about today's meat production

Again, presenting evidence to reasonable people in the hope that they will change their behavior is not legislation.

Anoetos said:

Again, presenting evidence to reasonable people in the hope that they will change their behavior is not legislation.

Click to expand...

How many of those people whom you have seen in the hospital have practised a regular regimen of physical exercise? Have they walked regularly (at least 3 days per week) for 30 minutes at a time? Do they use exercise equipment regularly (again, at least 3 days per week)? Do they refrain from eating salty snacks and those high in sodium content, such as potato chips, salted nuts, and some dairy products? Do they rely heavily on frozen meals for convenience; look at the sodium content in those for a shock. To simply blame their health problems on their eating meat is overly simplistic, especially with the sedentary lifestyles that seem to be accepted as the ideal among so many people.

Harry3142 said:

How many of those people whom you have seen in the hospital have practised a regular regimen of physical exercise? Have they walked regularly (at least 3 days per week) for 30 minutes at a time? Do they use exercise equipment regularly (again, at least 3 days per week)? Do they refrain from eating salty snacks and those high in sodium content, such as potato chips, salted nuts, and some dairy products? Do they rely heavily on frozen meals for convenience; look at the sodium content in those for a shock. To simply blame their health problems on their eating meat is overly simplistic, especially with the sedentary lifestyles that seem to be accepted as the ideal among so many people.

Click to expand...

Harry,

I am a registered nurse.

I am quite aware that the problems my patients suffer from are not solely due to eating meat.

But this thread is about eating meat.

The conditions cattle chickens and pigs "live" in before they're killed are horrific.
Fed all kinds of drugs to increase growth rate etc. Exist in extremely overcrowded, dirty places.
There's an interesting, although depressing, documentary about it:
food inc

I think factory farming is evil. It is a heartless enterprise that treats Gods creations with abject cruelty and a complete indifference to their pain and suffering. The conditions are abominable, and the animals are living in squalor and disease. They have to be fed a steady diet of antibiotics just to keep them alive. I don't think anyone with a conscience could approve of it.

I eat meat, and I am not advocating that people give up meat. What I am saying is that mass meat production today is a satanic enterprise . We should never treat Gods creation with such an appalling lack of respect, and view animals as nothing more than a unit to extract product from, rather than a living breathing creature with a soul. There has to be a better way.

ptomwebster said:

I will have a nice big rare porterhouse steak please.

Click to expand...

What? No Kansas City Strip? I'm offended!

ulu said:

The conditions cattle chickens and pigs "live" in before they're killed are horrific.
Fed all kinds of drugs to increase growth rate etc. Exist in extremely overcrowded, dirty places.
There's an interesting, although depressing, documentary about it:
food inc

Click to expand...

thesunisout said:

I think factory farming is evil. It is a heartless enterprise that treats Gods creations with abject cruelty and a complete indifference to their pain and suffering. The conditions are abominable, and the animals are living in squalor and disease. They have to be fed a steady diet of antibiotics just to keep them alive. I don't think anyone with a conscience could approve of it.

I eat meat, and I am not advocating that people give up meat. What I am saying is that mass meat production today is a satanic enterprise . We should never treat Gods creation with such an appalling lack of respect, and view animals as nothing more than a unit to extract product from, rather than a living breathing creature with a soul. There has to be a better way.

Click to expand...

Biased media has done a good job tainting the opinions of people who now are many generations removed from our agricultural roots.

I grew up on a small mixed farm, and experienced first hand the transition to what so many like to call "factory farms"

The fact is that the "pastoral" picture of how our fore-fathers farmed, and even how the mixed "family" farming as practised in my youth had issues as well; small over crowded, un-insulated, poorly ventilated barns, depending on the weather, questionable quality feed, way more disease in the livestock, and much higher death rates among the livestock as well.

The scale of modern farms for many seem unfathomable, yet this is driven by the economy; people are more willing to pay for fun stuff than they are for food.

Likewise, modern farming practices have resulted in the livestock being raised more stress free (stressed animals get sick and/or do not grow. Animals are fed more nutritious and balanced diets and if we have a bad crop year, feed is obtained elsewhere so that quality can be maintained.

Some diseases that affected humans not so many years ago such as Brecelosis, Tuberculosis, Trichinosis, etc. have virtually disappeared where modern agricultural practices are followed.

Outbreaks of E. Coli and Salmonella that get pasted all over the media when they happen, in truth happen much less often that they did prior to the 1970's.

Likewise, the humane slaughter of livestock and the quality of the meat produces is monitored and enforced by Federal, State, Provincial, and EU agencies.

Economically we can not go back, nor should we from a public health and safety POV.

Whether or not it's better than in days gone by, the life today of an animal destined for burger king etc is a nightmare.

The proper care of livestock is already state law here in Ohio. The local humane societies have access to the locations where they're raised, so they can quickly correct any problems they might find.

