to live and die with dignity as people, and we rob ourselves of our humanity by not doing everything possible to ensure that the highest standards prevail. (rests up piously) |
|
| |
The vegg heads of the world must unite and defend
against those who would hide their devious deeds. |
|
| |
Oh so wrong monsieur, I hold true to the philosophy
that one should, hunt, kill and eat to live. |
|
| |
It's the mass slaughtering in inhumane ways that I
object to. |
|
| |
All i request is for the consumers to have the right to know what goes on with their meat, and I get accused of being a hippie vegetarian peacenik? If that's the case, lets just ban slaughterhouses then. |
|
| |
No consumers is forced to watch these videos, but if we want to ensure people don't abuse our meat, we must at least have some public transparency via live webcam feed. |
|
| |
Plus I'm a HUNGRY MEAT EATING MONSTER. But even I have standards |
|
| |
I would not enjoy watching this but I applaud the
idea. I would not hesitate to kill a cow but I would
never torture one to death. |
|
| |
And inspections and standards aren't enough. It's
easy for sadistic fucks to torture animals when no
one is looking. |
|
| |
I think this is an excellent idea. [+] |
|
| |
I would prefer to just not have the chickens stuffed into cages with barely room to breathe. Surely that must be better somehow. + for the sentiment, but - for the webcam method. |
|
| |
A lot of animal abuse is not visible on a camera. Further, many practices that seem brutal are actually the most humane methods available. Individuals need to be ethically aware but the vast majority will never raise animals for food and simply are not able to understand it: So much more important to focus on how the animal lived than the brief moments before it dies which, while they may be horrible and yes, even cruel, will at least be brief. Living in a high density feedlot and dying in a humane slaughterhouse is a thousandfold more cruel than living a free natural life then dying at the hands of an inept or unlucky hunter who uses no humane practices at all. |
|
| |
Yes, that too, good points. I love animals, especially the
tasty ones. But treat them with a little respect. Intensive
livestock rearing should be illegal. |
|
| |
Well put. I've speared many a fish, then finished them off as rapidly as possible. It looks cruel but they had good lives and I do it with respect. Small consolation to them, that ;-) |
|
| |
Great idea. I expect the only reasonable objection you might receive from producers is not out of concern regarding humane treatment, but of the potential for trade secrets to be revealed. That could be a difficult one to solve. |
|
| |
At least as old as 'The Omnivore's Dilemma,' and probably much further back to 'The Jungle.' |
|
| |
Whereas i agree with the idea, i have some
misgivings. I think the workers are probably under
a lot of pressure which leads to them ill-treating
the prey and a visual presentation is going to be a
more effective piece of evidence than a long, non-
visual and ineffective verbal explanation of the
working conditions involved and why these things
might happen. Also, whereas i make a point of
doing things publically, i have a whole lot more
control over my work than most people, and this
would be an insensitive intrusion from outside.
There's also the question of anthropomorphism -
what might look cruel to us could be more humane
to a pig than treating it in a way a human would
want. For instance, a particular species might
prefer to be in confined space when a human
would prefer not to be, and the pressure would
then be effectively to make their conditions
worse. |
|
| |
I understand the intention of this idea, but the
reality is more than most can imagine, or stand.
I'm an omnivore, my grandparents raise cows &
chickens and my grandfather was a butcher, who
worked in the Chicago slaughterhouses for
decades, so I know where my hamburger comes
from. So let me tell you, THIS IDEA WOULD NEVER
BE ENACTED. There is no stamp of approval great
enough to get most people to forget the image of
a Kosher cattle slaughter. You may Google your
own link, it only took me a second, but I DON'T
SUGGEST IT. My wife doesn't eat fish because she
saw a video on fish farming when she was a kid.
