# Lifestyles & Discussion > Open Discussion >  Canadian vegan faces 10 yrs for giving slaughter house pigs water on hot day

## farreri

A Canadian animal rights activist could face up to 10 years in prison for giving water to pigs heading to the slaughter on a scorching summer day.

Toronto resident Anita Krajnc, 48, was charged with criminal mischief after clashing with the driver of a tractor-trailer carrying pigs to an Ontario pork processing plant in June.

Krajnc and a fellow protester tried to give the pigs water as the vehicle was stopped at a traffic light on the way to the Fearmans Pork processing facility, about 45 miles south-west of Toronto.

A video of the incident shows the driver, identified in court documents as Jeffery Veldjesgraaf, climbing from the vehicle to confront Krajnc.

“Jesus said, ‘If they are thirsty, give them water,’” she tells him.

Veldjesgraaf responds: “You know what? These are not humans, you dumb frickin’ broad.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ing-pigs-water



https://www.youtube.com/user/TorontoPigSave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Krajnc_case

----------


## oyarde

Operation Canadian Bacon failed.

----------


## Origanalist

After some of the bull$#@! stunts animal rights activists have pulled I don't blame them for pressing charges.

----------


## puppetmaster

Don't $#@! with other people's stuff

----------


## alucard13mm

It is the same reason why if cows or pigs get loose and they are not found promptly, they are not slaughtered for food anymore. You don't know what they ate or drank that might taint the meat. 

The truck driver was right. What might be in that water? Since there is no way to tell which pig drank from the water, its possible the whole batch cant be processed for human consumption.

----------


## Danke

> It is the same reason why if cows or pigs get loose and they are not found promptly, they are not slaughtered for food anymore. You don't know what they ate or drank that might taint the meat. 
> 
> The truck driver was right. What might be in that water? Since there is no way to tell which pig drank from the water, its possible the whole batch cant be processed for human consumption.


That may have been why they were giving them water.

----------


## oyarde

There was also another serious crime , this is canada , the pigs must be spoken too in french first .

----------


## oyarde

I am seeing more than 10 years for these punks.

----------


## farreri

> After some of the bull$#@! stunts animal rights activists have pulled I don't blame them for pressing charges.


What stunt did this animal rights activist pull again?

----------


## Danke

> What stunt did this animal rights activist pull again?


How do you know the pigs were not well fed and watered before they were loaded into the trailer?

----------


## farreri

> Don't $#@! with other people's stuff


Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.

----------


## farreri

> It is the same reason why if cows or pigs get loose and they are not found promptly, they are not slaughtered for food anymore. You don't know what they ate or drank that might taint the meat. 
> 
> The truck driver was right. What might be in that water? Since there is no way to tell which pig drank from the water, its possible the whole batch cant be processed for human consumption.


Um, H2O?

----------


## farreri

> How do you know the pigs were not well fed and watered before they were loaded into the trailer?


Because they didn't reject the water being offered to them? Looks like they couldn't get to the water bottle fast enough.

----------


## Danke

> Because they didn't reject the water being offered to them? Looks like they couldn't get to the water bottle fast enough.


I saw a lady squirting water on some snouts.  Of course the reaction is going to lick your chops. Doesn't mean they were being neglected before hand.

----------


## Origanalist

> Um, H2O?


How the hell is he supposed to know that? Animal rights crusaders have done amazingly stupid $#@!.

----------


## Origanalist

> Because they didn't reject the water being offered to them? Looks like they couldn't get to the water bottle fast enough.


Well, they are pigs...

----------


## Origanalist

> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.


That is exactly what you should expect from a liberty forum.

----------


## dannno

> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.


Liberty folks tend to believe in the liberty to own your own property.

----------


## farreri

> That is exactly what you should expect from a liberty forum.


Heartlessness? Liberty folks are accused of that a lot. But what about miscarriage of justice?

----------


## farreri

> Liberty folks tend to believe in the liberty to own your own property.


Gee Dannno, even though we disagree about almost everything when it comes to diet, I actually thought you would have a reasonable response to the subject matter.

----------


## Origanalist

> Gee Dannno, even though we disagree about almost everything when it comes to diet, I actually thought you would have a reasonable response to the subject matter.


Have you ever lived in the country or worked on a farm?

----------


## oyarde

Private property is private property , anyone messing with my hogs would likely be feed to them.

----------


## farreri

> Have you ever lived in the country or worked on a farm?


Been to both. What's your point?

----------


## farreri

> Private property is private property , anyone messing with my hogs would likely be feed to them.


How was this woman messin with his hogs again and what was the temperature that day?

----------


## Origanalist

> Been to both. What's your point?


That's not a answer. I've been to a lot of places.

----------


## Origanalist

> How was this woman messin with his hogs again and what was the temperature that day?


This has already been explained. These people can't depend on some SJW type to tell the truth. Their livelihood is at stake. He had no way of telling what she was giving them.

----------


## farreri

> That's not a answer. I've been to a lot of places.


No I haven't. What's your point?

----------


## dannno

> Gee Dannno, even though we disagree about almost everything when it comes to diet, I actually thought you would have a reasonable response to the subject matter.


The sentence is probably a bit harsh, but as others have pointed out it is possible they could have damaged the property and made them unsellable. It would be tough to prove all they did was poor water on the pigs, even if they can reclaim some water and test it. 

I think some people here are applying terrorism charges essentially, when it may not have been, but it certainly could have been, but I suppose one would have to prove that in court if they wanted that kind of harsh sentence. Throwing water on something is pretty harmless, but someone trying to do actual harm could hide behind that sorta thing as well.

----------


## Origanalist

> No I haven't. What's your point?


My point is you come from a entirely different culture and try to force your sensibilities on people who don't live in the same world as you do. People who aren't city people despise people like her, for good reason.

If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat meat. But don't go screwing with things you don't know anything about.

----------


## BamaAla

The guy's livelihood is in that trailer; you don't mess with that.

----------


## farreri

> This has already been explained. These people can't depend on some SJW type to tell the truth. Their livelihood is at stake. He had no way of telling what she was giving them.


If anything, she was helping his livelihood because pigs arriving in his truck dead from dehydration probably don't sell well and may get him fined from Canadian animal welfare authorities.

----------


## Ender

I'm with @farreri on this one.

I'm no vegan but animals should be taken care of; they are living creatures- I don't consider them private property but critters that I have the duty & blessing to take care of. 

And it isn't rocket science to figure out if it was really water. The possible sentencing is ridiculous.

----------


## Origanalist

I remember years ago when some of these idiots let all the minks loose on a mink farm near me because they didn't like the way they were being treated. They all died a pretty miserable death one way or another. Whether it predators, cars or starvation-dehydration, the bodies were strewn for miles.

----------


## farreri

> The sentence is probably a bit harsh


Ya think?!




> but as others have pointed out it is possible they could have damaged the property and made them unsellable. It would be tough to prove all they did was poor water on the pigs, even if they can reclaim some water and test it. 
> 
> I think some people here are applying terrorism charges essentially, when it may not have been, but it certainly could have been, but I suppose one would have to prove that in court if they wanted that kind of harsh sentence. Throwing water on something is pretty harmless, but someone trying to do actual harm could hide behind that sorta thing as well.


So that's why she's facing 10 yrs in prison, because they proved she secretly had poison in her water bottle?!  Animal rights activists usually don't poison animals they are trying to save. This is starting to sound like nutty conspiracy talk.

----------


## Origanalist

> If anything, she was helping his livelihood because pigs arriving in his truck dead from dehydration probably don't sell well and may get him fined from Canadian animal welfare authorities.


Bull$#@!. There you go assuming you know something you don't. This is what they do for a living, he's not going to deliver a bunch of dead pigs.

----------


## farreri

> I'm with @farreri on this one.
> 
> I'm no vegan but animals should be taken care of; they are living creatures- I don't consider them private property but critters that I have the duty & blessing to take care of. 
> 
> And it isn't rocket science to figure out if it was really water. The possible sentencing is ridiculous.


Thank you! Finally someone is rational around here. I wonder why liberty people get accused of being heartless?!

----------


## Chester Copperpot

meanwhile none of these crazy activists recognize they are eating plants and that plants are sentient beings aware of their surroundings.

----------


## Danke

> I'm with @farreri on this one.
> 
> I'm no vegan but animals should be taken care of; they are living creatures- I don't consider them private property but critters that I have the duty & blessing to take care of. 
> 
> And it isn't rocket science to figure out if it was really water. The possible sentencing is ridiculous.


From that brief clip how can you tell if they were dehydrated and being abused or not?

----------


## farreri

> I remember years ago when some of these idiots let all the minks loose on a mink farm near me because they didn't like the way they were being treated. They all died a pretty miserable death one way or another. Whether it predators, cars or starvation-dehydration, the bodies were strewn for miles.


How's that similar to this woman giving some thirsty pigs crammed in a truck some water on a sweltering day?

----------


## Danke

> Thank you! Finally someone is rational around here. I wonder why liberty people get accused of being heartless?!


You are insane.  And devoid of any logical argument from the facts that have been provided.

----------


## Danke

> How's that similar to this woman giving some thirsty pigs crammed in a truck some water on a sweltering day?


What was the temperature of that day?

----------


## Origanalist

> I'm with @farreri on this one.
> 
> I'm no vegan but animals should be taken care of; they are living creatures- I don't consider them private property but critters that I have the duty & blessing to take care of. 
> 
> And it isn't rocket science to figure out if it was really water. The possible sentencing is ridiculous.


These people stalk these transports and make a video and you fall for it. Dude, they're pigs. If she was squirting round up at them they would have been lapping it up.

----------


## farreri

> If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat meat. But don't go screwing with things you don't know anything about.


You think this is what this thread is all about?

----------


## farreri

> This is what they do for a living, he's not going to deliver a bunch of dead pigs.


Well of course not, she made sure they had enough water!

----------


## Origanalist

> How's that similar to this woman giving some thirsty pigs crammed in a truck some water on a sweltering day?


It's exactly the same thing. A stupid stunt meant to discredit the farm owners that backfired. Except this time it backfired on the propagandist.

----------


## farreri

> You are insane.  And devoid of any logical argument from the facts that have been provided.


Woman gives thirsty pigs crammed in a truck on a sweltering day some water.

Woman faces 10 yrs in prison for this.

Yes, I think that's insane.

----------


## farreri

> What was the temperature of that day?


"scorching summer day"

----------


## Origanalist

> Well of course not, she made sure they had enough water!


They would have delivered live pigs whether this jerk squirted some water at them or not. She deserves zero credit for keeping them alive.

----------


## Danke

The high that day was 79°

"Heavier pigs produce more body heat and are most susceptible to heat stress. The real danger is when the temperature is greater than 30 °C (86°F). If the deep body temperature of the pig reaches 43°C (109.4°F), it dies - from heart failure. 
When the temperature is higher, more water is drunk, respiratory rates rise and there is a marked increase of insensible heat loss (by evaporation of water from the lungs by panting)."

They were in the shade and cooled by the air flow in a moving truck at high speed.

----------


## farreri

> These people stalk these transports and make a video and you fall for it.


What did I fall for?




> If she was squirting round up at them they would have been lapping it up.


Then wouldn't a 10 yr sentence be more appropriate than for water? WATER!




> Dude, they're pigs.


Dude, they're just dogs.

----------


## Origanalist

> What did I fall for?
> 
> 
> Then wouldn't a 10 yr sentence be more appropriate than for water? WATER!
> 
> 
> Dude, they're just dogs.


Is your screen name Ender? No.

----------


## farreri

> whether this jerk squirted some water at them or not.


Oh, so she wasn't being kind hearted and tried to give them water to drink on a hot day. She was being a jerk and ran up to squirt water at them.

----------


## farreri

> The high that day was 79°


Oh, the 10 yr prison sentence is totally appropriate then.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

farreri why do you come here just to argue with people that you know are not going to agree with your opinions?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That may have been why they were giving them water.


I would almost bet on it.

----------


## farreri

> farreri why do you come here just to argue with people that you know are not going to agree with your opinions?


Maybe I'm showing the liberty people on this forum aren't really liberty people.

----------


## Origanalist

> farreri why do you come here just to argue with people that you know are not going to agree with your opinions?


To show liberty people are heartless bastards. Just like the pig farmers and truckers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> farreri why do you come here just to argue with people that you know are not going to agree with your opinions?


It's validation.  "All these people hate me so I must be correct, and a rebel."

A lot of these Trump people do the same thing.  Anger and outrage means validation of their 'persecuted viewpoint,' so if they can't generate enough anger and outrage then they start offending people until they trigger some, and then use that to validate themselves.

----------


## Origanalist

> Maybe I'm showing the liberty people on this forum aren't really liberty people.


You're showing nothing but you run on emotion.

----------


## Ender

> meanwhile none of these crazy activists recognize they are eating plants and that plants are sentient beings aware of their surroundings.


I also agree with that.

I believe plants are sentient beings aware of their surroundings. Because they are so different from us, we fail to recognize it.

I take care of our gardens with as much love and care as I take care of our animals.

I know, I know- Ender's weird.

----------


## Origanalist

> I also agree with that.
> 
> I believe plants are sentient beings aware of their surroundings. Because they are so different from us, we fail to recognize it.
> 
> I take care of our gardens with as much love and care as I take care of our animals.
> 
> I know, I know- Ender's weird.


No, you're not weird. I don't like it when people abuse animals either, however I don't believe this case is one of them. Do you eat your plants?

----------


## Danke

> How was this woman messin with his hogs again and what was the temperature that day?


The high was 79 F

----------


## farreri

> Anger and outrage means validation of their 'persecuted viewpoint,' so if they can't generate enough anger and outrage then they start offending people until they trigger some, and then use that to validate themselves.


I admit, this story does anger me. What about it do you think angers me the most?

----------


## Ender

> No, you're not weird. I don't like it when people abuse animals either, however I don't believe this case is one of them. Do you eat your plants?


Yes- and in gratitude for my blessings.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I also agree with that.
> 
> I believe plants are sentient beings aware of their surroundings. Because they are so different from us, we fail to recognize it.
> 
> I take care of our gardens with as much love and care as I take care of our animals.
> 
> I know, I know- Ender's weird.


No I dont think theres anything weird about it and I agree with you 100% that because plants are so different than us we do fail to recognize it but there are so many examples of plants being sentient and aware of their surroundings... Cops have even hooked plants up to lie detector machines and the plants actually solved a murder that way... But when Ive had conversations with vegans on this topic they ridicule it like im an $#@!.. meanwhile if theyre going to claim not to eat sentient beings well then youre only option is to eat rocks or die

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I admit, this story does anger me. What about it do you think angers me the most?


I don't actually care what angers you.

----------


## Danke

> I also agree with that.
> 
> I believe plants are sentient beings aware of their surroundings. Because they are so different from us, we fail to recognize it.
> 
> I take care of our gardens with as much love and care as I take care of our animals.
> 
> I know, I know- Ender's weird.


Weird doesn't quite capture it.  But you have such a high IQ, I guess we are stuck with that.

----------


## Origanalist

> No I dont think theres anything weird about it and I agree with you 100% that because plants are so different than us we do fail to recognize it but there are so many examples of plants being sentient and aware of their surroundings... Cops have even hooked plants up to lie detector machines and the plants actually solved a murder that way... But when Ive had conversations with vegans on this topic they ridicule it like im an $#@!.. meanwhile if theyre going to claim not to eat sentient beings well then youre only option is to eat rocks or die


Is that a variation of eat $#@! and die?

----------


## Ender

> The high was 79 F


79 degrees can be pretty hot locked up in a truck with 200 other human beings and little air holes. It was probably at least 10 degrees hotter-

----------


## Danke

> 79 degrees can be pretty hot locked up in a truck with 200 other human beings and little air holes. It was probably at least 10 degrees hotter-


In the shade and moving over 50 mph probably cooler actually

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Is that a variation of eat $#@! and die?


hahaha i guess it is!!

----------


## Ender

> No I dont think theres anything weird about it and I agree with you 100% that because plants are so different than us we do fail to recognize it but there are so many examples of plants being sentient and aware of their surroundings... Cops have even hooked plants up to lie detector machines and the plants actually solved a murder that way... But when Ive had conversations with vegans on this topic they ridicule it like im an $#@!.. meanwhile if theyre going to claim not to eat sentient beings well then youre only option is to eat rocks or die


I've had the same conversation- and yes, my vegan friends think I'm nuts.

----------


## farreri

> In the shade and moving over 50 mph probably cooler actually


So that justifies a potential 10 yr prison sentence?

----------


## Danke

> So that justifies a potential 10 yr prison sentence?


More trolling I see.

----------


## Ender

> In the shade and moving over 50 mph probably cooler actually


NO.

Those trucks retain heat- especially with lots of bodies packed together.

----------


## Origanalist

> I've had the same conversation- and yes, my vegan friends think I'm nuts.


Most all the loggers I know agree with you. That's why they call falling trees slaying them.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, you're not weird. I don't like it when people abuse animals either, however I don't believe this case is one of them. Do you eat your plants?


Plants are living creatures too.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You just came to troll?


I am a principlist.  I uphold principles.  It's what I do.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Most all the loggers I know agree with you. That's why they call falling trees slaying them.


wow thats profound

----------


## Origanalist

> wow thats profound


There are a lot of philosophers in the logging industry.

----------


## Danke

> NO.
> 
> Those trucks retain heat- especially with lots of bodies packed together.


 You are just making s**t up again.  It is a trailer specifically designed with ventilation holes for livestock.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.


You expected liberty supporters to be fine with messing with other people's stuff?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Um, H2O?


Maybe. We don't know.

----------


## farreri

> I am a principlist.  I uphold principles.  It's what I do.


Except when it comes to vegan or animal rights activists, right?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Gee Dannno, even though we disagree about almost everything when it comes to diet, I actually thought you would have a reasonable response to the subject matter.


How did he not give a reasonable response?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Except when it comes to vegan or animal rights activists, right?


Do you think think I have violated your rights farreri?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Except when it comes to vegan or animal rights activists, right?


wait i thought you werent a vegan,,, tell us again which animals you eat?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> How was this woman messin with his hogs again and what was the temperature that day?


By giving them an unkown liquid.

----------


## farreri

> You expected liberty supporters to be fine with messing with other people's stuff?


Um, she's not facing a citation or 10 days in jail. Liberty people don't care about judicial tyranny anymore?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Except when it comes to vegan or animal rights activists, right?


wait i thought you werent a vegan,,, tell us again which animals you eat?

----------


## farreri

> Do you think think I have violated your rights farreri?


Do you think this women's rights are being violated? That's what this thread is about.

----------


## farreri

> By giving them an unkown liquid.


lol, you guys are starting to sound like kooky conspiracy theorists.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Um, she's not facing a citation or 10 days in jail. Liberty people don't care about judicial tyranny anymore?


The entire truck was worth a great deal of money. Because of health regulations, the entire truck of livestock is now ruined.  You have to compare apples to apples.  What is grand theft auto worth?  If $50,000 worth of livestock is now permanently unsellable, you have to count the act as $50,000 worth of damage.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> lol, you guys are starting to sound like kooky conspiracy theorists.


We aren't the ones writing the laws that require a strict control over livestock feeding and watering practices to permit sales at market.  If not for those dingbat laws, then this little stunt would not have cause that kind of damage.

----------


## farreri

> Because of health regulations, the entire truck of livestock is now ruined.


Link?

----------


## donnay

I am surprised they didn't open up the back gate and let them all out.  Honestly, how did farmers get by without the do-gooders around?  I am so tired of these do-gooders who think they know what is best for all of us.

It's time for people to mind their own business.  Maybe that is the reason this do-gooder could face jail time--to set the example for people to mind their own business.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Link?


Your OP.  Driver asks what she has in the water.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> If anything, she was helping his livelihood because pigs arriving in his truck dead from dehydration probably don't sell well and may get him fined from Canadian animal welfare authorities.