But those radicals who rant and rave that we should ban all meat production, even if it means that livestock must be herded into gigantic pits, killed, and their bodies buried there, will get no sympathy from the vast majority of people. Nor will it receive sympathy from Christians. As Matthew 25:31-46 states quite clearly, our mission is to put food within reach of those who need it, rather than removing the food they have access to now from their reach. IOW, we are to alleviate hunger, not make it worse by denying others food.

ulu said:

The conditions cattle chickens and pigs "live" in before they're killed are horrific.
Fed all kinds of drugs to increase growth rate etc. Exist in extremely overcrowded, dirty places.
There's an interesting, although depressing, documentary about it:
food inc

Click to expand...

The facts presented in these types of "expose" films have been proven in the past to be staged. Green Peace's anti-seal hunt video is never seen any more; it was found that those filmed clubbing seals to death were members of Green Peace, and their spokes person, Bridget Bardeau, was wearing a fur coat in that very same video.

Fed all kinds of drugs to increase growth rate etc.

Click to expand...

This is completely false. Every single shipment of milk from each and every farm, every day, is checked for drug residue; if it is present, the producer is fined heavily; tens of thousands of dollars. The same goes for each and every single animal slaughtered; with poultry,from each flock sent for slaughter a number of birds are randomly sampled as well.

The only exception to this is with farmed fish, there is no drug testing, and in random research testing, drug residues in farmed fish are extremely high, as are heavy metals and other toxins. I will not eat farmed fist.

Do some research outside of pseudo documentaries produced by sensationalist conspiracy theorists and fear mongers; misinformation is often more dangerous than the truth. I see that you are Canadian; check out the Canadian Food Inspection Agency here:
Home - Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Animals

Food

Acts and Regulations

If you take the time to read through their food recalls and alerts, you will note that there are a lot more issues with non-meat foods than there are with.


Respectfully,


Mark

A search "slaughterhouse conditions" turns up hundreds of links, almost none of which are positive.

Believing these corporations care more about animal welfare than profit is extremely naive.

Why do you think all these organizations make up lies about the food industry? What do they gain by it? Why does the food industry not bother to set the record straight, if they're so concerned about animal welfare?

All I see is account after account of corporations doing whatever they can to maximize profits, same as every other corporation does.

Why do you think these particular corporations are more compassionate than others that don't rely on animals for profit? Do they tend to have animal lovers as CEO's, or is it just fortunate for the animals that they're the only corporations for whom profit is not as important as ethics?





Exposed: The long, cruel road to the slaughterhouse - News - Food & Drink - The Independent

Factory Farming: Cruelty to Animals | PETA.org

Cruel slaughterhouse practices

An Inside Look at Slaughter Houses: An All Creatures Animal Rights Article: justice, peace, love, compassion, ethics, organizations, Bible, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, grass roots, animals, cruelty free, lifestyle, prolife, pro life, pro-l

Transcript: On the Kill Floor: U.S. Slaughterhouse Conditions

Hidden Crimes, Voiceless Victims: Inside Factory Farming and Slaughterhouses

PETA Reveals Extreme Cruelty at Kosher Slaughterhouses | PETA.org

ulu said:

A search "slaughterhouse conditions" turns up hundreds of links, almost none of which are positive.

Believing these corporations care more about animal welfare than profit is extremely naive.

Why do you think all these organizations make up lies about the food industry? What do they gain by it? Why does the food industry not bother to set the record straight, if they're so concerned about animal welfare?

All I see is account after account of corporations doing whatever they can to maximize profits, same as every other corporation does.

Why do you think these particular corporations are more compassionate than others that don't rely on animals for profit? Do they tend to have animal lovers as CEO's, or is it just fortunate for the animals that they're the only corporations for whom profit is not as important as ethics?





Exposed: The long, cruel road to the slaughterhouse - News - Food & Drink - The Independent

Factory Farming: Cruelty to Animals | PETA.org

Cruel slaughterhouse practices

An Inside Look at Slaughter Houses: An All Creatures Animal Rights Article: justice, peace, love, compassion, ethics, organizations, Bible, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, grass roots, animals, cruelty free, lifestyle, prolife, pro life, pro-l

Transcript: On the Kill Floor: U.S. Slaughterhouse Conditions

Hidden Crimes, Voiceless Victims: Inside Factory Farming and Slaughterhouses

PETA Reveals Extreme Cruelty at Kosher Slaughterhouses | PETA.org

Click to expand...

Yea, PETA is a good source, when I was farming, PETA cut our fences and those of our neighbours. Livestock got onto a busy road, two were hit by cars and had to be shot, there was damage to both cars, and the driver of one was injured, minor thank God.

This is not an isolated incident, they have done this in Europe and the US, and people have died as a result of their actions. These idiots (stronger language comes to mind) put the welfare of animals above that of humans.

We know it was PETA because it was spray-painted on the road in front of each farm, and also on trees and fence posts.

Most humane of them.