My mom who grew up on a cattle farm and has a
belt from one of her early pets and she will not eat
veal. I will leave off with two final words on this
subject that should need no explanation "hot
dogs". |
|
| |
PS 21Q //Or how about under the desk in the oval
office to ensure the president isn't gettin a BJ?//
Being President is a tough job and literally controls
the fate of the world, so I say give the man a BJ or
whatever it takes to keep him or her calm and
focused. I'm sure people would volunteer and that
may save all our lives one day. :-) |
|
| |
//give the prez a BJ// I'll bun that |
|
| |
There have "always" been people who kill and eat their own food without being deterred by such a direct experience. If people are put off by this kind of thing, they must be more squeamish or sentimental than they were, which is reversible, possibly by such a measure as this. I'm veggie of course, but i've seen various animals being killed, dissected and gutted and it leaves me absolutely cold, though a slaughterhouse is presumably more extreme. My decision to be vegetarian is only tangentially connected to the welfare of individuals of other species but to me, it's a purely intellectual choice and i don't so much disapprove of eating meat as think it's wrong in the particular circumstances which generally apply to my own life, but not necessarily others'. |
|
| |
Two reasons i avoid eating animals are that i believe i'd mess up killing one humanely and i wouldn't want someone else to do my dirty work, and i doubt very much i could guarantee the safety of the meat. There are others. |
|
| |
//High density feedlots are what feed the majority of our
7 billion strong population.// |
|
| |
No, crops are what feed the majority our 7 billion strong
population, at least in terms of the bulk of their diet. |
|
| |
I'm on dodgy moral ground, because I would like to say
that you shouldn't eat meat unless you can afford to raise
it respectfully - and nobody needs to eat meat. On the
other hand, I'd perhaps feel differently if all I could afford
was industrial chicken. |
|
| |
Ah, fuck the moral dilemma. You shouldn't eat meat
unless you can afford to raise it respectfully. There. |
|
| |
You don't get poorer than i am in a developed country and i get along fine without eating meat. It would probably only be necessary if i were also time-poor, [MB], so you can be more confident in that assertion. There might be people out there who need to eat meat for health reasons, i suppose, such as with protein-losing conditions. There's no moral dilemma in that respect to my mind. |
|
| |
What might be more problematic is auditing the damage caused by different diets in terms of environmental impact and individual organisms affected, then trying to assess their relative worth. |
|
| |
@21quest: high density feed lots produce a luxury meat that only 17% of the world population can even afford much less live on. The food fed to feedlot cattle are staple grains which starving people around the world would love to eat. The meat is nutritionally inferior and contaminated, the fats are of a less healthy sort and the environmental impacts cause a net decrease in global available food by destroying fisheries. Feedlot cattle production alone accounts for around a 10% price support for staple grains which strongly impacts the price of food for eking out a meager living. Without intensive meat there would be more food, feeding more people. |
|
| |
I'm not a vegetarian but anyone who argues that feedlots feed starving people ignoring that it makes grains that they would love to eat more expensive is wildly wrong. |
|
| |
FACT: Pain and suffering releases hormones that makes meat taste more delicious. |
|
| |
But if you feed more people, then people will just have more kids that live longer. So meat prevents overpopulation. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you overfish the stock... |
|
| |
...give him a stock cube, and he can make a wholesome
soup. |
|
| |
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Give a fish a man, and you feed him for several weeks". |
|
| |
Can't I just have this for those butchers that work on my car? |
|
| |
FACT: Need generates substantially more demand for products than want. |
|
| |
//You may feel that this is an irresponsible attitude// |
|
| |
It's probably realistic - if lots of people want to be able to
buy a chicken for less than the cost of the box it's raised in, a
company somewhere will grow cheap chickens in boxes. |
|
| |
The only solution is legislation, but no government will be
likely to do that. |
|
| |
[21Quest] and [rcarty] - I think you're both right - read up on "elasticity of demand" - a proven metric that you can apply to a product to determine how the NEED vs WANT question is resolved. |
|
| |
Normally, you'd expect "staple" goods, such as bread, rice etc to lie closer to the NEED side of the fence, while more luxurious goods such as Sports-Cars, Pokemon, Perfume and Cream-Cakes would tend to stray closer to the WANT side of the spectrum. |
|
| |
Whether you believe a cheeseburger to be a staple or a luxury is of course, up for debate - but also for measurement. According to the elasticity for demand rule, if you raise the price of a cheeseburger by a factor of 2, and you sell less than half as many as a result, then its demand is elastic (luxury). If you sell more than 1/2 as many despite the doubling of the price, then it's inelastic (staple). |
|
| |
//Tangent Alert//Tangent Alert//Tangent Alert//
The fact that the price-point for a cheeseburger lies at the 99cents/99pence/99euro price-point - would suggest an additional factor is in play - that of the least-cared-about currency unit. All it takes is one currency unit to purchase a cheeseburger in US/UK/Europe, despite the differences in exchange rates between the dollar/pund/euro - is this also the case with the Canadian dollar as well?