You're willfully ignoring comments that the pigs could have been contaminated by whatever the woman gave them and they may not have been able to be sold. Or sold and then the guy gets sued over someone being poisoned, either way he could've lost his business at best.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Ya think?!
> 
> 
> So that's why she's facing 10 yrs in prison, because they proved she secretly had poison in her water bottle?!  Animal rights activists usually don't poison animals they are trying to save. This is starting to sound like nutty conspiracy talk.


I hope she gets at least 10 years. Also define "nutty conspiracy talk".

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Woman gives thirsty pigs crammed in a truck on a sweltering day some water.
> 
> Woman faces 10 yrs in prison for this.
> 
> Yes, I think that's insane.


You don't know the temperature of the day or if the pigs were thirsty.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The high that day was 79°
> 
> "Heavier pigs produce more body heat and are most susceptible to heat stress. The real danger is when the temperature is greater than 30 °C (86°F). If the deep body temperature of the pig reaches 43°C (109.4°F), it dies - from heart failure. 
> When the temperature is higher, more water is drunk, respiratory rates rise and there is a marked increase of insensible heat loss (by evaporation of water from the lungs by panting)."
> 
> They were in the shade and cooled by the air flow in a moving truck at high speed.


So it may not have even felt like 79° to the pigs.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> What did I fall for?
> 
> 
> Then wouldn't a 10 yr sentence be more appropriate than for water? WATER!
> 
> 
> Dude, they're just dogs.


Now you're changing the subject.

----------


## farreri

> I am surprised they didn't open up the back gate and let them all out.  Honestly, how did farmers get by without the do-gooders around?  I am so tired of these do-gooders who think they know what is best for all of us.
> 
> It's time for people to mind their own business.  Maybe that is the reason this do-gooder could face jail time--to set the example for people to mind their own business.


Right, how dare her trying to give thirsty pigs water while they're cramped in a hot truck. They should give her the DEATH PENALTY!!!

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Oh, the 10 yr prison sentence is totally appropriate then.


Avoiding that you were proven wrong when you were trying to pretend it was a super hot day.

----------


## farreri

> Your OP.  Driver asks what she has in the water.


That's your proof?!

----------


## Natural Citizen

Another vegan thread, huh? I guess it's a break from politics. Heh.

----------


## farreri

> You're willfully ignoring comments that the pigs could have been contaminated by whatever the woman gave them and they may not have been able to be sold. Or sold and then the guy gets sued over someone being poisoned, either way he could've lost his business at best.


"Could have"? Is that why she's facing a 10 yr prison sentence, because she could have, not it was proved she did?

----------


## farreri

> Avoiding that you were proven wrong when *you were trying to pretend it was a super hot day*.


The article:




> A Canadian animal rights activist could face up to 10 years in prison for giving water to pigs heading to the slaughter *on a scorching summer day*.


Do I get an apology?

----------


## farreri

> Another vegan thread, huh? I guess it's a break from politics. Heh.


You're totally missing the reason for this thread.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> You're totally missing the reason for this thread.


yeah because you like to waste your time arguing

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> lol, you guys are starting to sound like kooky conspiracy theorists.


No, we don't know the liquid she gave them. Define "cooky conspiracy theorists".

----------


## donnay

> Right, how dare her trying to give thirsty pigs water while they're cramped in a hot truck. They should give her the DEATH PENALTY!!!


She should learn to mind her own business!!

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Right, how dare her trying to give thirsty pigs water while they're cramped in a hot truck. They should give her the DEATH PENALTY!!!


You're making $#@! up again.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> "Could have"? Is that why she's facing a 10 yr prison sentence, because she could have, not it was proved she did?


Don't mess with other people's property.

----------


## farreri

> yeah because you like to waste your time arguing


Seems like you do too because you're still here.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The article:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I get an apology?


The high that day was 79°

----------


## farreri

> She should learn to mind her own business!!


10 yr prison term appropriate?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> She should learn to mind her own business!!


Exactly!

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 10 yr prison term appropriate?


Yes.

----------


## farreri

> The high that day was 79°


You accused me of pretending it was a hot day. You going to apologize to me?

----------


## farreri

> Yes.


For giving thirsty pigs some water?!!  Wow.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> For giving thirsty pigs some water?!!  Wow.


We don't know what the liquid was, or if the pigs were thirsty.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Seems like you do too because you're still here.


yeah well im bored with nothing to do..

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You're totally missing the reason for this thread.


If you're going to defend the woman's action, you'd do better to make a case for what is lawful versus what is legal. And to make a case for why there is a difference in the two. Especially given the fact that specific scripture was quoted in the op. I think it's you who is missing your own point. It's one thing to just ramble off scripture. It's quite another thing entirely to understand its relevance to the circumstance.

Whatever, though. Proceed. Heh. I was going to help you but now I'm not. I changed my mind.

----------


## donnay

> 10 yr prison term appropriate?



Although the penalty is a bit harsh, this insanity of people getting up in other peoples business has got to stop.  Maybe now, people might think twice about getting into other people's business so quickly.

----------


## farreri

> We don't know what the liquid was


Is there any evidence it was anything but pure water? Innocent before proven guilty, right?




> or if the pigs were thirsty.


Why would have even matter if they weren't?! You're really reaching.

----------


## farreri

> If you're going to defend the woman's action, you'd do better to make a case for what is lawful versus what is legal.


You really think that's the reason for this thread? Really???

----------


## Ender

> You are just making s**t up again.  It is a trailer specifically designed with ventilation holes for livestock.


Ride in one with 100 people- I dare you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Although the penalty is a bit harsh, this insanity of people getting up in other peoples business has got to stop.  Maybe now, people might think twice about getting into other people's business so quickly.


Most in this thread likely think 10 years is a lot too harsh, but are acting like it isn't because ferrari is annoying and we hope this will make her give up on us heathens and find greener pastures.

----------


## farreri

> Although the penalty is a bit harsh


Only a bit harsh, huh? Don't fall over about this judicial tyranny now.




> this insanity of people getting up in other peoples business has got to stop. Maybe now, people might think twice about getting into other people's business so quickly.


She was trying to give some thirsty pigs some water on a hot day.

----------


## farreri

> Most in this thread likely think 10 years is a lot too harsh, but are acting like it isn't because ferrari is annoying and we hope this will make her give up on us heathens and find greener pastures.





> I am a principlist.  I uphold principles.  It's what I do.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 


the principle of getting you to leave us the hell alone with your nonsense is a principle.  I hope she gets 50 years.  And the gas chamber.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You really think that's the reason for this thread? Really???


It should be.

----------


## farreri

> the principle of getting you to leave us the hell alone with your nonsense is a principle.


This is a liberty forum. No one is forcing you to involve yourself with my threads.

What is my nonsense you speak of?

----------


## donnay

> Only a bit harsh, huh? Don't fall over about this judicial tyranny now.
> 
> 
> She was trying to give some thirsty pigs some water on a hot day.


It's Canada and the pigs were being hauled to their slaughter.  Tyranny is when people think they can impose their petty power over others.

----------


## farreri

> It's Canada and the pigs were being hauled to their slaughter.  Tyranny is when people think they can impose their petty power over others.


What power was she trying to impose on others?

----------


## donnay

> What power was she trying to impose on others?


Giving water to pigs she did not personally own and was not authorized to do so by the pig owners.

Would you stop someone walking their dog to give them a treat because you thought the owner was neglecting the dog?

----------


## lilymc

> It's Canada and the pigs were being hauled to their slaughter.  Tyranny is when people think they can impose their petty power over others.


The same could be said about lots of things.  I don't see how protesting something is tyrannical.    (Not that I advocate what that lady did.)

Just curious, would you say that people protesting at abortion clinics and trying to change the mind of a woman about to get an abortion are being tyrannical and not minding their own business?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The same could be said about lots of things.  I don't see how protesting something is tyrannical.    (Not that I advocate what that lady did.)
> 
> Just curious, would you say that people protesting at abortion clinics and trying to change the mind of a woman about to get an abortion are being tyrannical and not minding their own business?


That's not a direct comparison.

----------


## lilymc

> That's not a direct comparison.


I was talking about protesting something or bringing attention to a cause.

----------


## lilymc

> Liberty folks tend to believe in the liberty to own your own property.


We don't actually own it, btw.   But that's a whole other topic.

----------


## tod evans

> They should give her the DEATH PENALTY!!!


Farmers/ranchers are well within their "rights" to shoot rustlers or feral creatures that mess with their livestock.

Been that way for centuries.

The ignorant $#@! is lucky to be sucking air into her plant addled body.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Geez I can't wait for lab grown meat,and $#@! like this will be a thing of the past. 

It is quite insane though, you have people on this forum that think drunk driving should be legal, but 10 years for giving a pig a drink is rational. I'm fairly certain these people that work in labs can test water.

This is why we will NEVER be a political force. It's stupid up in dis place some times. Yo. Libertarian Life... Extreme or GTFO.

----------


## tod evans

The two idiots in the OP's video with their recording devices speak volumes of the degradation of society.

Both would rather "film" the others transgressions than take honest action..

A quart of 'water' for several hundred head is showmanship not husbandry and 'filming' the nutjob messing with livestock in your care is cowardly and neglectful.

Neither persons actions are commendable.

----------


## puppetmaster

> If anything, she was helping his livelihood because pigs arriving in his truck dead from dehydration probably don't sell well and may get him fined from Canadian animal welfare authorities.


  You are making a lot of assumptions.  I guarantee you the farmer has more interest in getting healthy hogs to the butcher than that "stupid broad"

----------


## puppetmaster

> Woman gives thirsty pigs crammed in a truck on a sweltering day some water.
> 
> Woman faces 10 yrs in prison for this.
> 
> Yes, I think that's insane.


  so how much time does she deserve?

----------


## Suzanimal

> He told the Guardian he was concerned for both the safety of his product and that of the animal rights protesters, who *sometimes crowd near the large transport vehicles when they are stopped in traffic.*


Also sounds like the farmer is trying to avoid a lawsuit if someone accidentally gets run over.

I think the whole thing's ridiculous, personally. The activists running out in traffic to make a scene over pigs that were probably just fine AND the possibility of facing 10 years in prison. I think the fair thing would be to compensate the farmer for any damages.


I think there is a lot of real animal abuse out there and crap like this makes activists look like idiots. Wanna work to shut down a real $#@! hole, why not start with a place like this...




> These experiments are not the work of a meat processor or rogue operation. They are conducted by a taxpayer-financed federal institution called the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, a complex of laboratories and pastures that sprawls over 55 square miles in Clay Center, Neb. Little known outside the world of big agriculture, the center has one overarching mission: helping producers of beef, pork and lamb turn a higher profit as diets shift toward poultry, fish and produce.
> 
> ...
> It is widely accepted that experimentation on animals, and its benefits for people, will entail some distress and death. The Animal Welfare Act  a watershed federal law enacted in 1966, two years after the center opened  aimed to minimize that suffering, yet left a gaping exemption: farm animals used in research to benefit agriculture.
> 
> ....
> 
> The centers parent agency, the Agriculture Department, strictly polices the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses and private laboratories. But it does not closely monitor the centers use of animals, or even enforce its own rules requiring careful scrutiny of experiments.
> 
> ...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=veterinarians
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-Federal-Labs

----------


## Origanalist

> Woman gives thirsty pigs crammed in a truck on a sweltering day some water.
> 
> Woman faces 10 yrs in prison for this.
> 
> Yes, I think that's insane.


She's not going to get ten years. Geez, the drama is out of control here.

----------


## Suzanimal

> ...In court, truck driver Jeffrey Veldjesgraaf said he could not be sure Krajnc was actually giving the pigs water and was concerned the liquid would contaminate the livestock, according to CBC News. He told the court that he was transporting *190 pigs that day on a roughly 68-mile route*, the Canadian station reported.
> 
> Veldjesgraaf said the pigs were not given any water on the truck — aside from what Krajnc poured into the trailer — but received water as soon as they reached the slaughterhouse, CBC reported. Under questioning by Krajnc’s defense lawyer, Veldjesgraaf said he told police that Krajnc and animal-activist groups had to be stopped because they were “messing with our livelihood,” the station reported.
> 
> Eric Van Boekel, the farmer who owned the pigs in Veldjesgraaf’s truck, testified Wednesday that he thinks the activists’ regular truckside protests are a safety problem, the Toronto Star reported.
> 
> *“One of my biggest fears — and it’s not if it’s going to happen, it’s when it’s going to happen — is one of the protesters has their arm in the slat, and the driver pulls away, they’ll get [dragged] under the truck,” Van Boekel said in court, according to the Star.*...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-for-mischief/

----------


## Origanalist

> Geez I can't wait for lab grown meat,and $#@! like this will be a thing of the past. 
> 
> It is quite insane though, you have people on this forum that think drunk driving should be legal, but 10 years for giving a pig a drink is rational. I'm fairly certain these people that work in labs can test water.
> 
> This is why we will NEVER be a political force. It's stupid up in dis place some times. Yo. Libertarian Life... Extreme or GTFO.


I have a buck that says she doesn't spend a day. Drama, drama, drama. Just what the little *^$% is looking for, she's famous now!

----------


## Suzanimal

So the pigs went 68 miles without water in 79 degree weather. We can't be sure that's what the temperature was during transport because I actually skimmed the Canadian laws on livestock transportation and they aren't suppose to be transported during the heat of the day in the summer. By my estimate, that's maybe a 2 hour drive depending on traffic. Another law, btw, is to keep the pigs calm. I imagine the protesters aren't doing the animals any favors by causing them distress during transport.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> The same could be said about lots of things.  I don't see how protesting something is tyrannical.    (Not that I advocate what that lady did.)
> 
> Just curious, would you say that people protesting at abortion clinics and trying to change the mind of a woman about to get an abortion are being tyrannical and not minding their own business?


natural citizen already told farreri that he should be arguing for what is lawful vs what is legal but farreri just either didnt grasp that idea or just decided to keep arguing over the same ole $#@!. I thnk theres a alot that farreri just doesnt understand so he just ignores alot rather than using the opportunity to learn something new

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Geez I can't wait for lab grown meat,and $#@! like this will be a thing of the past. 
> 
> It is quite insane though, you have people on this forum that think drunk driving should be legal, but 10 years for giving a pig a drink is rational. I'm fairly certain these people that work in labs can test water.
> 
> This is why we will NEVER be a political force. It's stupid up in dis place some times. Yo. Libertarian Life... Extreme or GTFO.


lab grown meat would be a disaster for man

----------


## Origanalist

> lab grown meat would be a disaster for man


I'm going to pass on the lab grown meat thing.

----------


## donnay

> The same could be said about lots of things.  I don't see how protesting something is tyrannical.    (Not that I advocate what that lady did.)
> 
> Just curious, would you say that people protesting at abortion clinics and trying to change the mind of a woman about to get an abortion are being tyrannical and not minding their own business?


In a way, yes.  Standing in front an abortion clinic is a judgement protest and is not the unforgivable sin, and we are not here to judge people--that's for God to do.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-for-mischief/


We can only hope one of these idiot protesters loses an arm one day.

----------


## tod evans



----------


## Chester Copperpot

> 


what about compassion for the plants.... Water seems to have a memory now too.. it might have a consciousness... What about compassion for water???

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 


35 with the hair of a 65 year old. Great example of why you should eat meat.

----------


## osan

> A Canadian animal rights activist could face up to 10 years in prison for giving water to pigs heading to the slaughter on a scorching summer day.


Ten YEARS?  A bit harsh, I would say.  I could see 90 days in the hoosegow, but this is absurd.  If ninety days of jail food isn't enough to discourage you, then nothing will.

It's Canada, so...




> “Jesus said, ‘If they are thirsty, give them water,’” she tells him.
> 
> Veldjesgraaf responds: “You know what? These are not humans, you dumb frickin’ broad.”


Pretty $#@!ty response, as if other living things may be treated dishonorably.  Yeah, the woman may have been in the wrong in the most technical sense, but the driver is a $#@!ing lung-pussy.

At this point it seems that the only solution to human stupidity is to pass out the pistols and let nature takes its course.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Jesus also put the demon Legion into a herd of pigs and they all drowned themselves and died....

----------


## AngryCanadian

This is what happens when you let Liberals run a country for 10 years or so.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

It's Canadia. A dude once did 6 months for upsetting feminists on the internet.

----------


## Ender

> Ten YEARS?  A bit harsh, I would say.  I could see 90 days in the hoosegow, but this is absurd.  If ninety days of jail food isn't enough to discourage you, then nothing will.
> 
> It's Canada, so...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty $#@!ty response, as if other living things may be treated dishonorably.  Yeah, the woman may have been in the wrong in the most technical sense, but the driver is a $#@!ing lung-pussy.
> 
> At this point it seems that the only solution to human stupidity is to pass out the pistols and let nature takes its course.


Agree. I'd say some community service would suffice.

Also, most people do not realize that pigs are incredibly smart- smarter than dogs. Americans get waaay upset when other cultures eat dogs but don't seem to realize that pigs are actually higher on the intelligence spectrum.

And- no I am NOT a vegan- just a lover of animals- making sure y'all know that.

----------


## Ender

> 35 with the hair of a 65 year old. Great example of why you should eat meat.


She's got perfect skin, though. Credit where credit is due.

----------


## farreri

> Would you stop someone walking their dog to give them a treat because you thought the owner was neglecting the dog?


And that would constitute a 10 yr prison sentence?

----------


## farreri

> Farmers/ranchers are well within their "rights" to shoot rustlers or feral creatures that mess with their livestock.
> 
> Been that way for centuries.
> 
> The ignorant $#@! is lucky to be sucking air into her plant addled body.


You think that lady would deserve to be shot for giving thirsty pigs some water?

----------


## lilymc

> Also, most people do not realize that pigs are incredibly smart- smarter than dogs. Americans get waaay upset when other cultures eat dogs but don't seem to realize that pigs are actually higher on the intelligence spectrum.
> 
> And- no I am NOT a vegan- just a lover of animals- making sure y'all know that.


I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. Pigs are very smart and social.   

Everyone should watch this...  but be sure to watch the whole thing, because the more impressive tricks start at about 40 seconds into the vid.  (btw, I know  some dogs who haven't grasped the concept of playing fetch, yet this pig makes it look easy)

----------


## farreri

> It is quite insane though, you have people on this forum that think drunk driving should be legal, but 10 years for giving a pig a drink is rational. I'm fairly certain these people that work in labs can test water.
> 
> This is why we will NEVER be a political force. *It's stupid up in dis place some times*. Yo. Libertarian Life... Extreme or GTFO.


You got that right! Imagine those sitting on the political fence looking at this thread. Kiss all those potential libertarians goodbye!

----------


## Suzanimal

> I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. Pigs are very smart and social.   
> 
> Everyone should watch this...  but be sure to watch the whole thing, because the more impressive tricks start at about 40 seconds into the vid.  (btw, I know  some dogs who haven't grasped the concept of playing fetch, yet this pig makes it look easy)


One of my husband's cousins has a pet pig and he's mean as hell. He acts like a spoiled dog, lol. He's pretty cool and very smart - too smart.

----------


## farreri

> You are making a lot of assumptions.


What about all you assuming she had some kind of poison in her water?!!!!!




> than that "stupid broad"


Yeah, talk like that is really going to bring women into the LP.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> One of my husband's cousins has a pet pig and he's mean as hell. He acts like a spoiled dog, lol. He's pretty cool and very smart - too smart.


Mm. Yeah. We used to have pigs when I was very young. They can be mean. I was afraid of them. My dad always said not to get too close because they'd eat me. He was likely correct.

----------


## farreri

> so how much time does she deserve?


At most, a citation. Wouldn't you agree for someone trying to give thirsty pigs cramped in a hot truck some water?

----------


## farreri

> She's not going to get ten years. Geez, the drama is out of control here.


What's the max she could get? I'm sure that's on her mind daily.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## Petar

10 years seems ridiculous to me. I'd say 5-10k fine might be reasonable (just off the top of my head). 

You simply don't tamper with other people's livestock.

----------


## farreri

> he was transporting 190 pigs that day on *a roughly 68-mile route*, the Canadian station reported.
> 
> Veldjesgraaf said the pigs were not given any water on the truck  aside from what Krajnc poured into the trailer 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-for-mischief/


And that lady is the bad guy?

