On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:20:09 GMT, theBeaver wrote:

theBeaver wrote:
dh@. wrote:

It is only the higher animals that people really care a lot about.
We don't want to see chickens tortured, but any animal that can live
for weeks with its head cut off

What???


The headless chicken:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/headless_chicken/

Follup on "Mike":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headless_chicken

Post mortem, it was determined that the axe blade had missed the jugular
vein and a clot had prevented Mike from bleeding to death. Although most
of his head was severed, most of his brain stem and one ear was left on
his body. Since basic functions (breathing, heart-rate, etc) as well as
most of a chicken's reflex actions are controlled by the brain stem,
Mike was able to remain quite healthy.

Okay. But that was only one of billions of chickens who would not
have survived if the entire head had been removed. So chickens can't
*really* live for any period of time with their head cut off, and what
happened to that particular bird would probably work for any other
bird too, so any criticism aimed at the ability of chickens to surive
that particular sort of situation would almost certainly apply to all
birds.

I couldn't help but notice this part of the Wikipedia article:

"As might be expected, Olson was loudly criticised by the then-equivalent
of animal rights activists, who thought that he should have finished the job
he had started."

Even though that was a stupid and inconsistent thing for people
who supposedly care somewhat about animals to bitch about, it was
pointed out freely that such idiocy "might be expected" from some
particular idiots. How about that? Another area where "ar" type
idiocy and bitching can be expected though certainly in NO WAY
respected is in the area of reduced cruelty animal products. Years
ago a farmer posted to some of these ngs about products which
deliberately provided decent lives for animals raised for food. He
said that there are a number of farmers who do so and provide
products which deliberately provide decent lives for the animals.
So why don't we ever hear much about that? It is BECAUSE OF
"aras"!!! "aras" target and attack people who sell that sort of
product, so the man wouldn't even post a link to his own
website BECAUSE OF "aras"! He said if anyone was interested
in such products they could contact him via email and he would
discuss it with them, and if they could persuade him they were
not lying "aras" trying to slime their disgusting way into finding
deliberately humane farmers to attack, but truly consumers
who cared about animals, he would put them in touch with
humane farmers in their area. Here again we see another area
where "aras" are quite disgusting. Of course that not only "might
be expected" of such dishonest slimy people, but IS expected.
Along those same lines, "aras" have opposed my suggestion
to consider the lives of livestock when they are of positive value,
for years. And why would people who supposedly have some
interest in animals do something like that? Because "ar" works
AGAINST decent animal welfare, and considering the animals'
lives suggests that providing animals raised for food with lives
of positive value and humane deaths could be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to preventing such animals
from ever existing. The whole concept of the gross mi$nomer
"animal rights" works AGAINST the concept of providing
decent animal welfare, and anyone who cares in the least
about animals should ALWAYS keep that fact in mind.

dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:20:09 GMT, theBeaver wrote:

theBeaver wrote:
dh@. wrote:

It is only the higher animals that people really care a lot about.
We don't want to see chickens tortured, but any animal that can live
for weeks with its head cut off

What???


The headless chicken:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/headless_chicken/

Follup on "Mike":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headless_chicken

Post mortem, it was determined that the axe blade had missed the jugular
vein and a clot had prevented Mike from bleeding to death. Although most
of his head was severed, most of his brain stem and one ear was left on
his body. Since basic functions (breathing, heart-rate, etc) as well as
most of a chicken's reflex actions are controlled by the brain stem,
Mike was able to remain quite healthy.

Okay. But that was only one of billions of chickens who would not
have survived if the entire head had been removed. So chickens can't
*really* live for any period of time with their head cut off, and what
happened to that particular bird would probably work for any other
bird too, so any criticism aimed at the ability of chickens to surive
that particular sort of situation would almost certainly apply to all
birds.

I couldn't help but notice this part of the Wikipedia article:

"As might be expected, Olson was loudly criticised by the then-equivalent
of animal rights activists, who thought that he should have finished the job
he had started."

Even though that was a stupid and inconsistent thing for people
who supposedly care somewhat about animals to bitch about, it was
pointed out freely that such idiocy "might be expected" from some
particular idiots. How about that? Another area where "ar" type
idiocy and bitching can be expected though certainly in NO WAY
respected is in the area of reduced cruelty animal products. Years
ago a farmer posted to some of these ngs about products which
deliberately provided decent lives for animals raised for food. He
said that there are a number of farmers who do so and provide
products which deliberately provide decent lives for the animals.
So why don't we ever hear much about that? It is BECAUSE OF
"aras"!!! "aras" target and attack people who sell that sort of
product, so the man wouldn't even post a link to his own
website BECAUSE OF "aras"! He said if anyone was interested
in such products they could contact him via email and he would
discuss it with them, and if they could persuade him they were
not lying "aras" trying to slime their disgusting way into finding
deliberately humane farmers to attack, but truly consumers
who cared about animals, he would put them in touch with
humane farmers in their area. Here again we see another area
where "aras" are quite disgusting. Of course that not only "might
be expected" of such dishonest slimy people, but IS expected.
Along those same lines, "aras" have opposed my suggestion
to consider the lives of livestock when they are of positive value,
for years. And why would people who supposedly have some
interest in animals do something like that? Because "ar" works
AGAINST decent animal welfare, and considering the animals'
lives suggests that providing animals raised for food with lives
of positive value and humane deaths could be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to preventing such animals
from ever existing. The whole concept of the gross mi$nomer
"animal rights" works AGAINST the concept of providing
decent animal welfare, and anyone who cares in the least
about animals should ALWAYS keep that fact in mind.

All the usual lice are here except Leefy.