If anyone is going to take your allegations seriously, you need to find a much more credible source than PETA.

"Animal cruelty" is no more immoral than "vegetable cruelty". Animals are a natural resource just like trees, rocks, and plants, and their purpose is to serve humans. Humans have the responsibility to use those resources in a way that allows future generations to also have those resources available, but animals do not have rights any more than rocks do.

Would you refuse to buy a car because the steel used was heated to an "abusive" temperature? Do you protest that mowing the lawn is "inhumane" treatment of grass? Of course not, that's just silly. Likewise, it is silly not to buy a nice juicy steak just because it was kept in a narrow stall for several months. If for some reason you only want to eat meat that was given a weekly spa treatment and had bedtime stories read to if every night, fine, but it's not a moral issue.

Verticordious said:

"Animal cruelty" is no more immoral than "vegetable cruelty". Animals are a natural resource just like trees, rocks, and plants, and their purpose is to serve humans. Humans have the responsibility to use those resources in a way that allows future generations to also have those resources available, but animals do not have rights any more than rocks do.

Would you refuse to buy a car because the steel used was heated to an "abusive" temperature? Do you protest that mowing the lawn is "inhumane" treatment of grass? Of course not, that's just silly. Likewise, it is silly not to buy a nice juicy steak just because it was kept in a narrow stall for several months. If for some reason you only want to eat meat that was given a weekly spa treatment and had bedtime stories read to if every night, fine, but it's not a moral issue.

Click to expand...

Proverbs 12:10

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel

I'm sorry but Gods word disagrees with your inhumane assesment of animal life. Animals have souls, unlike grass or automobiles, and they deserve to be treated humanely.

thesunisout said:

Proverbs 12:10

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel

I'm sorry but Gods word disagrees with your inhumane assesment of animal life. Animals have souls, unlike grass or automobiles, and they deserve to be treated humanely.

Click to expand...

I believe the verse from Proverbs is being used out of context; it is saying that the righteous are good stewards, and even good stewardship without righteousness is meaningless. God does not value good works from those who have no faith. Likewise, as we read in the Epistle of St. James; "Faith without works is dead".

The belief that animals have souls is heterodox and is not supported by Scripture.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

I believe the verse from Proverbs is being used out of context; it is saying that the righteous are good stewards, and even good stewardship without righteousness is meaningless. God does not value good works from those who have no faith. Likewise, as we read in the Epistle of St. James; "Faith without works is dead".

The belief that animals have souls is heterodox and is not supported by Scripture.

Click to expand...

And I would say that the reason you came to such a wildly inaccurate interpretation is because you seem to be reading what you already believe. However, when we study scripture we are to believe what we read, not read what we believe.

Yes, this passage is speaking good stewardship, specifically, good stewardship of animal life. It defines what being a righteous steward over animals means: it says a righteous man regards the life of his beast. Since you seem to have some difficulty in interpreting what that means, we'll let scripture interpret scripture with the second half of the verse, which you ignored:

"but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel"

This isn't a vague statement about righteous vs unrighteous works, it is talking specifically about the treatment of living beings. You can't be cruel to inanimate objects. The plain statement of this scripture is that those who are cruel to their animals are wicked. If righteousness is the opposite of wickedness, then what is the opposite of cruelty? It is treating your animals humanely, which God calls righteous.

And yes, scripture does say they have souls:

Ecclesiastes 3:21

Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?

The last article I read concerning PETA was in the local newspaper. It reported that the organization had been ordered to leave Ohio and never return because of the crimes they had committed here, under threat of a 'contempt of court' charge if they violated the order. Ecoterrorism is shown zero tolerance in this state, and PETA's record of that offense has condemned it in the eyes of many citizens.

thesunisout said:

And I would say that the reason you came to such a wildly inaccurate interpretation is because you seem to be reading what you already believe. However, when we study scripture we are to believe what we read, not read what we believe.

Yes, this passage is speaking good stewardship, specifically, good stewardship of animal life. It defines what being a righteous steward over animals means: it says a righteous man regards the life of his beast. Since you seem to have some difficulty in interpreting what that means, we'll let scripture interpret scripture with the second half of the verse, which you ignored:

"but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel"

This isn't a vague statement about righteous vs unrighteous works, it is talking specifically about the treatment of living beings. You can't be cruel to inanimate objects. The plain statement of this scripture is that those who are cruel to their animals are wicked. If righteousness is the opposite of wickedness, then what is the opposite of cruelty? It is treating your animals humanely, which God calls righteous.

And yes, scripture does say they have souls:

Ecclesiastes 3:21

Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?

Click to expand...

Proverbs 12:10 has nothing to do with animal rights, and even if it did the word 'beasts' is the Hebrew word that refers specifically to cattle and other beasts of burden, such as oxen and mules. In other words, they were animals farmers used before the invention of tractors. I supposed you could make the argument that cows qualify under this verse, as they are cattle, but chickens and pigs are definitely not and would not be covered by this verse.