//Tangent Alert//Tangent Alert//Tangent Alert//
|
|
| |
But back to the main point, if they raised the price of cheeseburgers from 1 to 2 currency units, would they sell more, or less than half as many as they do now? |
|
| |
Zen, chicken patties for a $1 vs beef patties for $2. I just
betcha the chicken would sell out first, right? |
|
| |
I can't be sure [bliss] - but yeah, say someone goes into the shop, happy to spend $2 on a tasty burger, only to discover that they could purchase 2 chicken for the price of 1 beef - maybe not every time, but my guess would be that certainly a few people would make the switch. |
|
| |
Thinking about it though, I'm not sure that helps establish whether cheeseburgers are luxuries or not - maybe we could widen our criteria of what exactly a "cheeseburger" was, to include chicken as well - and then repeat the experiment. But if overall, the number of "cheeseburgers" that we sold altered proporionally to our price-changes, we'd think that "cheeseburgers" were WANTed items, while if the number of "cheeseburgers" stayed the same, or changed just a little bit, despite our tinkering around with the prices, we'd be able to conclude that they were NEEDed items - and then be able to pat either [21Quest] or [rcarty] on the back appropriately. |
|
| |
Hold on a sec, let me get my pants on here. Ok, it all depends on what concepts we are dealing with here. Elasticity of demand is in relation to quantity demanded, which requires price to be factored in. Demand alone is something else. It seems ridiculous to be arguing about something like this. Need is the basic driving force behind the production of food in general, whereas want may be considered partially responsible for the variety of foods produced. When I say that need is more powerful in producing demand than want it's because need establishes the baseline of demand for food. Need determines that food is produced at all, and allots a certain amount of factors of production to the production possibilities of food. It's the guns and butter Lorenz curve microeconomics introduction. The market then decides what kind of food is produced; want is a major factor in that, but want is merely willingness to buy and not ability to do so. If there is a war in the guns and butter economy, which is basically the model for America, guns which were previously wanted are now needed in greater supply so the effect of that demand will potentially require factors of production to move from butter or food production to guns production. The losses in food produciton or butter production are likely to be in variety of goods produced, so there might be a deadwieght loss in fancy butters that I would expect [maxwellbuchanan] might smother on his crumpets which are merely the result of his want or willingness plus ability to buy them. |
|
| |
The simple answer to 21_Quest's question is that people simply do not need healthy options more than they need junk food in an economic sense. |
|
| |
I agree [rcarty], with the reality of that fact. |
|
| |
I'm just contending with the statment that want is more powerful in influencing demand than need. Just because one option is healthier doesn't mean that's the one a given person needs. Nobody needs the healthy option compared to the burger and fries. That's the problem here. Both things are in the same category of goods, but alternatives. The fact that you say junk food is cheaper, faster, better tasting is what is economically relevant. But both healthy food and junk food are equal in terms of need and want considerations, but People will choose junk food because its cheaper, faster, better tasting. |
|
| |
I love the idea of showing animals laughter! But maybe not cats because I don't think I would find the same things funny that they do. But some snorting giggling pug, laughing at a serious schnauzer falling for the old pull-the-bone-away-on-a-string trick! Yes! |
|
| |
In a manner of speaking they are wants, but in economics there is a rational choice principle. You have to prove that wants trump needs in demand side transactions and that is proven wrong time and time again. People will sometimes choose their wants over their needs especially if their capacity to make rational choices has been negatively influenced. The basic utility that food serves is to diminish hunger. People will sometimes seek-out exactly what they require like salt or sugar, but generally a hungry person simply needs food - a person may over-eat if their body continues to demand nutrients but the food they eat doesn't provide them. Unfortunately, the body doesn't have a clear way of indicating exactly what it needs. So the utility of food is mainly decreasing hunger in an economic sense. That's what is measured - not how nourished a person is. If we were doing some economic analysis for a food company that wanted to know how much of their food the typical customer wanted in one sitting we would be measuring how much they eat until they felt full - not by checking nutrient levels in their blood or some such thing like that. Thats simply not how people determine if their needs have been met. People are changing into more cerebral beings however that gauge their consumption based what they know about what they are eating and what their body needs. But even those more cerebral beings are deciding what they want at the same time as satisfying a need. Therefore the food selections made at fast food outlets can not be used as evidence that want is a more powerful at influencing demand than need. It's because in that example they are not mutually exclusive. A better example is paying rent over buying consumer goods. Most people who need to pay rent and want new consumer goods will pay the rent. The last thing I want to mention is the matter of "cheaper/faster/better tasting", these are all rational choice considerations because people will generally buy more of that which fulfills the same need for the lowest price and cost (cost = time) and also seek out the greatest pleasure over discomfort. However if you say these are wants there are few unessential things that are only cheap, fast, and pleasurable that people will choose over their needs. Some people will blow their paycheck on crack rocks and streetwalkers but not most people. |
