[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Animal Welfarists most certainly do do that and I welcome that. Animal Rightists, however, if they were to bargain away the rights of animals to still be deprived of their life for exploitation, would then no longer be Animal Rightists. An Animal Rightist saying it is ok to kill an animal and exploit it if such conditions were met would then be met with charges of hypocracy because they would not be consistant with the message of "rights." Since I am an Animal Rightist I cannot limit myself to the argument of ending only factory farming. Since Animal Rights is an umbrealla covering/against all animal exploitation, I do argue against factory farming, too. But, I can`t just "simply" argue against that only.

Fair enough. :)

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Which place raises and kills their animals humanely? You don`t trust corporate labels at face value, do you? Close to 80% of all U.S. flesh comes from factory farms and that trend is on the rise to meat population demands. Factory farms are destroying the family farm of yesteryear with chickens clucking in the yard and a pig rooting around nearby. Which slaughterhouses open their doors so that those curious can judge their killing systems? They are all closed to the public and do not offer walk through tours like Anheiser Bush does in Florida. If they did open themselves up, perhaps they could blunt some of the criticism they are charged with. In all probability they hide their systems because it is a gruesome business and to say there is humane killing at a slaughterhouse is a misnomer.

Since this is your issue, shouldn't you be able to answer these questions? I don't mean that in the jerky way it sounds -- I'm not trying to disprove your points or demanding you prove them. But this is what I meant: there are meat suppliers that do not use factory-farming methods; not many, I'm sure, but arguing that there are some, with examples, might get people to go out and look for those sorts of places, thus lowering the demand for factory-farmed meat.

But as you said, you are for animal rights including the right not to be eaten, so this is basically moot. But I will note, then, that arguing against factory farming specifically, and not against raising and slaughtering livestock in general, again makes your arguments ring hollow; it seems as though you are arguing against the extremes of cruelty shown in the "Meet Your Meat" video, but when it turns out that you are arguing against all meat consumption and livestock raising, it looks like you are trying to use shock tactics, rather than the simple logic and reasonable arguments you are so obviously capable of. Again, that is why I think you get so many intentionally blase responses to the images and descriptions of factory farming; it's like you are trying to horrify people, and it's not cool to be horrified, so people give you the same, "Yeah, so what?" that they have been saying since they were teenagers and their parents tried to scare them about sex and drugs.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I agree. If someone is going to eat meat, I would prefer them to get their flesh from another source than a factory farm. But even small time farmers still send their animals to the same slaughterhouses -- which are not humane (another misnomer). Farmers can no longer butcher their meat and then pack it and send it off to the super market. For one thing their small economy of scales would not let them compete with huge agribusinesses. Another point is that USDA inspectors need to inspect meat sent to the general public and the inspectors are at the certified slaughterhouses -- not at the traditional farms. Some Animal Rights groups do lobby for better conditions, but at the same time they also spend a large amount of recourses on outreach for vegetarianism -- because one less flesh eater means less demand pulling animals not only through the factory farm system, but also keeps them from going to the slaughterhouses.

And this sort of argument seems more logical, and thus more effective. But here, too, you use the term "flesh eater," which seems intended to horrify; it is this sort of manipulation that sets people's teeth on edge. It goes back to the distinction between objective debate and subjective debate: you are clearly subjective on the issue, and yet try to argue objectively from different ends of the spectrum -- but your language shows through.

I'm not sure how you could argue this and not have to deal with the points I'm trying to raise; I apologize for that. I'm not trying to push you into a particular stance or mode of argument. One of my main purposes in coming to these forums is to write out my ideas and opinions; it helps me to formulate them in a logical way, and I do that better when I have someone to respond to -- a sounding board, as you said. That's all I'm doing here: trying to formulate for myself what it is about your arguments that gets you so many angry-seeming responses. I think it has to do with your arguing style, rather than your topic, and I'm trying to understand why; please don't take this as criticism. I admire that you still argue for your cause, despite the resistance you get; I effectively gave mine up.