----------


## Natural Citizen

It was a public road. She'll not get anything but a mischief fine. Mainly just for show.

If she gets anything worse than that, it'd just stimulate more people into doing it in group form. And they don't want that to happen.

----------


## farreri

> Just what the little *^$% is looking for, she's famous now!


Why do you call someone who's just trying to bring awareness to thirsty pigs crammed in hot trucks for 70 mile rides?

----------


## farreri

> I imagine the protesters aren't doing the animals any favors by causing them distress during transport.


Giving thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck causes them distress?

----------


## dannno

> You think that lady would deserve to be shot for giving thirsty pigs some water?


You don't understand what responsibility is. 

I'm not a farmer, I don't have that kind of job but at least I can empathize with them, (mod edit). She wasn't just feeding thirsty pigs water, she was potentially $#@!ing with this guy's entire future, potentially putting him in ruin, and all you can do is feel bad for a lady who did something totally wrong, and who is not going to get 10 years in jail but should absolutely spend some time in jail. 

Think about it. You run a farm, you have a family to support, you have financial obligations. You have $14k worth of livestock in your truck you are about to deliver, and something happens to it that makes it unsellable. That $14k turns into zero $. You can't make payments, you lose your farm, your wife divorces you and takes the kids and starts $#@!ing some other dude who has money and you end up poor on the street. And all you can think about is how this lady was 'just giving thirsty pigs water' ?? There's a good chance that lady hasn't done an honest days work in her entire life, and you are ok with $#@!ing this guy over who works REALLY HARD day in and day out?

----------


## farreri

> We can only hope one of these idiot protesters loses an arm one day.


They are idiots and deserve to lose an arm for giving thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck for 2 hr rides some water? _Really?_

----------


## Origanalist

> Why do you call someone who's just trying to bring awareness to thirsty pigs crammed in hot trucks for 70 mile rides?


I never called her.

----------


## farreri

> This is what happens when you let Liberals run a country for 10 years or so.


Liberals are known for giving potential long prison sentences for acts of compassion? Really?

----------


## dannno

> They are idiots and deserve to lose an arm for giving thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck for 2 hr rides some water? _Really?_


This is why people don't like debating you. 

Since page 1 of this thread people have explained the potentially horrible predicament that this puts the farmer in, and all you can do is repeat some stupid bull$#@! about her feeding thirsty pigs.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I was thinking the exact same thing earlier. Pigs are very smart and social.   
> 
> Everyone should watch this...  but be sure to watch the whole thing, because the more impressive tricks start at about 40 seconds into the vid.  (btw, I know  some dogs who haven't grasped the concept of playing fetch, yet this pig makes it look easy)


Cool pig.

----------


## Origanalist

> Liberals are known for giving potential long prison sentences for acts of compassion? Really?


No liberals indoctrinate people into being complete idiots like that woman.

----------


## farreri

> I'd say 5-10k fine might be reasonable (just off the top of my head). 
> 
> You simply don't tamper with other people's livestock.


How was she tampering with them?

----------


## Origanalist

> This is why people don't like debating you. 
> 
> Since page 1 of this thread people have explained the potentially horrible predicament that this puts the farmer in, and all you can do is repeat some stupid bull$#@! about her feeding thirsty pigs.


Like a broken record.

----------


## fedupinmo

> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.


Property rights are one of the roots of Liberty.

----------


## Suzanimal

The public school kids who live on my street are in a hot bus (no a/c) in 90 degree weather for an hour and a half with nothing to drink.

----------


## Petar

> How was she tampering with them?


By giving them what was likely just water.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> You don't understand what responsibility is. 
> 
> I'm not a farmer, I don't have that kind of job but at least I can empathize with them, you are just acting like a prick. She wasn't just feeding thirsty pigs water, she was potentially $#@!ing with this guy's entire future, potentially putting him in ruin, and all you can do is feel bad for a lady who did something totally wrong, and who is not going to get 10 years in jail but should absolutely spend some time in jail. 
> 
> Think about it. You run a farm, you have a family to support, you have financial obligations. You have $14k worth of livestock in your truck you are about to deliver, and something happens to it that makes it unsellable. That $14k turns into zero $. You can't make payments, you lose your farm, your wife divorces you and takes the kids and starts $#@!ing some other dude who has money and you end up poor on the street. And all you can think about is how this lady was 'just giving thirsty pigs water' ?? There's a good chance that lady hasn't done an honest days work in her entire life, and you are ok with $#@!ing this guy over who works REALLY HARD day in and day out?


yep thats exactly right.... its definitely not about giving pigs water but this

----------


## farreri

> she was potentially $#@!ing with this guy's entire future, potentially putting him in ruin,


How much did she cost him?




> There's a good chance that lady hasn't done an honest days work in her entire life, and you are ok with $#@!ing this guy over who works REALLY HARD day in and day out?


Oh stop with the conservative psychobabble talk.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Property rights are one of the roots of Liberty.


Liberty-Responsibility should always be placed into context together where matters of Liberty are discussed. 

He could actually bury this entire conversation if he was basing his argument properly. But he isn't. He isn't basing his moral argument on the right foundation.

I was actually thinking about helping him out earlier because I think it's important to base a moral argument on the right thing in order to decipher and make known the difference between what is lawful and what is legal (and why) but he got cock strong. So I changed my mind.

----------


## Suzanimal

> The public school kids who live on my street are in a hot bus (no a/c) in 90 degree weather for an hour and a half with nothing to drink.


I think I'm going to start hosing them down when they ride by.

----------


## farreri

> I never called her.


Why do you call someone that

----------


## farreri

> This is why people don't like debating you.


This is a libertarian forum. Who's forcing anyone to debate me?

----------


## farreri

> No liberals indoctrinate people into being complete idiots like that woman.


Wanting to give thirsty pigs some water is idiotic?

----------


## Origanalist

> Why do you call someone that


Call someone what?

----------


## farreri

> Property rights are one of the roots of Liberty.


What about judicial appropriate sentences that fits the crime? Or did all you liberty lovers forget about that one?

----------


## farreri

> The public school kids who live on my street are in a hot bus (no a/c) in 90 degree weather for an hour and a half with nothing to drink.


You're OK with that?

----------


## Origanalist

> What about judicial appropriate sentences that fits the crime? Or did all you liberty lovers forget about that one?


She hasn't been sentenced yet. Why are you screeching about something that hasn't happened?

----------


## farreri

> By giving them what was likely just water.


That's tampering worth 10 yrs in prison, really?

----------


## Origanalist

> That's tampering worth 10 yrs in prison, really?


She hasn't been sentenced to ten years in prison.

----------


## farreri

> I think I'm going to start hosing them down when they ride by.


Was that what the woman was going, hosing the pigs down?

----------


## farreri

> Call someone what?


A $#@!

----------


## farreri

> She hasn't been sentenced to ten years in prison.


What's the max she could get for giving those thirsty pigs some water?

----------


## Origanalist

> A $#@!


I never called anyone a $#@!.

----------


## Origanalist

> What's the max she could get for giving those thirsty pigs some water?


"could get"

----------


## dannno

> How much did she cost him?


How much _did_ she cost him? 

Was he able to sell the product? 

Do you understand that in some cases that product can become unsellable after being tampered with an unknown substance? Are you comfortable with people tampering with your food with unknown substances? I realize that most likely this lady just had water, but how the hell is this guy supposed to know that? Who pays for the test to determine what she dumped on the pigs was? How do we know she didn't have two water bottles, one with an unknown substance and one with actual water for testing purposes? 

How is this guy supposed to know the intentions of some crazy lady on the road?

Should we remove criminal sanctions for tampering with other people's properly like that? If she did cost him money, then she should pay him restitution and go to jail for a short time. If there were no losses, she should still go to jail for tampering with someone else's valuable property and putting it at risk, because it is possible he could have suffered losses even if all she did was put water on them.






> Oh stop with the conservative psychobabble talk.


Have you ever done an honest day of hard work? I'm going to say "no" because clearly you have no appreciation for it. 

I have a Master's degree, I work in an office - but when I was in college, I had a summer job that got cut short and I went and did some work for Labor Ready for a few weeks. I did hard labor for <$10/hour.

----------


## dannno

> Wanting to give thirsty pigs some water is idiotic?


She should have asked the driver - "Hey it's hot out here, can I give your pigs some water?"

----------


## tod evans

> You think that lady would deserve to be shot for giving thirsty pigs some water?


Her "reasoning" for $#@!ing with another mans vehicle and livestock is completely irrelevant, the fact that she's doing it in the first place brings retaliatory force to bear. 

In my day rock salt delivered via 12 gauge was considered appropriate, today with the lawyers and courts the way they are killing her dead in her tracks carries less legal consequences.  

If this loony-tune feels compelled to water hogs she should go to the farm or into the slaughter house and see how she fares..

I have family that keeps 2500 head under roof, if she's so concerned about their welfare I can absolutely get her an audience with a boar or a gilt in farrow...

----------


## lilymc

This thread is extremely sad, and is making me nauseous.

----------


## Petar

> That's tampering worth 10 yrs in prison, really?


Off the top of my head, I'd give her a 5-10k fine. 

Leave other people's livestock alone.

----------


## Origanalist

> This thread is extremely sad, and is making me nauseous.


Maybe you should consider not reading it. I usually avoid things that make me nauseous.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> This thread is extremely sad, and is making me nauseous.


it would be a lot better if farreri made the proper arguments but he doesnt care about that... he just wants to bitch about bulls.hit

----------


## lilymc

> Maybe you should consider not reading it. I usually avoid things that make me nauseous.


Some parts of it were ok and interesting.   But yeah, I was just about to take a break from this.

----------


## tod evans

> This thread is extremely sad, and is making me nauseous.


I'd think you'd know to expect such a reaction to a livestock thread given your fondness for animals.

I can even empathize with your feelings........................Right up to the point you start acting on another mans livestock or property.

----------


## lilymc

> it would be a lot better if farreri made the proper arguments but he doesnt care about that... he just wants to bitch about bulls.hit


I was actually thinking about starting a thread asking farreri some questions.  But if I do it'll be tonight when I have more time.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I was actually thinking about starting a thread asking farreri some questions.  But if I do it'll be tonight when I have more time.


maybe because youre a vegan youll have better luck with him having a real conversation with you... good luck

----------


## jllundqu

OP is a stupid appeal to emotion.

_Possible_ sentence is 10 years.  She won't ever see then inside of a jail cell though.

There is nothing in the video to suggest the pigs were ill-treated, dehydrated, or malnourished.  The activist wanted youtube clicks... well she got them.

Bottom line is, if you mess with someone's property and livelihood, prepare to face the consequences.  

Come back to me if she is actually sentenced to 10 years prison for this stunt... then I will protest on her behalf for a much too harsh sentence.

----------


## jllundqu

> She should have asked the driver - "Hey it's hot out here, can I give your pigs some water?"


Winner winner, chicken freedom dinner.

Close this thread already.

----------


## farreri

> I never called anyone a $#@!.





> Just what the little *^$% is looking for, she's famous now!


Lie much?

----------


## farreri

> "could get"


Yes, what's the max she could get for giving some thirsty pigs some water?

----------


## Origanalist

> Lie much?


No, not much, and not there at all. I called her a $#@!.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes, what's the max she could get for giving some thirsty pigs some water?


"could get"

----------


## lilymc

> I'd think you'd know to expect such a reaction to a livestock thread given your fondness for animals.
> 
> I can even empathize with your feelings........................Right up to the point you start acting on another mans livestock or property.


I don't condone what she did, in case you thought otherwise.  In fact, I specifically said that earlier (or at least the way she went about it.)

My battery is about to die any second so I'll add more to this later.

----------


## SewrRatt

Just because it's possible the hippie interloper was giving something weird to the pigs, doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if she was. The reasonable reaction to this would be to say, "Quit doing that," not to shoot her or sic the state on her. It's not her fault the state is paranoid and delusional and may force you not to sell pigs just because they ingested something you don't know for sure wasn't some sort of poison. Jumping straight to "I'd fricking disfigure and torture her with a rock salt shotgun blast to the face, crazy bitch!" makes liberty people look insane to most people. No sense of moderation.

----------


## farreri

> How much _did_ she cost him?


Yes, how much did she cost him? She's looking at 10 yrs in prison. She must have costed him a lot to face that much time in prison, right?




> Was he able to sell the product?


Was he unable to?




> Do you understand that in some cases that product can become unsellable after being tampered with an unknown substance?


Is that what happened in this case? FYI, water is the most known substance to man and pigs enjoy water too.

----------


## PierzStyx

The issue here I think isn't that she violated someone's property, but that she could face ten years for doing so. That is insane. At most she should be required to pay for the cost of the pigs if they can't be slaughtered. Locking her up for any amount of time is an example of government overreach and violence.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Just because it's possible the hippie interloper was giving something weird to the pigs, doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if she was. The reasonable reaction to this would be to say, "Quit doing that," not to shoot her or sic the state on her. It's not her fault the state is paranoid and delusional and may force you not to sell pigs just because they ingested something you don't know for sure wasn't some sort of poison. Jumping straight to "I'd fricking disfigure and torture her with a rock salt shotgun blast to the face, crazy bitch!" makes liberty people look insane to most people. No sense of moderation.


people are only doing that because farreri annoys the hell out of them.... of course theres a lawful argument for what this lady did but I wont help farreri with it either because he doesnt care about winning people over to the plight of mistreated animals.. he simply wants to piss in everyones' cheerios...

----------


## farreri

> She should have asked the driver - "Hey it's hot out here, can I give your pigs some water?"


And that constitutes up to 10 yrs in prison for not asking?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> The issue here I think isn't that she violated someone's property, but that she could face ten years for doing so. That is insane. At most she should be required to pay for the cost of the pigs if they can't be slaughtered. Locking her up for any amount of time is an example of government overreach and violence.


hey man everytime i see your name it makes me want breadsticks with cheese from pizza hut... just saying......

----------


## PierzStyx

> Just because it's possible the hippie interloper was giving something weird to the pigs, doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if she was. The reasonable reaction to this would be to say, "Quit doing that," not to shoot her or sic the state on her. It's not her fault the state is paranoid and delusional and may force you not to sell pigs just because they ingested something you don't know for sure wasn't some sort of poison. Jumping straight to "I'd fricking disfigure and torture her with a rock salt shotgun blast to the face, crazy bitch!" makes liberty people look insane to most people. No sense of moderation.


Very well said. And it speaks ill of our understanding of what justice is all well.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## osan

> Also, most people do not realize that pigs are incredibly smart- smarter than dogs. Americans get waaay upset when other cultures eat dogs but don't seem to realize that pigs are actually higher on the intelligence spectrum.


You're not kidding.

When I was a kid I spent lots of time on farms during summer.  So my farmer-dad shows me the ropes of slopping the pigs and all that.  One day as the sun was going down, he asked me to pick a pig for the morrow's slaughter.  I picked one and he told me to memorize which one it was.

Next morning, we're slopping.  Every pig was there as usual, except the one I picked.  It was creepy - he had burrowed into a pile of hay, trying to hide.  I asked the farmer to spare him... because I was just a soft pussy-child who didn't want to hurt anything.  He was cool about it and said OK.  I asked no questions thereafter about it.

They are smart and very intuitive.

I eat meat.  I kill some of the meat I eat, and I experience some conflict in every act.  Taking someone's life is a VERY big deal, and I don't give a damn if it is a flea.  Everyone wants to live, so when you are going to take life away, IMO you'd better have a damned good reason and you'd damned better respect that which you are putting to ends.

That is one of the ways in which ISIS have proven themselves to be phonies.  They blather endlessly about their stupid Qur'an, the idiot Muhammed, and their demented pig-dung god with all the talk of warriors and honor. Yet, they split young boys up the middle, alive, with chainsaws.  A warrior gives his enemy a clean and merciful death.  These filth do everything in their power to make death as gruesome and agony-laden as possible.  They know nothing of honor, but are experts at every perversion and hypocrisy.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> You're not kidding.
> 
> When I was a kid I spent lots of time on farms during summer.  So my farmer-dad shows me the ropes of slopping the pigs and all that.  One day as the sun was going down, he asked me to pick a pig for the morrow's slaughter.  I picked one and he told me to memorize which one it was.
> 
> Next morning, we're slopping.  Every pig was there as usual, except the one I picked.  It was creepy - he had burrowed into a pile of hay, trying to hide.  I asked the farmer to spare him... because I was just a soft pussy-child who didn't want to hurt anything.  He was cool about it and said OK.  I asked no questions thereafter about it.
> 
> They are smart and very intuitive.
> 
> I eat meat.  I kill some of the meat I eat, and I experience some conflict in every act.  Taking someone's life is a VERY big deal, and I don't give a damn if it is a flea.  Everyone wants to live, so when you are going to take life away, IMO you'd better have a damned good reason and you'd damned better respect that which you are putting to ends.
> ...


that was a fascinating story about the pig's intuitiveness.. Ive even read stories about pigs having psychic abilities.... anyway i think if i had to slaughter an animal that i would have some sort of inner conflict with it as well.

----------


## puppetmaster

> What about all you assuming she had some kind of poison in her water?!!!!!
> 
> 
> Yeah, talk like that is really going to bring women into the LP.


Just quoting get the article.....

----------


## farreri

> the fact that she's doing it in the first place brings retaliatory force to bear. 
> 
> In my day rock salt delivered via 12 gauge was considered appropriate


You would shoot her with a rock salt shotgun for trying to give your thirsty pigs some water on a hot day, really?

----------


## farreri

> This thread is extremely sad, and is making me nauseous.


I know.

----------


## puppetmaster

> And that lady is the bad guy?


 so an hour and a half without water on a mild day....so

----------


## farreri

> Off the top of my head, I'd give her a 5-10k fine.  Leave other people's livestock alone.


You would fine her $5-10k for giving thirsty pigs some water on a hot day, really?

----------


## farreri

> it would be a lot better if farreri made the proper arguments but he doesnt care about that... he just wants to bitch about bulls.hit


Concerned about a person facing up to 10 yrs in prison for giving some thirsty pigs water on a hot day is bitching about BS, really?

----------


## Origanalist

> You would fine her $5-10k for giving thirsty pigs some water on a hot day, really?


How many times in this thread have you typed "really " ?

----------


## farreri

> I was actually thinking about starting a thread asking farreri some questions.  But if I do it'll be tonight when I have more time.


Ask away!

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## farreri

> Bottom line is, if you mess with someone's property and livelihood, prepare to face the consequences.


What do you think the appropriate consequences for her should be?

----------


## farreri

> Just because it's possible the hippie interloper was giving something weird to the pigs, doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if she was. The reasonable reaction to this would be to say, "Quit doing that," not to shoot her or sic the state on her. It's not her fault the state is paranoid and delusional and may force you not to sell pigs just because they ingested something you don't know for sure wasn't some sort of poison. Jumping straight to "I'd fricking disfigure and torture her with a rock salt shotgun blast to the face, crazy bitch!" makes liberty people look insane to most people. No sense of moderation.


*THANK YOU!*

----------


## farreri

> The issue here I think isn't that she violated someone's property, but that she could face ten years for doing so. That is insane. At most she should be required to pay for the cost of the pigs if they can't be slaughtered. Locking her up for any amount of time is an example of government overreach and violence.


*THANK YOU!*

Rationality is coming back to this forum!

----------


## farreri

> people are only doing that because farreri annoys the hell out of them.... of course theres a lawful argument for what this lady did but I wont help farreri with it either because he doesnt care about winning people over to the plight of mistreated animals.. he simply wants to piss in everyones' cheerios...


What if some political fence sitters were viewing this thread and the callous responses from some of you because I "annoy" the hell out of some of you turned them off from joining the LP? You'd be OK with that?

----------


## farreri

> maybe because youre a vegan youll have better luck with him having a real conversation with you... good luck


If you haven't figured it out by now, this thread has nothing to do with veganism.