|
| |
This topic is strongly applicable to advanced
economies in which it must be decided, once all the
needs have been satisfied, which wants are
legitimate. |
|
| |
There is a sort of charm to Maslow's model, but that's simply because it's a rational ordering and society is rationalized. People arn't rational beings, but it can be said they are rational because of the rationalization that occurs. I knew a fellow who had convinced himself he was Jesus, and he had reached that point of very profound self-actualization without fulfilling any of the pre-requisite needs. |
|
| |
// he had reached that point of very profound self-
actualization without fulfilling any of the pre-requisite
needs// |
|
| |
That is a phrase which I will write down and learn by heart, as
it will come in handy. |
|
| |
I may go down to the city offices and change my name to it. |
|
| |
All of the above explains why we're in other:general. |
|
| |
//give the man a BJ or whatever it takes to keep him or her calm and focused// |
|
| |
This view might be based on an outdated and inaccurate idea of the dynamics of libido. Actually, no, this view *is* based on an etc. |
|
| |
Sadly 21_Quest is right, we do need the feedlots in order to consume the feed which is grown instead of edible crops, to keep the price of those from bottoming out. |
|
| |
I guess having webcam on slaughter and feedlots would convince some to not eat meat. |
|
| |
However I doubt it be very many. As meat is quite addictive. |
|
| |
How else do we have cannibal culture in some parts of the world. |
|
| |
What this would help mostly, is to ensure that all employees to acts professionally in the face of animals (Even if they are having a crappy day). It would also show the customers that the company is keeping to its promise of keeping good hygiene standards as well. Especially if bullet points are placed besides the webcam feeds. |
|
| |
Reminds me of movie Matrix. Machines are factory farming humans ( just like we factory farm chickens) for energy and feeding the ground paste of dead humans to humans who are alive, intraveinously. ( This too happens on animal farms. Dead cow's meat is fed to cows which are alive.) |
|
| |
In future, what we are doing to farm animals, is exactly what machines will do to us, humans. Just wait and see. |
|
| |
// In future, what machines will do to us, humans. // |
|
| |
You haven't read our Mission Statement, have you, [VJW] ? |
|
| |
A number of fast food chains, and even some restaurants, have semi-open kitchens - or windows - so that the customers can see the cooks. |
|
| |
// one should, hunt, kill and eat to live // |
|
| |
What a good idea. A "Modest Proposal", indeed. |
|
| |
// would convince some to not eat meat // |
|
| |
Good - all the more for the carnivores. |
|
| |
so we'll just have to eat twice as much to keep up
the demand. |
|
| |
<obligatory Soylent Green reference> |
|
| |
? I can't seem to find any here.. |
|
| |
BTW every argument used to justify carnivorism can be used to justify cannibalism. |
|
| |
1. Animals have low IQ -> So do some humans. Hence it is okay to kill and eat retarded people.
2. Animals have more protiens than plants -> It seems humans have more protiens than animals.
3. Even if we don't kill and eat animals, animals themselves kill each other. -> Humans kill each other too on regular basis. |
|
| |
Some one should survey as to how what % of population will be ale to eat meat while watching animal being butchered live. |
|
| |
( Have been lacto vegetarian since birth, but recently converted to ovo-lacto-vegetarianism.) |
|
| |
This idea may be illegal in some places soon. [+] ...
see link. Better hope that discussing it isn't
considered "conspiracy to commit a crime" |
|
| |
//fuck the moral dilemma//
[marked-for-tagline] |
|
| |
// 1. Animals have low IQ -> So do some humans. // |
|
| |
// Hence it is okay to kill and eat retarded people. // |
|
| |
// 2. Animals have more protiens than plants -> It seems humans have more protiens than animals.// |
|
| |
No, about the same amount. |
|
| |
// 3. Even if we don't kill and eat animals, animals themselves kill each other. -> Humans kill each other too on regular basis // |
|
| |
Well spotted. You'll get that PhD in logic yet. |
|
| |
// used to justify cannibalism // |
|
| |
As we said, A Modest Proposal.... <link> |
|
| |
//every argument used to justify carnivorism can be
used to justify cannibalism// |
|
| |
How about the argument that I like eating animals
but not people? |
|
| |
You're so different from the rest of your family ... |
|
| |
Humans taste better, I heard. Cannibalism is actually addictive. Once tasted humans, will never go to animals. |
|
| |
This from a lifelong vegetarian? You are pulling my leg, I assume. At least if it comes off I know you won't eat all of it. |
|
| |
What I should have said was |
|
| |
Once (someone has)tasted humans, (he)will never go back to animals. |
|
| |
No, I have never practiced cannibalism. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanon], with or without a webcam and for
arguments' sake, can't the non-cannibalistic carnivore's
argument; "I like sinking my teeth
into(eating) most animals but not people," also be a
cannibalish-carnivore's argument: "I like eating some
animals but mostly not people?" |
|
| |
Until one has eaten humans, how one can say, I like only animals and not humans ? |
|
| |
// Once tasted humans, will never go to animals//
Humans /are/ animals. |
|
| |
Looking at the original post, it doesn't actually mention putting the webcams inside the slaughterhouse. |
|
| |
//I have never practiced cannibalism |
|
| |
You got it just right the first time? |
|
| |