----------


## dannno

> Just because it's possible the hippie interloper was giving something weird to the pigs, doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if she was. The reasonable reaction to this would be to say, "Quit doing that," not to shoot her or sic the state on her. It's not her fault the state is paranoid and delusional and may force you not to sell pigs just because they ingested something you don't know for sure wasn't some sort of poison. Jumping straight to "I'd fricking disfigure and torture her with a rock salt shotgun blast to the face, crazy bitch!" makes liberty people look insane to most people. No sense of moderation.


Forget about government regulation for a minute..

If you were a butcher and a farmer came to you with some animals and said that some animal rights activist fed them something on the way over, but you didn't know what it was, would you be willing to put your business' ENTIRE reputation at risk, risking all of your livelihood, over a single delivery?

----------


## tod evans

> [Mod note - this was not what was original written, this is an edit job done trying to make a point. The reader should not confuse this quote with what was actually written. Thank you.]
> [Re-edited to include original text struck through] te
> 
> You would shoot her with a rock salt shotgun for trying to give your thirsty pigs some water on a hot day, really? messing with your $100,000.00 truck carrying $90,000.00 worth of livestock after she's been warned numerous times?


Not in today's world I wouldn't, I clearly typed that was acceptable behavior toward vandals and troublemakers in my day..


Notice I helped you phrase your question MUCH more realistically then that appeal to emotions you keep bleating...

----------


## dannno

> If you haven't figured it out by now, this thread has nothing to do with veganism.


This thread is showcasing the millennial attitude of not know what real responsibility means because you still live with your parents. I'm not saying you do still live with your parents, but you may as well live with your parents, you have no respect for hard work or personal property.

----------


## tod evans

> What if some political fence sitters were viewing this thread and the callous responses from some of you because I "annoy" the hell out of some of you turned them off from joining the LP? You'd be OK with that?


I'm not a libertarian and could care less what some lily livered person might think, especially one who might join their party...

----------


## Petar

> You would fine her $5-10k for giving thirsty pigs some water on a hot day, really?


Yes.

You don't mess with people's livestock. 

It does not matter if she gave the pigs free reach-arounds.

They aren't hers to molest.

----------


## farreri

> so an hour and a half without water on a mild day....so


Well don't you ooze compassion for fellow animals.

----------


## farreri

> How many times in this thread have you typed "really " ?


Not enough, apparently.

----------


## tod evans

It appears these loons make a habit out of this behavior......





[edit for more nuts]



Is this some kind of big deal in the bleeding hearts community?

----------


## farreri

> This thread is showcasing the millennial attitude of not know what real responsibility means because you still live with your parents. I'm not saying you do still live with your parents, but you may as well live with your parents, you have no respect for hard work or personal property.


You still don't know what this thread's about. Pity.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Concerned about a person facing up to 10 yrs in prison for giving some thirsty pigs water on a hot day is bitching about BS, really?


 In a foreign country...yeah. we have bigger problems headed our way in this county.

----------


## jllundqu

> What do you think the appropriate consequences for her should be?


I think the consequence should be harsh enough to deter her and others like her from tampering with property of others.

(Side Note: As I'm typing this I am eating pasta with venison meat sauce from my last mule deer kill and it tastes delicious.)

----------


## farreri

> Forget about government regulation for a minute..
> 
> If you were a butcher and a farmer came to you with some animals and said that some animal rights activist fed them something on the way over, but you didn't know what it was, would you be willing to put your business' ENTIRE reputation at risk, risking all of your livelihood, over a single delivery?


It was water. She gave them water to drink. Water.

----------


## farreri

> I'm not a libertarian


Well that's not shocking!

----------


## puppetmaster

> Well don't you ooze compassion for fellow animals.


  i am a farmer.....I understand animals needs better than most.  My animals are well taken care of until I eat them.  These animals were not mistreated during this transport.

----------


## farreri

> Yes.
> 
> You don't mess with people's livestock.


Wow. Wow. Wow.




> It does not matter if she gave the pigs free reach-arounds.
> 
> They aren't hers to molest.


Whoa, easy there!

----------


## jllundqu

Question to @farreri.... do you have pets?

----------


## farreri

> It appears these loons make a habit out of this behavior......


Oh, the horror!

----------


## farreri

> In a foreign country...yeah. we have bigger problems headed our way in this county.


What do you mean?

----------


## puppetmaster

> It appears these loons make a habit out of this behavior......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [edit for more nuts]
> 
> 
> ...


  lol

----------


## farreri

> I think the consequence should be harsh enough to deter her and others like her from tampering with property of others.


Um, can you give an example?

----------


## farreri

> My animals are well taken care of until I eat them.

----------


## farreri

> Question to @farreri.... do you have pets?


Yes.

----------


## jllundqu

> Yes.


What kind and what do you feed them?

----------


## puppetmaster

> What do you mean?


 It's Canada...let them deal with it.

----------


## farreri

> What kind and what do you feed them?


Dog food and water. Get to your point.

----------


## farreri

> It's Canada...let them deal with it.


Stay off the World News & Affairs section if this doesn't interest you. No one is forcing you to be here.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Dog food and water. Get to your point.


Here's how they make most dog food. 

Wait for it...even a horse they dump in there....

----------


## Petar

> Wow. Wow. Wow.
> 
> Whoa, easy there!


I mean you can go ahead and give other people's livestock reach-arounds if you want to, but you really shouldn't.

----------


## fisharmor

I'm not reading all ten pages of you making farcical arguments, farerri.
I'll just say that if you want to make a big deal of her getting a 10 year sentence... welcome to the party.
Canada's legal system isn't any less busted than ours.  They all get hard ons for handing out 10 year sentences for bull$#@! reasons.
They wake up in the morning literally sexually aroused at the thought of totally ruining someone's life for minor infractions.
That has exactly zero to do with animal welfare.

In a just legal system, she would have been compelled either to pay for all testing on all the animals in the truck to make sure they're fit for human consumption, plus a penalty for the owner losing short term profits... or she should have been given the option of simply paying for the whole truckload of pigs and disposing of them in whatever way she saw fit... plus a penalty for interfering with the owner's plans.

ETA... it should go without saying, on a liberty forum, that sending her to prison produces no actual justice, whatsoever.

----------


## farreri

> it should go without saying, on a liberty forum, that sending her to prison produces no actual justice, whatsoever.


The sad thing is, if you read most of the responses, most here seem to want the book thrown at her and don't seem to care about the outrageous max possible sentence they are holding over her head. Most here mistakenly think the purpose of this thread was about animal welfare.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Here's how they make most dog food. 
> 
> Wait for it...even a horse they dump in there....


Yuck. I'll never eat dog food again.

----------


## dannno

> It was water. She gave them water to drink. Water.


Then why not ask the person who owned the pigs to give them water? How do they know it was water when it was just some crazy SJW spraying their property? And how do you even know it was water? Maybe it was just a clear liquid? If I had to gamble, like say $100 I'd say it was water - but I wouldn't bet $1million on it, because I just don't know what she might have been up to. Just like the farmer didn't want to bet his livelihood. Just like the law rightfully protects private property owners from having their property tampered with. 

Again, this is why people don't like debating you, you never address their concerns you just keep repeating your own. I've asked you numerous questions throughout the thread that you have completely dodged because you don't have a good answer for them.

I care more about a hard working farmer than some spoiled SJW. I care that his business thrives, I care that him and his family thrives. He deserves it, she doesn't deserve $#@!. Nobody is going to have kids with that lady, she is just going to get crazier and crazier, get a bunch of cats and get some psychosis from their cat poop. Meanwhile she is putting his entire life that he has worked so hard for on the line, she needs to learn to $#@!ing behave herself around other people's property.

----------


## Petar

> The sad thing is, if you read most of the responses, most here seem to want the book thrown at her and don't seem to care about the outrageous max possible sentence they are holding over her head. Most here mistakenly think the purpose of this thread was about animal welfare.


The problem is that animal rights nuts are fanatics, and as such cannot be reasoned with.

The only way to deal with the willfully idiotic is by throwing the book at them.

In the end, all anyone here wants to do is preserve the sanctity of private property rights (the whole thing that liberty is actually based on).

----------


## dannno

> The sad thing is, if you read most of the responses, most here seem to want the book thrown at her and don't seem to care about the outrageous max possible sentence they are holding over her head. Most here mistakenly think the purpose of this thread was about animal welfare.


So you agree with the rest of the post:




> In a just legal system, she would have been compelled either to pay for all testing on all the animals in the truck to make sure they're fit for human consumption, plus a penalty for the owner losing short term profits... or she should have been given the option of simply paying for the whole truckload of pigs and disposing of them in whatever way she saw fit... plus a penalty for interfering with the owner's plans.


???

I would be ok with that as well..

----------


## angelatc

> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.


 "Don't mess with other people's stuff" is the quintessential liberty position dude.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Concerned about a person facing up to 10 yrs in prison for giving some thirsty pigs water on a hot day is bitching about BS, really?


When thats all you say over and over - yes. Because thats not what the legal argument is about.. You have a lawful argument there but because you dont believe in learning this is where it gets you - a bunch of people who are aligned against you simply because youve gone out of your way to be abrasive and argumentative instead of trying to reach people for a consensus.

Thats where ignorance gets you buddy, but continue on right ahead. lol

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> What if some political fence sitters were viewing this thread and the callous responses from some of you because I "annoy" the hell out of some of you turned them off from joining the LP? You'd be OK with that?


I could care less about the Libertarian Party.... If you think this board is about the Libertarian Party youve got a lot to learn.

----------


## farreri

> Then why not ask the person who owned the pigs to give them water?


You're just not getting what my purpose of posting this story is, do you?




> Meanwhile she is putting his entire life that he has worked so hard for on the line


The water she gave them to drink was probably a lot cleaner than the water the farmers give the pigs!

----------


## Ender

> Forget about government regulation for a minute..
> 
> If you were a butcher and a farmer came to you with some animals and said that some animal rights activist fed them something on the way over, but you didn't know what it was, would you be willing to put your business' ENTIRE reputation at risk, risking all of your livelihood, over a single delivery?


In an unregulated system, it wouldn't matter.

If the pigs were given something poisonous, you'd know pretty darn quick. Pigs have an incredible digestive track- very close to humans. Any bad stuff would show in minutes.

The problem isn't the lady given some pigs water- the problem IS an over-regulated government that outlaws good things and pushes GMOs and killer drugs. Because of all the rotten unnecessary gov interference, farmers/ranchers are hog-tied. 

No pun intended.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> If you haven't figured it out by now, this thread has nothing to do with veganism.


its got everything to do with a cause you support but which you will deny that you support..,, right so since youre not a vegan what meat or animal products did you say you ate again???

----------


## Ender

> Here's how they make most dog food. 
> 
> Wait for it...even a horse they dump in there....


THAT is unbearable.

----------


## farreri

> The problem is that animal rights nuts are fanatics, and as such cannot be reasoned with.
> 
> The only way to deal with the willfully idiotic is by throwing the book at them.


So according to liberty, if someone does an act of civil disobedience, such as giving some rancher's thirsty pigs some water, if the act was committed by someone liberty folks deem fanatics, the penalty goes from a citation to 10 yrs in prison? If that's liberty, I want no part of it.

----------


## farreri

> So you agree with the rest of the post:


Yep.

----------


## farreri

> "Don't mess with other people's stuff" is the quintessential liberty position dude.


What's the liberty position on judicial sentences that doesn't fit the crime?

----------


## farreri

> I could care less about the Libertarian Party.... If you think this board is about the Libertarian Party youve got a lot to learn.


Yes, I have my suspicions there's a lot of phony libertarians on this forum pretending to be one.

----------


## Petar

> So according to liberty, if someone does an act of civil disobedience, such as giving some rancher's thirsty pigs some water, if the act was committed by someone liberty folks deem fanatics, the penalty goes from a citation to 10 yrs in prison? If that's liberty, I want no part of it.


Yes.

Fanatics running around molesting other people's livestock deserve to have the book thrown at them. 

If that is too harsh for you, then perhaps you will find yourself a lot more comfortable hanging out with the Social Justice Tards. 

Problem solved?

----------


## dannno

> In an unregulated system, it wouldn't matter.


Of course it could!! If the meat ended up having e.coli or something pathogen they put in the water and everybody you sold meat to got sick, I'm pretty sure your business would be ruined. 

This lady is not likely, but COULD have been hired by a competitor to do something like that and pretend she is an SJW so that their competitor gets a bad reputation. 

That is why people protect their property - that is why the free market allows people to go so far as using violence to protect their property and ensure it isn't tampered with.





> If the pigs were given something poisonous, you'd know pretty darn quick. Pigs have an incredible digestive track- very close to humans. Any bad stuff would show in minutes.


Doesn't have to be poisonous, could be some type of pathogen.

----------


## farreri

> its got everything to do with a cause you support but which you will deny that you support


Um, no it doesn't. Where did I say she shouldn't have been prosecuted?

----------


## dannno

> Yep.


So you think this lady should be made to pay as much as $10,000 simply for giving thirsty pigs water?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Yes, I have my suspicions there's a lot of phony libertarians on this forum pretending to be one.


first you need to understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. time to hit the books again

----------


## Danke

> i am a farmer.....I understand animals needs better than most.  My animals are well taken care of until I eat them.  These animals were not mistreated during this transport.


I didn't see any of them with seatbelts on

----------


## farreri

> Yes.


Wow. I want no part of your liberty.




> Fanatics running around molesting other people's livestock deserve to have the book thrown at them.


Dude, she didn't break in his truck and butt hump his pigs. She gave the thirsty pigs some water through the air vents. Chill out.




> If that is too harsh for you, then perhaps you will find yourself a lot more comfortable hanging out with the Social Justice Tards.


I would definitely rather hang out with them instead of people who run a system of having political prisoners.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

id love to stay but my girl just got home with a bunch of food for me to try from Whole Foods... peace

----------


## farreri

> This lady is not likely, but COULD have been hired by a competitor to do something like that and pretend she is an SJW so that their competitor gets a bad reputation.


 I think I've just entered the Twilight Zone.

----------


## farreri

> So you think this lady should be made to pay as much as $10,000 simply for giving thirsty pigs water?

----------


## Petar

> Wow. I want no part of your liberty.
> 
> Dude, she didn't break in his truck and butt hump his pigs. She gave the thirsty pigs some water through the air vents. Chill out.
> 
> I would definitely rather hang out with them instead of people who run a system of having political prisoners.


It's the principle.

These people are a bunch of $#@!-for-brain Marxists that don't understand the concept of private property. 

They need to experience serious consequences for their actions or else they will never learn proper behaviour. 

And by all means, have all the fun in the world hanging our with Social Justice Tards. 

I'm sure that they will show endless respect and appreciation for your "smart feelings".

----------


## farreri

> It's the principle.
> 
> These people are a bunch of $#@!-for-brain Marxists that don't understand the concept of private property. 
> 
> They need to experience serious consequences for their actions or else they will never learn proper behaviour.


So the liberty principle is to give groups you dislike harsher sentences for the same crime?

----------


## Petar

> So the liberty principle is to give groups you dislike harsher sentences for the same crime?


Liberals need to suffer. 

How is this news to anyone?

----------


## farreri

> Liberals need to suffer. 
> 
> How is this news to anyone?


Wow. Wow. Wow.

----------


## Petar

> Wow. Wow. Wow.


Oh, you really weren't aware?

It's true, liberals need to suffer. 

That's what courts are actually supposed to facilitate.

----------


## lilymc

> So the liberty principle is to give groups you dislike harsher sentences for the same crime?


lol.

 / thread.

----------


## dannno

> I think I've just entered the Twilight Zone.


You're a complete moron if you think some businesses don't engage in dishonest behavior that stifles their competition. I would hope nobody EVER puts you in charge of their business.

Again, if I had to bet $100 that the lady is just a crazy SJW with water, I would bet the $100.. But if I had to bet $10k, I wouldn't do it, because that is too much to risk and I don't know what her intentions were or who put her up to it. That is what the property owner was risking, that is why there are repercussions for this sort of behavior.

----------


## dannno

> 


You said she should be made to pay to have all the pigs tested - tested for what? What will the extent of the testing be that will make the person buying the pigs satisfied that they are fit for human consumption? That means she may be liable for the whole truck load, plus expenses, if it turns out to be cheaper just to buy the pigs.

So you think she should pay as much as $10k simply for giving thirsty pigs water?

----------


## farreri

> You're a complete moron if you think some businesses don't engage in dishonest behavior that stifles their competition. I would hope nobody EVER puts you in charge of their business.


Actually I agree with you. I think the GOP sent in Petar to make this libertarian forum look bad. Did you read his comments? Disgusting.





> Again, if I had to bet $100 that the lady is just a crazy SJW with water, I would bet the $100


Why is it crazy to want to feed some thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck some water? Only liberals have that kind of compassion?

----------


## tod evans

> So the liberty principle is to give groups you dislike harsher sentences for the same crime?


I don't advocate bringing in a sentencing authority at all.

Rough guess as to the fair market value of a truck/trailer and 198 marketable hogs is $200,000.00 give or take...

1st time your goodheartedness messes around with my money I'll ask ya' nicely to get lost after that I'll physically remove you in the easiest way possible for me with the least harm done to my property.

Problem is your ilk will be screaming for sentencing authority the moment I remove your asses...

----------


## farreri

> You said she should be made to pay to have all the pigs tested - tested for what? What will the extent of the testing be that will make the person buying the pigs satisfied that they are fit for human consumption? That means she may be liable for the whole truck load, plus expenses, if it turns out to be cheaper just to buy the pigs.
> 
> So you think she should pay as much as $10k simply for giving thirsty pigs water?


How about testing the water bottle first? Seems much cheaper and faster. But why should she even be made to test the water bottle? What evidence do they have that she gave something other than water to drink?

----------


## farreri

> Problem is your ilk


And what ilk are you accusing me to be a part of?

----------


## tod evans

> How about testing the water bottle first? Seems much cheaper and faster. But why should she even be made to test the water bottle? What evidence do they have that she gave something other than water to drink?


How 'bout the property owner actually protect his property instead of taking pictures and calling the kops?

----------


## tod evans

> And what ilk are you accusing me to be a part of?


I was very clear go back and read it again if it didn't sink in the first time...

----------


## farreri

> How 'bout the property owner actually protect his property instead of taking pictures and calling the kops?


Like shoot her with his salt shotgun? Yeah, that would go over well for him.

----------


## farreri

> I was very clear go back and read it again if it didn't sink in the first time...


Post it again. Please. Do it.

----------


## lilymc

Let's try to find some common ground.

Can we all at least agree that the pigs are the only innocent ones involved in this story?  

Thumbs up if you agree.

----------


## Ender

> Of course it could!! If the meat ended up having e.coli or something pathogen they put in the water and everybody you sold meat to got sick, I'm pretty sure your business would be ruined. 
> 
> This lady is not likely, but COULD have been hired by a competitor to do something like that and pretend she is an SJW so that their competitor gets a bad reputation. 
> 
> That is why people protect their property - that is why the free market allows people to go so far as using violence to protect their property and ensure it isn't tampered with.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be poisonous, could be some type of pathogen.


All meat, and especially pork, need to be fully cooked. *If cooked properly no disease will be transmitted.*




> What foodborne organisms are associated with pork?
> 
> Pork must be adequately cooked to eliminate disease-causing parasites and bacteria that may be present. Humans may contract trichinosis (caused by the parasite, Trichinella spiralis) by eating undercooked pork. Much progress has been made in reducing trichinosis in grain-fed hogs and human cases have greatly declined since 1950. Today's pork can be safely enjoyed when cooked to an internal temperature of 145 °F as measured with a food thermometer before removing meat from the heat source. For safety and quality, allow meat to rest for at least three minutes before carving or consuming. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may choose to cook meat to higher temperatures.
> 
> Some other foodborne micro-organisms that can be found in pork, as well as other meats and poultry, are Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, Yersinia enterocolitica and Listeria monocytogenes. People can become infected with these bacteria by consuming raw or undercooked pork, or from the cross-contamination of food contact surfaces, such as countertops, cutting boards, utensils. These bacteria are all destroyed by proper handling and thorough cooking.


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/...table/CT_Index

----------


## tod evans

There's money to be made looking at the OP.........

Stock trailers with high pressure jetting that'll help cool the stock and blast natural fertilizer in a 20 foot radius....

$1500.00-$2000.00 should set a rig up to do 4-5 really prolific "cool downs"..Much cheaper than a lost load or legal battles.

----------


## Danke

There are a lot of chemicals in bottled water.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Every time I see this thread, I read 'Canadian vegan' as 'Canadian bacon.'

----------


## farreri

> There are a lot of chemicals in bottled water.


Like lead? Oh, that's in tap water.

----------


## Petar

> Let's try to find some common ground.
> 
> Can we all at least agree that the pigs are the only innocent ones involved in this story?  
> 
> Thumbs up if you agree.


Fixating on "innocent food" is what makes animal rights nuts the anti-social caricatures of human beings that they are.

----------


## lilymc

> Fixating on "innocent food" is what makes animal rights nuts the anti-social caricatures of human beings that they are.


I actually wasn't planning to discuss this, but since you replied in that way, I'm just curious....  Do you support factory farming and all the practices that go along with it?

----------


## presence

> Why is it crazy to want to feed some thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck some water?


because at the moment the livestock is probably on its way to slaughter... to be fed to people, and farmers tend to take their legal responsibility to deliver non adulterated livestock to the slaughterhouse very seriously because any adulteration is legally on them; potentially rising to a criminal matter.   At the time the pigs left the farm... the farmer knew of everything they had consumed and could attest to the practices by which they lived... now you have some dip$#@! anti free market activist tampering with another man's property right before he's about to deliver finished commodity.    

Yes sir... all these hogs were raised in accordance to best practice... they were fed with know feed sources, watered with known water sources.   Except well.... a few hours ago on the way to the slaughter house... some dip$#@! fed them a bottle of unidentified fluid.

REJECTED.  NOT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

$200,000 investment up in smoke. 

That's why.

----------


## angelatc

> So according to liberty, if someone does an act of civil disobedience, such as giving some rancher's thirsty pigs some water, if the act was committed by someone liberty folks deem fanatics, the penalty goes from a citation to 10 yrs in prison? If that's liberty, I want no part of it.


Bye.

Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey certain commands of government.  She was not protesting government.  Just the opposite, really.  She seeks to make government her tool over the farmer.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Every time I see this thread, I read 'Canadian vegan' as 'Canadian bacon.'


It's making me hungry for bacon but I don't eat Canadian bacon. It tastes like crappy ham.

----------


## Danke

> It's making me hungry for bacon but I don't eat Canadian bacon. It tastes like crappy ham.


So you prefer the ass end of a pig versus the top middle.

----------


## Danke

> Like lead? Oh, that's in tap water.


More than that:

http://naturalsociety.com/24000-chem...bottled-water/

----------


## farreri

> some dip$#@! fed them a bottle of unidentified fluid.


It was just water, bro. Chill out.

----------


## farreri

> Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey certain commands of government.  She was not protesting government.  Just the opposite, really.  She seeks to make government her tool over the farmer.


Well, she's getting charged for refusal to obey certain commands of government, right? But that's besides the point. You still don't know the point of this thread, do you?

----------


## JK/SEA

it takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincents fritters...

----------


## Suzanimal

> So you prefer the ass end of a pig versus the top middle.


I thought bacon came from the belly area but I like the butt, too.

----------


## Danke

> I thought bacon came from the belly area but I like the butt, too.


Talking about ham.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Talking about ham.


I like good ham but I don't care for foreign ham.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Stay off the World News & Affairs section if this doesn't interest you. No one is forcing you to be here.


  Who said it doesn't interest me?  Just because I don't agree with your stance doesn't mean I am not interested.  I like bacon.

----------


## dannno

> I thought bacon came from the belly area but I like the butt, too.


The butt is actually the shoulder.

----------


## dannno

> Well, she's getting charged for refusal to obey certain commands of government, right? But that's besides the point. You still don't know the point of this thread, do you?


She is getting charged with tampering with someone's property, which is one of the few actual legitimate uses of government. It's like if somebody comes up and punches you and you get knocked the $#@! out, and your best friend punches the guy who punched you then it is ok because he is helping defend your rights. When your best friend steals your money and then goes and beats people up, well, that's not really your friend and they are acting like the government does most of the time.

----------


## dannno

> All meat, and especially pork, need to be fully cooked. *If cooked properly no disease will be transmitted.*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/...table/CT_Index


That is wrong, the USDA changed their stance and you can order medium rare pork chops in restaurants, and they have had new recommendations on internal temp of pork for many years now. 

But that is beside the point - if an animal is tampered with, it can become considered unfit for human consumption. On the very first page of this thread someone said that if your animal goes off your property for a certain amount of time you may have to discard it because you don't know what they could have eaten.

Having an animal rights activist tamper with your animals is highly suspect, and meat purveyors may choose not to buy it, free market or regulated.

----------


## farreri

> Who said it doesn't interest me?  Just because I don't agree with your stance doesn't mean I am not interested.


What do you think my stance is?

----------


## Ender

> That is wrong, the USDA changed their stance and you can order medium rare pork chops in restaurants, and they have had new recommendations on internal temp of pork for many years now. 
> 
> But that is beside the point - if an animal is tampered with, it can become considered unfit for human consumption. On the very first page of this thread someone said that if your animal goes off your property for a certain amount of time you may have to discard it because you don't know what they could have eaten.
> 
> Having an animal rights activist tamper with your animals is highly suspect, and meat purveyors may choose not to buy it, free market or regulated.


You can but for cooking at home it is best to make sure it is thoroughly cooked. 

This "tampering" issue is getting ridiculous. She gave the pigs water. Period. They didn't go off of the truck. 

Was she foolish? Probably, but it looks like you guys all need to go to work for the Canadian government- you'd fit right in.

----------


## farreri

> She is getting charged with tampering with someone's property, which is one of the few actual legitimate uses of government.


Is that what you think my issue with this story is?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> That is wrong, the USDA changed their stance and you can order medium rare pork chops in restaurants, and they have had new recommendations on internal temp of pork for many years now. 
> 
> But that is beside the point - if an animal is tampered with, it can become considered unfit for human consumption. On the very first page of this thread someone said that if your animal goes off your property for a certain amount of time you may have to discard it because you don't know what they could have eaten.
> 
> Having an animal rights activist tamper with your animals is highly suspect, and meat purveyors may choose not to buy it, free market or regulated.


and this goes beyond germs that can be cooked out of foods.... there could have been chemicals in that bottle that were harmful to humans whether the meat was cooked or not,... its definitely a big concern for somebody that owns the pigs or who was going to buy the pigs...

----------


## farreri

> This "tampering" issue is getting ridiculous. She gave the pigs water. Period. They didn't go off of the truck.


Did you see that one guy's comment that she "molested" the pigs?!  Some people have wild imaginations.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Did you see that one guy's comment that she "molested" the pigs?!  Some people have wild imaginations.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Was she foolish? Probably, but it looks like you guys all need to go to work for the Canadian government- you'd fit right in.


Heh. You have a point there.

----------


## fisharmor

> Fanatics running around molesting other people's livestock deserve to have the book thrown at them.


Well, you were right farreri.

I'm glad you and I got to an understanding.

Petar, this is uncharacteristic of what I've seen you post in the past.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, she's getting charged for refusal to obey certain commands of government, right? But that's besides the point. You still don't know the point of this thread, do you?


She is getting charged with for attempting to mess with other people's property.  One of the few legitimate functions of government is protection of property rights.

I get you're trying to play an emotional appeal, yes.   In fact, the thread title you chose is especially designed to elicit an emotional outburst, which I assume is why you selected it, despite the fact that the 10 year threat was reduced to a possibility of 6 months with a $5000 fine last spring.

----------


## angelatc

> Did you see that one guy's comment that she "molested" the pigs?!  Some people have wild imaginations.


Since you went right for the sexual innuendo, it would appear that you're the one with the wild imagination. Either that, or just a limited mastery of the English language.

----------


## lilymc

To those who view animals as your "property" - I'm just curious... Do you agree with laws against animal cruelty?   A simple yes or no will suffice.

----------


## Danke

> To those who view animals as your "property" - I'm just curious... Do you agree with laws against animal cruelty?   A simple yes or no will suffice.


Whenever I see somebody buying a mouse trap at the store, I cry a little.

----------


## pao

> To those who view animals as your "property" - I'm just curious... Do you agree with laws against animal cruelty?   A simple yes or no will suffice.


Strange that animal cruelty laws are different for animals that happen to be used in agriculture.

I think this is the argument that some vegan use to justify their actions... the belief that animals are not supposed to be property.

Some vegans also reject speciesism -
"the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals."

Perhaps this explains some of their actions.

----------


## lilymc

> Strange that animal cruelty laws are different for animals that happen to be used in agriculture.
> 
> I think this is the argument that some vegan use to justify their actions... the belief that animals are not supposed to be property.
> 
> Some vegans also reject speciesism -
> "the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals."
> 
> Perhaps this explains some of their actions.


I don't agree with the whole idea of "speciesism" because I'm looking at it from a Christian standpoint.   In fact, I don't like when vegans bring up that word, because it usually goes hand in hand with a godless worldview and sometimes a misanthropic mindset.

I don't think of animals as property though.  We're not the "owner," just the caretaker.   And we've done a horrible job.  When I say we, I mean mankind overall.

----------


## angelatc

> To those who view animals as your "property" - I'm just curious... Do you agree with laws against animal cruelty?   A simple yes or no will suffice.


Animals are property.  I do not believe the state should be involved in raising your kids, much less your animals.  So no.

----------


## farreri

> She is getting charged with for attempting to mess with other people's property.


Have you seen me criticize that in of itself?




> In fact, the thread title you chose is especially designed to elicit an emotional outburst, which I assume is why you selected it,


It's basically the same headlines in the article.




> despite the fact that the 10 year threat was reduced to a possibility of 6 months with a $5000 fine last spring.


Does that match the crime, giving thirsty pigs water?

----------


## farreri

> Since you went right for the sexual innuendo, it would appear that you're the one with the wild imagination. Either that, or just a limited mastery of the English language.


Is describing someone giving their thirsty pigs some water because they felt bad for them as molesting their property a balanced sounding description?

----------


## Natural Citizen

I can't believe this thread is still going. Those pigs are sausage by now. Which I don't eat, btw. But still. Heh.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> To those who view animals as your "property" - I'm just curious... Do you agree with laws against animal cruelty?   A simple yes or no will suffice.


See I like you... you like to have a rational discussion that gets to the heart of the matter

----------


## farreri

> Animals are property.


If animals could vote, what do you think the vote would be on that amendment?

----------


## farreri

> I can't believe this thread is still going. Those pigs are sausage by now. Which I don't eat, btw. But still. Heh.


The reason I posted the article was never about the pigs, despite contrary beliefs.

----------


## lilymc

> Animals are property.  I do not believe the state should be involved in raising your kids, much less your animals.  So no.


Thanks for the honest reply. So you don't agree with laws against child abuse?  What about a parent murdering their own child? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to make sure I'm clear on your position.)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Animals are property.  I do not believe the state should be involved in raising your kids, much less your animals.  So no.


I'm still trying to figure out why I have to license my dog.

----------


## lilymc

> See I like you... you like to have a rational discussion that gets to the heart of the matter


Thanks.    I think it's more interesting that way, instead of hostility and an "us against them" bickerfest that doesn't go anywhere.

----------


## Origanalist

> If animals could vote, what do you think the vote would be on that amendment?


Why don't you teach them how?

----------


## angelatc

> Have you seen me criticize that in of itself?
> 
> 
> It's basically the same headlines in the article


Which is either outdated or inaccurate





> Does that match the crime, giving thirsty pigs water?



Yes. Leave other people and their stuff the $#@! alone.

----------


## angelatc

> Thanks for the honest reply. So you don't agree with laws against child abuse?  What about a parent murdering their own child? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to make sure I'm clear on your position.)


I thought you wanted to talk about animals.  This seems like we're moving the goalposts.

----------


## Origanalist

> Thanks for the honest reply. So you don't agree with laws against child abuse?  What about a parent murdering their own child? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to make sure I'm clear on your position.)


Speaking for myself not angelatc, murder is murder. It has nothing to do with the state dictating how you raise your kids. If you kill your child it's murder.

If you kill your pig and eat it it's not.

----------


## puppetmaster

> What do you think my stance is?


  dunno...maybe upright with knuckles dragging....just a guess.

----------


## farreri

> Yes. Leave other people and their stuff the $#@! alone.


6 months with a $5000 fine for giving thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck some water? Wow, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

----------


## angelatc

> Speaking for myself not angelatc, murder is murder. It has nothing to do with the state dictating how you raise your kids. If you kill your child it's murder.
> 
> If you kill your pig and eat it it's not.


Sure.  This is libertarian 101 stuff.

----------


## lilymc

> I thought you wanted to talk about animals.  This seems like we're moving the goalposts.


I did want to talk about animals, but I had to reply to what you said:  "I do not believe the state should be involved in raising your kids".   Not moving goalposts, just wanting you to clarify that.

----------


## angelatc

> 6 months with a $5000 fine for giving thirsty pigs crammed in a hot truck some water? Wow, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.


 This self righteous little snot would have no issue with a government that sentenced the farmer to death for the murder of those helpless animals.  She isn't some innocent bystander who just made a spontaneous decision.  She wanted attention, and now she has it. 

I will explain it again.  Leave other people's stuff alone.

----------


## angelatc

> I did want to talk about animals, but I had to reply to what you said:  "I do not believe the state should be involved in raising your kids".   Not moving goalposts, just wanting you to clarify that.


So you think that parents (and animal owners) need government oversight.  Congrats, your team is winning.

----------


## lilymc

> Speaking for myself not angelatc, murder is murder. It has nothing to do with the state dictating how you raise your kids. If you kill your child it's murder.
> 
> If you kill your pig and eat it it's not.


No one argued otherwise, so based on your reply it appears you completely misunderstood my post to her.

----------


## lilymc

> So you think that parents (and animal owners) need government oversight.  Congrats, your team is winning.


Can you point out where I said that?  From the start, I have looked at this from a moral, not legal standpoint.

----------


## Origanalist

> No one argued otherwise, so based on your reply it appears you completely misunderstood my post to her.


Ok. Well, you must forgive me for not understanding your post. Please explain how I misunderstood it.

----------


## angelatc

> Can you point out where I said that?  From the start, I have looked at this from a moral, not legal standpoint.


From a moral stand point, lots of things are wrong.  That doesn't mean they need to be illegal.

----------


## farreri

> This self righteous little snot would have no issue with a government that sentenced the farmer to death for the murder of those helpless animals.  She isn't some innocent bystander who just made a spontaneous decision.  She wanted attention, and now she has it.


I see. You're like that other person who thinks she should have the book thrown at her because she has different political viewpoints. Is that a principle of liberty?




> I will explain it again.  Leave other people's stuff alone.


I never complained that she's getting prosecuted as some of you seem to think.

----------


## Natural Citizen

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, Man has kind of redefined natural rights to mean just human rights. And in doing so, Natural Law has been removed from the terms of controversy when defining Liberty. Particularly with modern "libertarians." Then again, if one removes Natural Law, then, it isn't really libertarian. Liberty's foundation for moral code (Natural Law) must be accepted together with it's principles if that claim is to be made.

So, yeah. There is lawful. And there is legal. Two completely diffrent phenomena.

----------


## angelatc

> I see. You're like that other person who thinks she should have the book thrown at her because she has different political viewpoints.


It has nothing to do with political viewpoints.   I think the farmers should have the right to defend themselves from her documented continual assault on freedom and property rights.




> I never complained that she's getting prosecuted as some of you seem to think.


No you're just whining that all the punishments she's faced are too haaaarsh.  We are quite clear on that.

----------


## Origanalist

> I see. You're like that other person who thinks she should have the book thrown at her because she has different political viewpoints. Is that a principle of liberty?
> 
> 
> I never complained that she's getting prosecuted as some of you seem to think.


Do you have brown eyes?

----------


## farreri

> It has nothing to do with political viewpoints.


BS. You call her names because you think she's basically a leftist commie and you want maximum punishment against her because of that. 




> I think the farmers should have the right to defend themselves from her documented continual assault on freedom and property rights.







> No you're just whining that all the punishments she's faced are too haaaarsh.  We are quite clear on that.


Libertarians don't like the Eighth Amendment?

----------


## Origanalist

> Ok. Well, you must forgive me for not understanding your post. Please explain how I misunderstood it.

----------


## Origanalist

> BS. You call her names because you think she's basically a leftist commie and you want maximum punishment against her because of that. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians don't like the Eighth Amendment?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to farreri again.

But I will.

----------


## angelatc

> BS. You call her names because you think she's basically a leftist commie and you want maximum punishment against her because of that.



Thanks for telling me what I didn't say while ignoring what I actually said. Bull$#@! indeed. 




> Libertarians don't like the Eighth Amendment?


FIrst off, she's Canadian. Second, I don't think that 6 months and $5000 is too much.  This is not her first offense.

----------


## farreri

> Thanks for telling me what I didn't say while ignoring what I actually said. Bull$#@! indeed.


Here's what you said:



> This self righteous little snot would have no issue with a government that sentenced the farmer to death for the murder of those helpless animals.  She isn't some innocent bystander who just made a spontaneous decision.  She wanted attention, and now she has it.


Sounds like you got a problem with her politics.




> FIrst off, she's Canadian.


Liberty people only care about liberty in their own country? Sounds selfish.




> Second, I don't think that 6 months and $5000 is too much.  This is not her first offense.


How many times has she been prosecuted for this same crime?

----------


## lilymc

> 


Just to let you know, typing for me is a PITA, because some of my keys are not working, so I have to copy/paste the ones that don't work.

Anyway, you misunderstood because I was simply asking Angelatc questions, to get clarity on her positions, I was not making any statements, but you guys immediately assumed things and jumped to conclusions.

No, I don't think killing a pig is murder.  Murder is the killing of a human being, by another human being.  The reason that word got brought up is because I was asking her what kind of laws she supported.  And I still would like  to know if she thinks that children are "property"  even though that's not the topic.

----------


## Origanalist

> Just to let you know, typing for me is a PITA, because some of my keys are not working, so I have to copy/paste the ones that don't work.
> 
> Anyway, you misunderstood because I was simply asking Angelatc questions, to get clarity on her positions, I was not making any statements, but you guys immediately assumed things and jumped to conclusions.
> 
> No, I don't think killing a pig is murder.  Murder is the killing of a human being, by another human being.  The reason that word got brought up is because I was asking her what kind of laws she supported.  And I still would like  to know if she thinks that children are "property"  even though that's not the topic.


I will let Angela handle that question. I have my own take on it but you asked her.

----------


## angelatc

> Here's what you said:
> 
> Sounds like you got a problem with her politics.


Oh FFS - she's an animal rights activist who accosts drivers on a regular basis.  That isn't politics  - that's assault.


Sounds more like you don't have any problem at all with her refusal to leave other people's property alone.

----------


## angelatc

> Just to let you know, typing for me is a PITA, because some of my keys are not working, so I have to copy/paste the ones that don't work.
> 
> Anyway, you misunderstood because I was simply asking Angelatc questions, to get clarity on her positions, I was not making any statements, but you guys immediately assumed things and jumped to conclusions.
> 
> No, I don't think killing a pig is murder.  Murder is the killing of a human being, by another human being.  The reason that word got brought up is because I was asking her what kind of laws she supported.  And I still would like  to know if she thinks that children are "property"  even though that's not the topic.


It's 2 o clocl in the morning, I have had about 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours and I don't actuall give a flat flying $#@! what you want to know about me.  Leave other people alone. Including me.  

Its none of your business.

----------


## lilymc

> It's 2 o clocl in the morning, I have had about 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours and I don't actuall give a flat flying $#@! what you want to know about me.  Leave other people alone. Including me.
> 
> Children do not belong to the state.  Pigs are property.  Freedom is too scary for most  people. Most people suck  That's what I think.


I'm pretty sure you posted to me, not the other way around.  I was replying to your posts, and making sure I understood your position correctly. (Instead of assuming and jumping to conclusions.)

But yeah, I prefer to talk to people who are not so hostile, so I'm all for ending this little discussion.

----------


## farreri

> she's an animal rights activist


Yes, you don't like her politics, like I said.




> who accosts drivers on a regular basis.  That isn't politics  - that's assault.


Giving thirsty pigs water is assault? Weird world you live in.




> Sounds more like you don't have any problem at all with her refusal to leave other people's property alone.


As I've said many times now, I'm not complaining she's being prosecuted. My complaint is an 8th Amendment kinda complaint.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm pretty sure you posted to me, not the other way around.  I was replying to your posts, and making sure I understood your position correctly. (Instead of assuming and jumping to conclusions.)
> 
> But yeah, I prefer to talk to people who are not so hostile, so I'm all for ending this little discussion.


You were incredulous at the notion that people think animals are property.  I have been playing these coy little games for 40 freaking years. None of it gets libertarians elected.

Instead, we sit up late at night listening to whiny little vegans and smug little statists.

----------


## farreri

> Instead, we sit up late at night listening to whiny little vegans and smug little statists.


Who's being a whiny little vegan or smug statist?

----------


## angelatc

> Y
> 
> 
> Giving thirsty pigs water is assault? Weird world you live in.




She asked if she could give them a drink.  The driver told her no. She does this on a regular basis 
 It may be weird for you, but yeah, in the real world, it's assault.  





> As I've said many times now, I'm not complaining she's being prosecuted. My complaint is an 8th Amendment kinda complaint.


Sadly for you, nobody cares enough about your opinion to even bother asking you what you think the punishment should be .

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Its Canadia, it's not an 8th Amendment issue.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> How much did she cost him?
> 
> 
> Oh stop with the conservative psychobabble talk.


Seriously Bryan, why are obvious trolls still allowed here?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Wanting to give thirsty pigs some water is idiotic?


For the dozenth time you have no idea if the pigs were thirsty.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Just because it's possible the hippie interloper was giving something weird to the pigs, doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if she was. The reasonable reaction to this would be to say, "Quit doing that," not to shoot her or sic the state on her. It's not her fault the state is paranoid and delusional and may force you not to sell pigs just because they ingested something you don't know for sure wasn't some sort of poison. Jumping straight to "I'd fricking disfigure and torture her with a rock salt shotgun blast to the face, crazy bitch!" makes liberty people look insane to most people. No sense of moderation.


Less nutjob activists would do this stupid $#@! if they had got shot with rock salt everytime.

----------


## tod evans

The pigs were not thirsty.

Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true.

Furthermore squirting anything on confined livestock causes them undue stress.

A true animal rights activist would never rile up confined livestock by poking objects into their pen and squirting liquid on them.

This broads behavior, just like the person who started the thread, is using livestock to draw attention to themselves and not any certain issue, law or edict that needs to be addressed.

Once again;  *The pigs were not thirsty*

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You would fine her $5-10k for giving thirsty pigs some water on a hot day, really?


It also wasn't a hot day, we've been over this.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Well don't you ooze compassion for fellow animals.


Compassion? Why?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> It appears these loons make a habit out of this behavior......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [edit for more nuts]
> 
> 
> ...


They are dumb as $#@!.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> So you prefer the ass end of a pig versus the top middle.


I'll eat a pig's $#@! if it tastes like bacon.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The butt is actually the shoulder.


Butt sex just got weird...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 


Vegan Stains.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Sure.  This is libertarian 101 stuff.


Day 1 $#@!, bro.

----------


## SewrRatt

> Less nutjob activists would do this stupid $#@! if they had got shot with rock salt everytime.


The government believes in punishment as deterrence, but I don't. If the farmer had been harmed by the hippie's actions, prison time and/or a fine wouldn't have compensated him in any way. Why do a lot of people in the thread think the government should get that money and rob the taxpayer to provide her with 3 hots and a cot? Restitution is a much better goal, but as far as I know no one was actually harmed. Yes that woman is an idiot and her ideas are offensive and she advocates for oppression, but that doesn't excuse using the government as a weapon to attack her. She did interfere with someone's property, albeit without actually harming anything in any discernible way, and that may merit some sort of restitution to the farmer, but I can't say what form that should take.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The government believes in punishment as deterrence, but I don't. If the farmer had been harmed by the hippie's actions, prison time and/or a fine wouldn't have compensated him in any way. Why do a lot of people in the thread think the government should get that money and rob the taxpayer to provide her with 3 hots and a cot? Restitution is a much better goal, but as far as I know no one was actually harmed. Yes that woman is an idiot and her ideas are offensive and she advocates for oppression, but that doesn't excuse using the government as a weapon to attack her. She did interfere with someone's property, albeit without actually harming anything in any discernible way, and that may merit some sort of restitution to the farmer, but I can't say what form that should take.


Would've been great if she got shot full of rock salt.

----------


## tod evans

> The government believes in punishment as deterrence, but I don't. If the farmer had been harmed by the hippie's actions, prison time and/or a fine wouldn't have compensated him in any way. Why do a lot of people in the thread think the government should get that money and rob the taxpayer to provide her with 3 hots and a cot? Restitution is a much better goal, but as far as I know no one was actually harmed. Yes that woman is an idiot and her ideas are offensive and she advocates for oppression, but that doesn't excuse using the government as a weapon to attack her. She did interfere with someone's property, albeit without actually harming anything in any discernible way, and that may merit some sort of restitution to the farmer, but I can't say what form that should take.


A truck driver or farmer peppering an interlopers ass with rocksalt isn't bringing government to bear..

Unfortunately in today's world the idiot who got peppered would "call the law" because they'd view retaliation as aggression...

There's been lots of litigation over the years regarding trucks, sleepers and cargo responsibility/liability with nothing definitive standing.

Leaving the time worn quandary of; Is it better to ask permission or beg forgiveness?

----------


## SewrRatt

> Would've been great if she got shot full of rock salt.


Somehow I doubt firing a shotgun filled with rock salt at her in the middle of the street at a traffic light would be either proportionate to the offense or responsible behavior.

----------


## Origanalist

> Day 1 $#@!, bro.


I think she's a woman.

----------


## tod evans

Modern day, politically correct rocksalt loads;

https://www.amazon.com/Rap4-Lethal-P.../dp/B0046VIIHQ

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Somehow I doubt firing a shotgun filled with rock salt at her in the middle of the street at a traffic light would be either proportionate to the offense or responsible behavior.


She could've possibly made nearly 200 pigs unsalable, I think more than rock salt wouldve been fully justified.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Modern day, politically correct rocksalt loads;
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Rap4-Lethal-P.../dp/B0046VIIHQ


Awesome. Hopefully somebody unloads all 10 on her next time.

----------


## CPUd

> "Someone asked if our wines were vegan, to my horror I realized they were in fact vegan, so I fixed them" Maynard J. Keenan of Tool

----------


## SewrRatt

> She could've possibly made nearly 200 pigs unsalable, I think more than rock salt wouldve been fully justified.


Except she didn't, presumably because the buyers had a shred of common sense, which is more than I can say for many in this thread. Do you think Ron Paul would've shot this woman with anything if he were driving the truck?

----------


## Origanalist

> Except she didn't, presumably because the buyers had a shred of common sense, which is more than I can say for many in this thread. Do you think Ron Paul would've shot this woman with anything if he were driving the truck?


Ron Paul would have shot liberty all over that bitch.

----------


## angelatc

> The government believes in punishment as deterrence, but I don't. If the farmer had been harmed by the hippie's actions, prison time and/or a fine wouldn't have compensated him in any way. Why do a lot of people in the thread think the government should get that money and rob the taxpayer to provide her with 3 hots and a cot? Restitution is a much better goal, but as far as I know no one was actually harmed. Yes that woman is an idiot and her ideas are offensive and she advocates for oppression, but that doesn't excuse using the government as a weapon to attack her. She did interfere with someone's property, albeit without actually harming anything in any discernible way, and that may merit some sort of restitution to the farmer, but I can't say what form that should take.


If the truck driver had been allowed to just clock her I'd agree.

----------


## angelatc

> Somehow I doubt firing a shotgun filled with rock salt at her in the middle of the street at a traffic light would be either proportionate to the offense or responsible behavior.


But swarming a livestock truck stopped at traffic light is TOTALLY responsible.  

So you would not allow any one to stop her.  And then you would not punish her for repeatedly ignoring the property owner's instructions NOT to give the pigs water.  

If this was a woman who was just passing by, I might be inclined to agree that the punishment was overblown. If there were 2 libertarians involved, I"d be against the government involvement.  But she is the one clamoring for government intervention on behalf of the pigs, so it is perfectly reasonable for the farmer to also ask for government intervention. 

Me,on certain days  I'd run her over so I could feed her to the pigs.

----------


## SewrRatt

> If the truck driver had been allowed to just clock her I'd agree.


Instead, both parties pointed their phones at each other like millennials and threatened to sic the state on each other.




> But swarming a livestock truck stopped at traffic light is TOTALLY responsible.


Yep, I totally said that.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Except she didn't, presumably because the buyers had a shred of common sense, which is more than I can say for many in this thread. Do you think Ron Paul would've shot this woman with anything if he were driving the truck?


The driver couldn't have known what was in the bottle, and it doesn't matter what Ron Paul would've done...dont $#@! with other people's $#@!.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> But swarming a livestock truck stopped at traffic light is TOTALLY responsible.  
> 
> So you would not allow any one to stop her.  And then you would not punish her for repeatedly ignoring the property owner's instructions NOT to give the pigs water.  
> 
> If this was a woman who was just passing by, I might be inclined to agree that the punishment was overblown. If there were 2 libertarians involved, I"d be against the government involvement.  But she is the one clamoring for government intervention on behalf of the pigs, so it is perfectly reasonable for the farmer to also ask for government intervention. 
> 
> Me,on certain days  I'd run her over so I could feed her to the pigs.


I think I happen to like this solution best because its the best and perhaps only way to get a heavy handed liberal to turn into a hands off libertarian... Give them a dose of the medicine they seek to dole out on others.

----------


## SewrRatt

> The driver couldn't have known what was in the bottle, and it doesn't matter what Ron Paul would've done...dont $#@! with other people's $#@!.


If it doesn't matter to you what Ron Paul would do, you must not value his opinion. I agree that people shouldn't mess with people's stuff, (not sure why you censored the words mess and stuff, though) but that doesn't mean you should react to every minor interference with violence.

----------


## lilymc

> "Someone asked if our wines were vegan, to my horror I realized they were in fact vegan, so I fixed them" Maynard J. Keenan of Tool


If you read the whole comment, in the next sentence he states that his wines are vegan.

It's kinda interesting that he would make vegan wine, as a meat-eater, especially if vegans only make up 2 percent of the population... maybe he's trying to appeal to everyone?  Whatever.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> If you read the whole comment, in the next sentence he states that his wines are vegan.
> 
> It's kinda interesting that he would make vegan wine, as a meat-eater, especially if vegans only make up 2 percent of the population... maybe he's trying to appeal to everyone?  Whatever.


wouldnt all wine be considered vegan?

----------


## lilymc

> but that doesn't mean you should react to every minor interference with violence.


Thank you for being sane.

----------


## lilymc

> wouldnt all wine be considered vegan?


No, actually, if I'm not mistaken most wines contain a few animal products.  I'm no expert, but here's an article on this:  http://www.thekitchn.com/as-it-is-vegan-week-136676

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> No, actually, if I'm not mistaken most wines contain a few animal products.  But maybe we have someone here who knows about wine-making who can better answer that question.


Yeah I just looked it up on Frey's website... Had no idea.. well I like Frey anyway.. theyre organic and have no sulfites... though with the little amount of alcohol i drink its probably no big deal

----------


## angelatc

> The driver couldn't have known what was in the bottle, and it doesn't matter what Ron Paul would've done...dont $#@! with other people's $#@!.


Exactly.  Once you start $#@!ing with other people's stuff, you do not get to whine about the severity of the penalty.   According to libertarianism, one of the proper functions of government is the protection of private property.   That's pretty much a useless function if we do not believe that we have to wait until that property is damaged before the state can take action.

That is why the statues covering battery also include assault.

----------


## SewrRatt

> Exactly.  Once you start $#@!ing with other people's stuff, you do not get to whine about the severity of the penalty.   According to libertarianism, one of the proper functions of government is the protection of private property.   That's pretty much a useless function if we do not believe that we have to wait until that property is damaged before the state can take action.
> 
> That is why the statues covering battery also include assault.


According to your logic, since you reject proportionality, if a kid sits on the fender of your car it's 100% okay to blow them away with an RPG. After all, someone is doing something to your stuff, and they don't get to whine. They could've dented that fender. They might be carrying anthrax spores.

----------


## angelatc

> If it doesn't matter to you what Ron Paul would do, you must not value his opinion. I agree that people shouldn't mess with people's stuff, (not sure why you censored the words mess and stuff, though) but that doesn't mean you should react to every minor interference with violence.


This isn't violence - it's opposing forces.  What should they do - ask her to please stop?  Because they already did that.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I think I happen to like this solution best because its the best and perhaps only way to get a heavy handed liberal to turn into a hands off libertarian... Give them a dose of the medicine they seek to dole out on others.


Damn straight.

----------


## angelatc

> According to your logic, since you reject proportionality, if a kid sits on the fender of your car it's 100% okay to blow them away with an RPG. After all, someone is doing something to your stuff, and they don't get to whine. They could've dented that fender. They might be carrying anthrax spores.


And using your logic, the driver has zero right to defend his freight against the persistent enemy.  You won't let him use force, you won't let him appeal to authority.  He asked her to stop.  She refused.  

She wants the court trial - she said so.  So what exactly is the issue again?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Isn't Canada a Monarchy? With all of this "libertarian" speak, it should be noted that there are no inalienable rights in Canada. The Parliament, Provincial Legislatures, and judges are not limited. They have the unchecked power to limit or take away any rights or freedoms from Canadians much like Australia and other countries. It's a false dichotomy to make comparisons based on our form of government where inalienable actually do exist. The only legit argument (at least in this circumstance) would be one benchmarked on natural rights.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Exactly.  Once you start $#@!ing with other people's stuff, you do not get to whine about the severity of the penalty.   According to libertarianism, one of the proper functions of government is the protection of private property.   That's pretty much a useless function if we do not believe that we have to wait until that property is damaged before the state can take action.
> 
> That is why the statues covering battery also include assault.


Just like if someone pulls a knife on you. You don't wait to get stabbed before you react. Their life was forfeit the moment they made clear their intention to take yours.

----------


## farreri

> She asked if she could give them a drink.  The driver told her no. She does this on a regular basis 
>  It may be weird for you, but yeah, in the real world, it's assault.


Here's the real world definition of assault:




> *Assault*
> 
> At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
> 
> An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.
> 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault





> Sadly for you, nobody cares enough about your opinion to even bother asking you what you think the punishment should be .


How classy of you.

----------


## farreri

> Its Canadia, it's not an 8th Amendment issue.


Liberty folks in the U.S. only care about liberty in the U.S.?

----------


## SewrRatt

> And using your logic, the driver has zero right to defend his freight against the persistent enemy.  You won't let him use force, you won't let him appeal to authority.  He asked her to stop.  She refused.  
> 
> She wants the court trial - she said so.  So what exactly is the issue again?


Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my disapproval for killing or maiming people just for doing something dumb that didn't actually harm anyone was tyrannical. Were your feelings hurt? Because I don't remember preventing anyone from doing anything. Your suggestion of him clocking her was actually one of the closest to sane responses in the thread, although other viable responses would've been simply ignoring the hippies or brandishing. Far be it from anyone around here to consider any response other than "CALL IN THE SWAT TEAM!" or "WATERBOARD HER WITH ACID!"

----------


## farreri

> For the dozenth time you have no idea if the pigs were thirsty.


They do this all the time because the caged pigs are thirsty.

----------


## farreri

> Less nutjob activists would do this stupid $#@! if they had got shot with rock salt everytime.


What the hell is the matter with you?

----------


## farreri

> The pigs were not thirsty.
> 
> Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true.
> 
> Furthermore squirting anything on confined livestock causes them undue stress.
> 
> A true animal rights activist would never rile up confined livestock by poking objects into their pen and squirting liquid on them.
> 
> This broads behavior, just like the person who started the thread, is using livestock to draw attention to themselves and not any certain issue, law or edict that needs to be addressed.
> ...


You're really reaching.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Liberty folks in the U.S. only care about liberty in the U.S.?


I'm going to start a thread on this at some point. I just haven't thought on it. It doesn't pertain to you or your thread here. You just kind of reminded me that I want to do that.

----------


## farreri

> Compassion? Why?


And some people wonder why the LP has a problem attracting more people. 

Here's a common liberal perception about Libertarians:



> Actually, Johnson is the perfect Libertarian: *only cares about himself, his money, his property, and anything that immediately impacts him*. I remember an exchange between Pat Buchanan and Glen Beck (both Libertarians) who agreed that *if they saw a man laying in the street, they'd step over him and keep walking*.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...3c20734963085c

----------


## farreri

> They are dumb as $#@!.


It's dumb to give thirsty caged animals water?

----------


## farreri

> Seriously Bryan, why are obvious trolls still allowed here?





> Vegan Stains.


Yes Bryan, why are obvious trolls still allowed here?

----------


## Danke



----------


## farreri

> The government believes in punishment as deterrence, but I don't. If the farmer had been harmed by the hippie's actions, prison time and/or a fine wouldn't have compensated him in any way. Why do a lot of people in the thread think the government should get that money and rob the taxpayer to provide her with 3 hots and a cot? Restitution is a much better goal, but as far as I know no one was actually harmed. Yes that woman is an idiot and her ideas are offensive and she advocates for oppression, *but that doesn't excuse using the government as a weapon to attack her*. She did interfere with someone's property, albeit without actually harming anything in any discernible way, and that may merit some sort of restitution to the farmer, but I can't say what form that should take.


Bingo. And my thread is exposing that a lot of "liberty" people here stop applying liberty equally when it comes to someone with a different political viewpoint as them.

----------


## farreri

> A truck driver or farmer peppering an interlopers ass with rocksalt isn't bringing government to bear..


You want to shoot some woman with rock salt for wanting to give thirsty pigs some water? What the hell is wrong with you?

----------


## angelatc

> Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my disapproval for killing or maiming people just for doing something dumb that didn't actually harm anyone was tyrannical. Were your feelings hurt? Because I don't remember preventing anyone from doing anything. Your suggestion of him clocking her was actually one of the closest to sane responses in the thread, although other viable responses would've been simply ignoring the hippies or brandishing. Far be it from anyone around here to consider any response other than "CALL IN THE SWAT TEAM!" or "WATERBOARD HER WITH ACID!"


So calling the police and pressing charges is exactly the same thing as killing and maiming a person?  Because despite your hyperbole, nobody has been physically hurt.

----------


## farreri

> She could've possibly made nearly 200 pigs unsalable, I think more than rock salt wouldve been fully justified.


You advocate shooting her with bullets for giving water to pigs? Really? 




> Awesome. Hopefully somebody unloads all 10 on her next time.


What the hell is wrong with you?

----------


## angelatc

> You want to shot some woman with rock salt for wanting to give thirsty pigs some water? What the hell is wrong with you?


If you do not agree that people should be allowed unlimited rights to defend property, then what the hell is wrong with you?  She has zero rights in this scenario.  None. Nada . Zip. Zilch.

----------


## angelatc

> And some people wonder why the LP has a problem attracting more people. 
> 
> Here's a common liberal perception about Libertarians:


So you're a liberal?  gee, who could have guessed ?

----------


## farreri

> Except she didn't, presumably because the buyers *had a shred of common sense, which is more than I can say for many in this thread*. Do you think Ron Paul would've shot this woman with anything if he were driving the truck?


Thanks for having some sensibility and common decency!

----------


## farreri

> Ron Paul would have shot liberty all over that bitch.


Please give an example of what he'd do or say.

----------


## farreri

> If the truck driver had been allowed to just clock her I'd agree.


What the hell is wrong with you?

----------


## farreri

> Me,on certain days  I'd run her over so I could feed her to the pigs.


Seriously, what the $#@! is wrong with you?

----------


## farreri

> The driver couldn't have known what was in the bottle


She said it was water and told him he could have a sample to test. Animal rights activists usually don't give thirsty animals poisoned water.

----------


## farreri

> I think I happen to like this solution best because its the best and perhaps only way to get a heavy handed liberal to turn into a hands off libertarian... Give them a dose of the medicine they seek to dole out on others.


Isn't that happening right now with the potential heavy government sentence looming over her head?

----------


## farreri

> If it doesn't matter to you what Ron Paul would do, you must not value his opinion. I agree that people shouldn't mess with people's stuff, (not sure why you censored the words mess and stuff, though) *but that doesn't mean you should react to every minor interference with violence*.


Amen. Some of these "liberty" people on here, I swear.

----------


## farreri

> This isn't violence - it's opposing forces.  What should they do - ask her to please stop?  Because they already did that.


So the next logical solution to you is for him to run her over with his truck and feed her remains to the pigs?!

----------


## farreri

> Just like if someone pulls a knife on you. You don't wait to get stabbed before you react. Their life was forfeit the moment they made clear their intention to take yours.


Don't worry. It was just a water bottle filled with water.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Isn't Canada a Monarchy? With all of this "libertarian" speak, it should be noted that there are no inalienable rights in Canada. The Parliament, Provincial Legislatures, and judges are not limited. They have the unchecked power to limit or take away any rights or freedoms from Canadians much like Australia and other countries. It's a false dichotomy to make comparisons based on our form of government where inalienable actually do exist. The only legit argument (at least in this circumstance) would be one benchmarked on natural rights.


OP actually tried to bring the 8th Amendment into the discussion earlier in the thread.

----------


## farreri

> Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my disapproval for killing or maiming people just for doing something dumb that didn't actually harm anyone was tyrannical. *Were your feelings hurt?*


I think they were, that's why I started this thread the other day:

*Why do meat eaters get so butthurt by vegans?*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...hurt-by-vegans

----------


## Danke

> But swarming a livestock truck stopped at traffic light is TOTALLY responsible.  
> 
> So you would not allow any one to stop her.  And then you would not punish her for repeatedly ignoring the property owner's instructions NOT to give the pigs water.  
> 
> If this was a woman who was just passing by, I might be inclined to agree that the punishment was overblown. If there were 2 libertarians involved, I"d be against the government involvement.  But she is the one clamoring for government intervention on behalf of the pigs, so it is perfectly reasonable for the farmer to also ask for government intervention. 
> 
> Me,on certain days  I'd run her over so I could feed her to the pigs.


Those are pigs on the way to slaughter so they have been well fed and watered. They are not going to eat the nasty woman.

----------


## farreri

> If you do not agree that people should be allowed unlimited rights to defend property


Like what, the guy pulling out a Glock and capping her in the head for wanting to give water to his thirsty pigs crammed in a truck on a hot day? Yeah, that will go over well in society.

----------


## farreri

> So you're a liberal?  gee, who could have guessed ?


You totally didn't get the point of my posting that, did you?

----------


## tod evans

The pigs were not thirsty.

The entire premise of this thread is built on a lie.




> The pigs were not thirsty.
> 
> Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true.
> 
> Furthermore squirting anything on confined livestock causes them undue stress.
> 
> A true animal rights activist would never rile up confined livestock by poking objects into their pen and squirting liquid on them.
> 
> This broads behavior, just like the person who started the thread, is using livestock to draw attention to themselves and not any certain issue, law or edict that needs to be addressed.
> ...

----------


## angelatc

> You totally didn't get the point of my posting that, did you?


Of course I did.  You're by no means the first person to post something to the effect that Libertarians would be more popular if they were just more liberal.  Which totally misses a bigger, more important point - libertarians are not liberals. 

Golly, if we all decided that pig are people too and that eating meat was evil and we started prosecuting farmers for animal abuse when they sent hogs to the slaughterhouse, then maybe more people would like us?

Leave other people's stuff alone.  You find that objectionable.  We get that.

----------


## angelatc

> Ferretroll actually tried to bring the 8th Amendment into the discussion earlier in the thread.


And when we pointed that out, he acted like we should be eager to enforce our constitutional law in sovereign nations.

----------


## angelatc

> So the next logical solution to you is for him to run her over with his truck and feed her remains to the pigs?!


Yes.  If they're thirsty, they're probably hungry too.  Two problems solved at once. Seems efficient!

----------


## angelatc

> She said it was water and told him he could have a sample to test. Animal rights activists usually don't give thirsty animals poisoned water.


He told her not to give anything to the animals in his care.  She had no rights.  The end.

----------


## angelatc

> Here's the real world definition of assault:
> 
> 
> 
> *Assault
> 
> At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.*
> 
> 
> ...


She was asked to leave the pigs alone.  She offended the driver by ignoring his request.  By the definition that you posted, the real world considers that assault.

----------


## angelatc

> Of course I did.  You're by no means the first person to post something to the effect that Libertarians would be more popular if they were just more liberal.  Which totally misses a bigger, more important point - libertarians are not liberals. 
> 
> Golly, if we all decided that pig are people too and that eating meat was evil and we started prosecuting farmers for animal abuse when they sent hogs to the slaughterhouse, then maybe more people would like us?
> 
> Leave other people's stuff alone.  You find that objectionable.  We get that.


Lilymc was triggered by this post.

----------


## SewrRatt

> He told her not to give anything to the animals in his care.  She had no rights.  The end.





> I told that small child not to step onto my lawn to retrieve his frisbee. He had no rights, so I cut off his limbs and rolled him into oncoming traffic. The end.


I'm not even remotely on farreri's side and yet you keep saying things that are obviously indefensible.

----------


## lilymc

When did things like mercy, compassion, respect for all life, etc, become synonymous with "liberal"?

I'm definitely not a liberal, and I oppose most of what today's "liberals" stand for... but I believe in those things I just mentioned. They're not "liberal" principles... if anything, they're Christian principles... even though many people don't understand the source.

It's lame and small-minded to make this into a "left vs right" or "liberty vs liberal" thing.   Not only is it not true, but it just plays into the hands of those who accuse us (conservatives/libertarians) of being selfish aholes.

----------


## tod evans

> She was asked to leave the pigs alone.  She offended the driver by ignoring his request.  By the definition that you posted, the real world considers that assault.


What about assault on the poor pig-people?

Strange beings squirting liquid on them in order to rile them up right in the middle of their very first car ride..

Why aren't these 'activists' attacking dog-people when they're being transported?

----------


## angelatc

> I'm not even remotely on farreri's side and yet you keep saying things that are obviously indefensible.


I am only responding to his hyperbole with hyperbole of my own.  But if you want to make everything black and white, then you are correct.  I put property rights on an even level with the right to life.  If you choose not to respect my property rights, then why should I respect your right to life?

And for teh record I didn't say this: 


> I told that small child not to step onto my lawn to retrieve his frisbee. He had no rights, so I cut off his limbs and rolled him into oncoming traffic. The end


  That's a strawman.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> When did things like mercy, compassion, respect for all life, etc, become synonymous with "liberal"?
> 
> I'm definitely not a liberal, and I oppose most of what today's "liberals" stand for... but I believe in those things I just mentioned. They're not "liberal" principles... if anything, they're Christian principles... even though many people don't understand the source.
> 
> It's lame and small-minded to make this into a "left vs right" or "liberty vs liberal" thing.   Not only is it not true, but it just plays into the hands of those who accuse us (conservatives/libertarians) of being selfish aholes.


Mm. Yeah. I'd have to agree with lily here.

----------


## Origanalist

> Please give an example of what he'd do or say.


I have a better idea, why don't you find something to do with your life besides sit on this forum and ask stupid questions?

----------


## angelatc

> When did things like mercy, compassion, respect for all life, etc, become synonymous with "liberal"?
> 
> .


We all agree on those things that you listed.  The key difference is that Libertarians do not believe that the government should mandate those things.  And that property rights are inalienable.

----------


## angelatc

> Please give an example of what he'd do or say.


He has already said that one of the few legitimate functions of government is the protection of property rights. Clearly you do not agree.

----------


## lilymc

> We all agree on those things that you listed.  The key difference is that Libertarians do not believe that the government should mandate those things.  And that property rights are inalienable.


I can't speak for farreri, but nobody else has argued otherwise.  You don't seem to get that not everyone here is focusing on the legal side of it.

----------


## angelatc

> I can't speak for farreri, but nobody else has argued otherwise.  You don't seem to get that not everyone here is focusing on the legal side of it.


The point is that pigs are property. She was asked not to give them water.  She is the aggressor.  She wanted to get arrested so she could get headlines.  Seems like everybody should be happy.  They're all getting what they want.

----------


## farreri

> The pigs were not thirsty.
> 
> The entire premise of this thread is built on a lie.


So if they were thirsty, you don't think she should be charged at all?

----------


## angelatc

> So if they were thirsty, you don't think she should be charged at all?


Strawman.

----------


## farreri

> Of course I did.  You're by no means the first person to post something to the effect that Libertarians would be more popular if they were just more liberal.  Which totally misses a bigger, more important point - libertarians are not liberals. 
> 
> Golly, if we all decided that pig are people too and that eating meat was evil and we started prosecuting farmers for animal abuse when they sent hogs to the slaughterhouse, then maybe more people would like us?
> 
> Leave other people's stuff alone.  You find that objectionable.  We get that.


No, more like if liberal's think in a libertarian society, a person can just walk up and blow another person's head off because that person was trying to do an act of compassion by giving what they perceived as his pigs being thirsty and giving them some water, the Libertarian Party isn't going to grow very much and will actually start to plummet as I'd argue most Libertarian's would be morally opposed if that's how a libertarian society would be.

----------


## farreri

> And when we pointed that out, he acted like we should be eager to enforce our constitutional law in sovereign nations.


You're really dumb if you believe that.

----------


## Danke

From their YouTube page:

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, was naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." -Matthew Chapter 25

Toronto Pig Save's mission is to make slaughterhouses have glass wall through collectively bearing witness and to encourage everyone to go vegan and be an animal activist every day due to the animal emergency suffered by hundreds of millions of animals in Canada and billions of victims worldwide each year.

----------


## farreri

> Yes.  If they're thirsty, they're probably hungry too.  Two problems solved at once. Seems efficient!


You seem like a psycho if you believe that.

----------


## farreri

> He told her not to give anything to the animals in his care.  She had no rights.  The end.


Am I complaining that she got charged?

----------


## farreri

> She was asked to leave the pigs alone.  She offended the driver by ignoring his request.  By the definition that you posted, the real world considers that assault.


How did she put him in imminent harm or offensive contact?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Am I complaining that she got charged?


Well what is your gripe with it? Seriously. Spit it out. Specifically. Because through a dozen or so pages, the only good debate I'm seeing that might go some place is the one between lily and angela.

----------


## farreri

> I'm not even remotely on farreri's side


I'm curious, what do you think is my view point on this matter?

----------


## farreri

> It's lame and small-minded to make this into a "left vs right" or "liberty vs liberal" thing.   Not only is it not true, but it just plays into the hands of those who accuse us (conservatives/libertarians) of being selfish aholes.


When these not-so-liberty liberty people have nothing rational to counter with, they're forced to start the name calling like lefty or liberal.

----------


## Suzanimal

> *When did things like mercy, compassion, respect for all life, etc, become synonymous with "liberal"?*
> 
> I'm definitely not a liberal, and I oppose most of what today's "liberals" stand for... but I believe in those things I just mentioned. They're not "liberal" principles... if anything, they're Christian principles... even though many people don't understand the source.
> 
> It's lame and small-minded to make this into a "left vs right" or "liberty vs liberal" thing.   Not only is it not true, but it just plays into the hands of those who accuse us (conservatives/libertarians) of being selfish aholes.


I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with this thread but I try to be that way with everything - except chickens and snakes (they started it with me).





> I can't speak for farreri, but nobody else has argued otherwise.  You don't seem to get that not everyone here is focusing on the legal side of it.


I don't think the pigs were being abused. I don't think traveling 70 miles in 79 (max) heat is abuse considering they were watered before the trip started. If there's not clear abuse, then the only side left for me to take is the side of property rights.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm curious, what do you think is my view point on this matter?


Why don't you just tell us? It's your thread. If you don't spit it out, we're going to take the thread away from you. And it won't be your thread anymore.

----------


## farreri

> Strange beings squirting liquid on them in order to rile them up


Oh, is that what that woman's secret intentions were?!

----------


## farreri

> If you choose not to respect my property rights, then why should I respect your right to life?


 

It was just a woman trying to give some thirsty pigs some water on a hot day. No need for bullets to start flying. Chill out.

----------


## farreri

> He has already said that one of the few legitimate functions of government is the protection of property rights. Clearly you do not agree.


Again, where did I complain that this woman was charged for what she did?

----------


## farreri

> She wanted to get arrested so she could get headlines.


Let's say that's true. What do you think the appropriate sentence should be for her?

----------


## farreri

> From their YouTube page:
> 
> "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, was naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." -Matthew Chapter 25
> 
> Toronto Pig Save's mission is to make slaughterhouses have glass wall through collectively bearing witness and to encourage everyone to go vegan and be an animal activist every day due to the animal emergency suffered by hundreds of millions of animals in Canada and billions of victims worldwide each year.


Not such a terrible mission if you ask me.

----------


## farreri

> Well what is your gripe with it? Seriously. Spit it out. Specifically. Because through a dozen or so pages, the only good debate I'm seeing that might go some place is the one between lily and angela.


Let's put it this way, if the headlines of the story said Animal Rights Activist Faces Citation for Giving Slaughter-bound Pigs Water, I would never have posted the story.

----------


## SewrRatt

> From their YouTube page:
> 
> "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, was naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." -Matthew Chapter 25
> 
> Toronto Pig Save's mission is to make slaughterhouses have glass wall through collectively bearing witness and to encourage everyone to go vegan and be an animal activist every day due to the animal emergency suffered by hundreds of millions of animals in Canada and billions of victims worldwide each year.


Why aren't they clothing those poor, naked pigs? Hypocrites!

----------


## angelatc

> It was just a woman trying to give some thirsty pigs some water on a hot day. No need for bullets to start flying. Chill out.


The pigs were not thirsty.  The day was not hot.  No bullets flew.   She was asked to respect property rights, she did not.  She is not a liberty minded person.

----------


## angelatc

> No, more like if liberal's think in a libertarian society, a person can just walk up and blow another person's head off because that person was trying to do an act of compassion by giving what they perceived as his pigs being thirsty and giving them some water, the Libertarian Party isn't going to grow very much and will actually start to plummet as I'd argue most Libertarian's would be morally opposed if that's how a libertarian society would be.


Strawman. 

She was asked to respect property rights.  She chose not to.  Protecting private property is one of the legitimate functions of government.  She was not acting out of compassion; she wanted to be arrested for the attention it would garner.  The Farmer obliged. 

I'm not the stupid one in this thread.

----------


## farreri

> The pigs were not thirsty.  The day was not hot.


So if they were thirsty and the day was hot that would justify only a misdemeanor instead of a felony?




> She is not a liberty minded person.


So that justifies a felony instead of a misdemeanor?

----------


## angelatc

> So if they were thirsty and the day was hot that would justify only a misdemeanor instead of a felony?


Strawman.





> So that justifies a felony instead of a misdemeanor?


Strawman. 

She was asked to respect property rights. She chose not to. Protecting private property is one of the legitimate functions of government. She was not acting out of compassion; she wanted to be arrested for the attention it would garner. The Farmer obliged. 

If she knew the legal implications, she made her choice freely.  If she didn't, then she did not act responsibly.

----------


## farreri

> She was asked to respect property rights.  She chose not to.  Protecting private property is one of the legitimate functions of government.


Is anyone here complaining that she's getting charged?




> She was not acting out of compassion; she wanted to be arrested for the attention it would garner.


What kind of attention do you think she was looking for?




> I'm not the stupid one in this thread.


Everyone has an opinion.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Isn't that happening right now with the potential heavy government sentence looming over her head?


yeah if she has to go to jail for 90 days and pay a $5,000 she might learn something about respecting other peoples' property or she will figure its a fair price to make her moral argument gain attention... its no different than the old saying how a conservative is a liberal whos been mugged and a liberal is a conservative whos been arrested.

----------


## angelatc

> Is anyone here complaining that she's getting charged?
> 
> 
> What kind of attention do you think she was looking for?


I do not have to speculate.  She stated she wanted to go to trial to raise awareness for her cause.

----------


## angelatc

> yeah if she has to go to jail for 90 days and pay a $5,000 she might learn something about respecting other peoples' property or she will figure its a fair price to make her moral argument gain attention... its no different than the old saying how a conservative is a liberal whos been mugged and a liberal is a conservative whos been arrested.


This!  Everything is relative.  We think $5000 is a lot of money, but she will probably not be paying it out of pocket, so why should she care?

----------


## farreri

> yeah if she has to go to jail for 90 days and pay a $5,000 she might learn something about respecting other peoples' property or she will figure its a fair price to make her moral argument gain attention


I'm curious, what do you think is the main reason I posted this story?

----------


## farreri

> She stated she wanted to go to trial to raise awareness for her cause.


Was that before or after she was charged?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I'm curious, what do you think is the main reason I posted this story?


Youre so vague and non specific that no matter my answer you can just change the goalposts on it. Honestly from the majority of your posting history you seem to get off on just arguing with people...

 Maybe its some attempt to make libertarians look stupid but in my opinion arguing just for arguments sake is a waste of time.. and life is too short for crap like that.

----------


## Ender

> A woman who fed dehydrated pigs in a truck on their way to a Canadian slaughterhouse now faces the threat of up to 10 years in jail.
> 
> Ms Kranjc is a co-founder of animal rights group Toronto Pig Save, whose members routinely wait at traffic lights for pig trucks en route to the slaughterhouse in hopes of giving the animals water or food.
> 
> She told local newspaper Inside Toronto: It was really shocking when I got the summons. I couldnt believe I was being charged for giving water to thirsty pigs. My defence is that I was being a good Samaritan.
> 
> If I face a fine, Id rather just do the time in jail.
> 
> *Under Canadian law, pigs are considered property and can be transported for up to 36 hours without food or water, according to the Factory Farming Awareness Coalition*.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6754011.html




> The owner of the pigs, Ontario farmer Eric Van Boekel, filed a police complaint the day after the incident. He said his pigs were treated in accordance with all national standards and regulations.
> 
> That, however, is exactly the point of discontent for Krajnc, who founded organization Toronto Pig Save to bear witness [to the] suffering of animals in transport and at slaughterhouses.
> 
> *Krajnc believes that Canada is behind the rest of the Western world when it comes to animal transportation regulations.*
> 
> Everyone knows that compassion is not a crime. In fact, I did nothing wrong when I gave water to thirsty pigs; many of you have given water to thirsty pigs, and well continue to do that, Krajnc said outside the courthouse in Milton, after the pre-trial procedure on November 4.
> 
> If found guilty, she faces a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.


https://www.rt.com/news/324123-activ...-years-prison/

And just for the record, I am NOT a vegan- however, I believe that animals are not "property" but are gifts and should be treated with love & kindness. I will only buy meat from places where I know the animals are treated well and do not suffer just to fatten someone's pocketbook.

So- let the name-calling begin!

----------


## Ender

From the US Animal Welfare Institute:




> *Source: National Pork Board, Trucker Quality Assurance Handbook* 
> 
> The chart on offers rough guidelines for the space that should be provided per running foot of truck floor for various pig weights when temperatures are below 75°F. When the Livestock Weather Safety Index is in the “Alert” condition, load 10 to 20% fewer pigs. Pigs that will travel more than 12 hours may need more space. Non-ambulatory pigs and dead pigs increase after 12 hours. 
> 
> *Hot Weather Management for Pigs*
> 
> According to federal regulation, all livestock must have access to clean drinking water in lairage. Water also can help prevent heat stress because it replaces fluids. Hot weather and humidity are deadly to pigs because they do not have functioning sweat glands. Therefore, special precautionary measures must be taken in hot weather conditions. 
> 
> Use the following procedures to keep animals cool and eliminate unnecessary transport losses during extreme weather conditions. 
> ...

----------


## lilymc

> I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with this thread but I try to be that way with everything - except chickens and snakes (they started it with me).


It wasn't out of the blue.  I'll do a quick recap.  

Way earlier in the thread, farreri sarcastically said to someone: "Well don't you ooze compassion for fellow animals."

JFK later said: "Compassion? Why?"

ferreri replied with: "And some people wonder why the LP has a problem attracting more people."

That started an exchange between angela and ferreri, where she said "libertarians are not liberals" among other things, implying that things like compassion and caring about animals and not eating meat were "liberal" things.

That's the context, and why I replied with my post.





> I don't think the pigs were being abused. I don't think traveling 70 miles in 79 (max) heat is abuse considering they were watered before the trip started. If there's not clear abuse, then the only side left for me to take is the side of property rights.


I got bored talking about the particulars of this story a long time ago. I stated a couple times, early on in the thread, that I don't advocate what that Canada lady did (or at least the way she did it) so what I have been doing is asking questions and trying to get certain people to look at stories like this from a different angle.  I did want to discuss whether or not animals truly are "property" (apart from man-made laws) - but we never got there in the conversation, because certain people kept misunderstanding and wrongly assuming where I was going with that.

 Does that clear things up?

----------


## angelatc

> I did want to discuss whether or not animals truly are "property" (apart from man-made laws)


 I am not religious but God gave man dominion over animals.  They are not people.  These pigs were born and bred for a single purpose.  They are investment property.

----------


## RJB

> I'm curious, what do you think is the main reason I posted this story?


I'm starting to wonder if you eat any food at all.  You seem to thrive very well on what you get fed from these threads.

----------


## lilymc

> I am not religious but God gave man dominion over animals.  They are not people.  These pigs were born and bred for a single purpose.  They are investment property.


Yes, it's true that God gave man dominion. (I'm going to post a video on this particular point, because I think it's often misunderstood) but from a Christian perspective, we are the stewards, not the owners.  God owns the animals. They are God's property. And ultimately, we are accountable to God, for how we treat them.


For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
—Psalm 50:10 


The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.
— Psalm 24:1


"The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants."
— Leviticus 25:23 


 “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight.” 
—Luke 12:6


Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.
—1 Corinthians 4:2

----------


## Danke

> Yes, it's true that God gave man dominion. (I'm going to post a video on this particular point, because I think it's often misunderstood) but from a Christian perspective, we are the stewards, not the owners.  God owns the animals. They are God's property. And ultimately, we are accountable to God, for how we treat them.
> 
> 
> For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
> —Psalm 50:10 
> 
> 
> The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.
> — Psalm 24:1
> ...



I stopped mowing my grass and weed whacking, I had to stop the suffering.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes, it's true that God gave man dominion. (I'm going to post a video on this particular point, because I think it's often misunderstood) but from a Christian perspective, we are the stewards, not the owners.  God owns the animals. They are God's property. And ultimately, we are accountable to God, for how we treat them.


Are you vegan?

----------


## RJB

> I stopped mowing my grass and weed whacking, I had to stop the suffering.


I'm sure your neighbors appreciate your sacrifice.

----------


## Suzanimal

Jesus wasn't vegan. I, obviously, don't have a moral problem eating animals but I think they should be treated humanely. 




> Yes, it's true that God gave man dominion. (I'm going to post a video on this particular point, because I think it's often misunderstood) but from a Christian perspective, we are the stewards, not the owners.  God owns the animals. They are God's property. And ultimately, we are accountable to God, for how we treat them.
> 
> 
> For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
> —Psalm 50:10 
> 
> 
> The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.
> — Psalm 24:1
> ...

----------


## lilymc

> Are you vegan?


No, I don't identify as a vegan... even though I no longer eat meat or dairy.   I eat honey occasionally, and since I went plant-based earlier this year, I have had a little seafood, but most likely I'm going to stop that too.    I don't agree with vegans on a few things, and for a number of other reasons, I prefer to use to use the phrase plant-based, when asked about my diet.

----------


## Danke

> Jesus wasn't vegan. I, obviously, don't have a moral problem eating animals but I think they should be treated humanely.


All animals?

----------


## Ender

> I am not religious but God gave man dominion over animals.  They are not people.  These pigs were born and bred for a single purpose.  They are investment property.


Not exactly.

Pigs are at least as smart as 3 yr old kids.

Some fun facts:




> Pigs snuggle close to one another and prefer to sleep nose to nose. They dream, much as humans do. In their natural surroundings, pigs spend hours playing, sunbathing, and exploring. People who run animal sanctuaries for farmed animals often report that pigs, like humans, enjoy listening to music, playing with soccer balls, and getting massages.
> 
>     Pigs communicate constantly with one another; more than 20 vocalizations have been identified that pigs use in different situations, from wooing mates to saying, Im hungry!
> 
>     Newborn piglets learn to run to their mothers voices and to recognize their own names. Mother pigs sing to their young while nursing.
>     According to Professor Donald Broom of the Cambridge University Veterinary School, [Pigs] have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly [more so than human] 3-year-olds.
> 
>     Pigs appear to have a good sense of direction and have found their way home over great distances. Adult pigs can run at speeds of up to 11 miles an hour.
> 
> ...

----------


## lilymc

> Not exactly.
> 
> Pigs are at least as smart as 3 yr old kids.
> 
> Some fun facts:


As smart as dogs too, if not smarter.

(I posted this earlier, but it quickly got buried in the thread... the whole thing has to be watched, this pig is so cool.)





[/video]

----------


## Ender

Pigs are considered one of the smartest animals on the planet- 2nd only to chimps and rating just higher than dolphins.

http://list25.com/25-most-intelligen...ls-on-earth/5/

----------


## tod evans

> Oh, is that what that woman's secret intentions were?!


Surely an animal lover knows what affect squirting water on captive livestock has on them.............Surely.

So her intentions could never have been "secret".

In fact I'll hold out that the loon was trying to incite swine-ageddon in that transport with the "intention" of having the load refused by the slaughter house..

----------


## Ender

> Surely an animal lover knows what affect squirting water on captive livestock has on them.............Surely.
> 
> So her intentions could never have been "secret".
> 
> In fact I'll hold out that the loon was trying to incite swine-ageddon in that transport with the "intention" of having the load refused by the slaughter house..





> Ms Kranjc is a co-founder of animal rights group Toronto Pig Save, whose members routinely wait at traffic lights for pig trucks en route to the slaughterhouse in hopes of giving the animals water or food.


I think the intentions were well-meaning.

----------


## tod evans

> I think the intentions were well-meaning.


How often do "well meaning" people sacrifice others to achieve their ends?

I'll grant you though that folks of the aforementioned caliber would probably rather sacrifice the driver than his cargo...

----------


## asurfaholic

I get that some people really want to rip their hearts out after hearing about how awesome some animals are. Pigs are smart, cows are pretty smart too. But animals are animals, and especially in a production driven world, they are assets and always have been, and always will be. I don't disagree that pigs are cool, but bacon is bacon and I love bacon. All this is just to say don't mess with my bacon.

----------


## Danke

> Not exactly.
> 
> Pigs are at least as smart as 3 yr old kids.
> 
> Some fun facts:


Pigs taste good, never BBQd a 3 yr. old.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Pigs taste good, never BBQd a 3 yr. old.


Not enough meat on the bone.

----------


## lilymc

> I get that some people really want to rip their hearts out after hearing about how awesome some animals are. Pigs are smart, cows are pretty smart too. But animals are animals, and especially in a production driven world, they are assets and always have been, and always will be. I don't disagree that pigs are cool, but bacon is bacon and I love bacon. *All this is just to say don't mess with my bacon.*


That last sentence I think pinpoints what all this boils down to.  People just don't want to give up eating meat.  I was the same way, so I get it.

But when I really started looking at it and doing the research, it was easy to make the decision.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I hate videos like that.

----------


## asurfaholic

@lilymc What about fish? Didn't you say earlier you also gave up fish?

----------


## lilymc

> I hate videos like that.


I know, right?  It's beyond horrible and I can barely stand to watch it.   

Thing is, many people purposely avoid looking at footage like that. So it's like a head in the sand type of thing.

What got me was watching some vegan videos (about other topics) where they snuck that footage in there with no warning whatsoever. That way you don't have the chance to avoid it, all of a sudden you're watching it. And that's when the question comes, how can I pay for something that I can't even stand to watch and that I couldn't do myself with my own hands?

----------


## lilymc

> @lilymc What about fish? Didn't you say earlier you also gave up fish?


Earlier I said that since I went plant-based, I've had seafood a few times, but I think I'm going to stop that too... Especially with the pollution in the water and the mercury, etc.  Like I said before, I don't call myself a vegan.  Why do you ask?

----------


## asurfaholic

> Earlier I said that since I went plant-based, I've had seafood a few times, but I think I'm going to stop that too... Especially with the pollution in the water and the mercury, etc.  Like I said before, I don't call myself a vegan.  Why do you ask?


Was just curious. I make killer bacon wrapped bluefish. 

What pollution? I think the ocean is so well filtered by the sheer volume of water - and it's not like it sits still- the water is flowing constantly. I can see not eating fish out of a river right next to a chemical plant. Or small creeks where there are sewage spills- but I'm not sure that the fear of "polluted" water really holds water.

I can understand giving up beef, but fish is so good for you. I think it's part of a normal natural human diet.

----------


## Ender

> All animals?


Yes.

There is a Survivor Camp that puts people out in the wilderness for a few weeks learning all the tricks of staying alive.

Toward the end, everyone is given a sheep to take care of. At the end of the last week, everyone must personally kill their sheep, ready it for storage and cooking, skin it, etc. This is devastating because people have learned to love their sheep. Many hearts break doing this.

What is learned is to respect the animals that give their life for you and to be grateful.

After this experience you never look at sheep/cattle/pigs etc as consumer products. They are gifts and they have given their lives for your well-being.

----------


## Danke

> Yes.
> 
> There is a Survivor Camp that puts people out in the wilderness for a few weeks learning all the tricks of staying alive.
> 
> Toward the end, everyone is given a sheep to take care of. At the end of the last week, everyone must personally kill their sheep, ready it for storage and cooking, skin it, etc. This is devastating because people have learned to love their sheep. Many hearts break doing this.
> 
> What is learned is to respect the animals that give their life for you and to be grateful.
> 
> After this experience you never look at sheep/cattle/pigs etc as consumer products. They are gifts and they have given their lives for your well-being.

----------


## RJB

What is this country coming to?  There was a time when 90% of the meat I ate was either raised, hunted, trapped or caught by me.  You learn to care and respect the animal when it feeds you.   All this whining on the thread is a first world symptom of decadence.  From a hunter/gather point of view it is impossible to live in a temperate climate as a vegan.  About all that is in the woods in winter are nuts (like a vegan forum).  You'll never meet a vegan Eskimo LOL.

Modern plant farming is just as/ maybe more so damaging to the environment as animal factory farming.  Vast areas of wilderness has been stripped for modern farming.  Not to mention pesticides, petroleum based ferrtilizers and herbicides that are used.  Traditional means of raising food animals has little impact on the environment.  My chickens eat the fleas and ticks around my house and convert it to eggs.  Poop ferrtilizes my garden naturally.  Cattle are raised in areas too hilly or arid for vegetable farming.

I've lived primitively off the land back in the day and occasionally teach wilderness survival skills.  I would say our ancestors would cry but I don't think they'd waste any tears on what some of you have become.

----------


## Suzanimal

> What is this country coming to?  There was a time when 90% of the meat I ate was either raised, hunted, trapped or caught by me.  You learn to care and respect the animal when it feeds you.   All this whining on the thread is a first world symptom of decadence.  From a hunter/gather point of view it is impossible to live in a temperate climate as a vegan.  About all that is in the woods at the time are nuts (like a vegan forum).  You'll never meet a vegan Eskimo LOL.
> 
> Modern plant farming is just as/ maybe more so damaging to the enviroment as animal factory farming.  Vast areas of wilderness has been stripped for modern farming.  Not to mention pesticides and herbicides that are used.  Traditional means of raising food animals has little impact on the enviroment.  My chickens eat the fleas and ticks around my house annd convert it to eggs.  Cattle are raised in areas to hilly or dry for vegetable farming.
> 
> I've lived primitively off the land back in the day and occasionally teach backwoods skills.  I would say our ancestors would cry but I don't think they'd waste any tears on what some of you have become.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJB again._

----------


## Ender

> What is this country coming to?  There was a time when 90% of the meat I ate was either raised, hunted, trapped or caught by me.  You learn to care and respect the animal when it feeds you.   All this whining on the thread is a first world symptom of decadence.  From a hunter/gather point of view it is impossible to live in a temperate climate as a vegan.  About all that is in the woods in winter are nuts (like a vegan forum).  You'll never meet a vegan Eskimo LOL.
> 
> Modern plant farming is just as/ maybe more so damaging to the environment as animal factory farming.  Vast areas of wilderness has been stripped for modern farming.  Not to mention pesticides, petroleum based ferrtilizers and herbicides that are used.  Traditional means of raising food animals has little impact on the environment.  My chickens eat the fleas and ticks around my house and convert it to eggs.  Poop ferrtilizes my garden naturally.  Cattle are raised in areas too hilly or arid for vegetable farming.
> 
> I've lived primitively off the land back in the day and occasionally teach wilderness survival skills.  I would say our ancestors would cry but I don't think they'd waste any tears on what some of you have become.


^^^THIS^^^

----------


## Ender

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJB again._


COVERED.

----------


## farreri

> From the US Animal Welfare Institute:
> 
> Hot Weather Management for Pigs
> 
> Hot weather and humidity are deadly to *pigs* because they *do not have functioning sweat glands*. Therefore, special precautionary measures must be taken in hot weather conditions.
> 
> 9. Pigs are very sensitive to heat stress. Problems with heat stress may start to occur at 60°F. (16°C.). At 90°F. (32°C.) death losses almost double compared to 60°F. (16°C.).


Interesting. Thanks for posting!

----------


## farreri

> God gave man dominion over animals.


Did she whisper that to you in your dreams?

----------


## farreri

> Maybe its some attempt to make libertarians look stupid


Maybe some are? I'm sure every party has their share.

----------


## farreri

> Surely an animal lover knows what affect squirting water on captive livestock has on them.............Surely.
> 
> So her intentions could never have been "secret".
> 
> In fact I'll hold out that the loon was trying to incite swine-ageddon in that transport with the "intention" of having the load refused by the slaughter house..


Conspiracy theories abound!

----------


## farreri

> How often do "well meaning" people sacrifice others to achieve their ends?


You got a point. "Pro-lifers" do that all the time, but we're talking about a water bottle with water, not a water bottle with a bomb hidden inside.

----------


## farreri

> I hate videos like that.


Meet your Meat.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Maybe some are? I'm sure every party has their share.


Once again you are confusing libertarianism with the libertarian party... and more importantly confusing this msg board with the libertarian party... There is only one common trait to all the members here and that is that they support Ron Paul.  In order to have supported Ron Paul especially back in the day one really had to be an intelligent, critical thinker, going against the brainwashed masses of both the left and right political realms...

Some are probably vegan.. some are probably heavy meat eaters.. But nobody really cares because nobody tries to force their beliefs on others..
Most of us embrace the tenets of libertarianism also known as classical liberal back in Jefferson's day. Many of us believe in voluntaryism too. 

As to the people who have come here in later years and/or who are not sincere supporters of Ron Paul, I cannot tell you whether theyre dumb or not.

----------


## farreri

> What pollution? I think the ocean is so well filtered by the sheer volume of water - and it's not like it sits still- the water is flowing constantly. I can see not eating fish out of a river right next to a chemical plant. Or small creeks where there are sewage spills- but I'm not sure that the fear of "polluted" water really holds water.


There are studies that showed from samples of fish that heavy metals like mercury were higher than the acceptable level in an alarming amount of fish. I'll look for the links later and post if I find them.




> I can understand giving up beef, but fish is so good for you. I think it's part of a normal natural human diet.


You can join the discussion in the Health section where I'll show you fish aren't healthy. They, like other meat, or just good at not letting people starve.

----------


## farreri

> What is this country coming to?  There was a time when 90% of the meat I ate was either raised, hunted, trapped or caught by me.  You learn to care and respect the animal when it feeds you.   All this whining on the thread is a first world symptom of decadence.  From a hunter/gather point of view it is impossible to live in a temperate climate as a vegan.  About all that is in the woods in winter are nuts (like a vegan forum).  You'll never meet a vegan Eskimo LOL.
> 
> Modern plant farming is just as/ maybe more so damaging to the environment as animal factory farming.  Vast areas of wilderness has been stripped for modern farming.  Not to mention pesticides, petroleum based ferrtilizers and herbicides that are used.  Traditional means of raising food animals has little impact on the environment.  My chickens eat the fleas and ticks around my house and convert it to eggs.  Poop ferrtilizes my garden naturally.  Cattle are raised in areas too hilly or arid for vegetable farming.
> 
> I've lived primitively off the land back in the day and occasionally teach wilderness survival skills.  I would say our ancestors would cry but I don't think they'd waste any tears on* what some of you have become*.


Become what?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> There are studies that showed from samples of fish that heavy metals like mercury were higher than the acceptable level in an alarming amount of fish. I'll look for the links later and post if I find them.
> 
> 
> You can join the discussion in the Health section where I'll show you fish aren't healthy. They, like other meat, or just good at not letting people starve.


small fish low on the food chain are fine... sardines, herring, pilchards etc... Once again you seem to be misleading people because youre more concerned about forcing your beliefs on them... You are doing a disservice to people each time you do that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Meet your Meat.


My friend, I was killing for food when I was 10. You don't know jack squat nothing about meeting meat.

----------


## RJB

> Become what?


Look in the mirror.  Seriously, look in the mirror.

----------


## farreri

> small fish low on the food chain are fine... sardines, herring, pilchards etc... Once again you seem to be misleading people because youre more concerned about forcing your beliefs on them... You are doing a disservice to people each time you do that.


Reserve this for the Health section. And everyone has an opinion.

----------


## Natural Citizen

It's time for farreri to go. farreri is only being annoying now. Annoying like a gnat.

----------


## farreri

> My friend, I was killing for food when I was 10. You don't know jack squat nothing about meeting meat.


I've shot, killed, skinned, and gutted some animals before. I feel better having the option to pick fruit & vegetables, or harvest starches, but this in neither here nor there for the topic of this thread.

----------


## farreri

> Look in the mirror.  Seriously, look in the mirror.


Pretend my mirror is cracked. Become what?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I feel better having the option to pick fruit & vegetables, or harvest starches, but this in neither here nor there for the topic of this thread.


Well go do it and shut the $#@! up.

----------


## farreri

> It's time for farreri to go. farreri is only being annoying now. Annoying like a gnat.


No one is forcing you to be on my thread.

----------


## RJB

> Pretend my mirror is cracked.


Do not blame the mirror for your lack of insight.

----------


## farreri

> Do not blame the mirror for your lack of insight.


Become what?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 


You're gonna want to have the proper gun and dogs as well.

----------


## angelatc

So what did we do to deserve the influx of the cloying "morally superior" vegans, anyway?   Which one of you too wants me to make me a ham sammich?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Bryan neg repped me yet still let's obvious trolls hang around...

----------


## Suzanimal

> So what did we do to deserve the influx of the cloying "morally superior" vegans, anyway?   Which one of you too wants me to make me a ham sammich?


Probably the Official Bacon thread.

----------


## Suzanimal

> So what did we do to deserve the influx of the cloying "morally superior" vegans, anyway?   Which one of you too wants me to make me a ham sammich?


I had a salad for dinner but this thread made me want some meat. Luckily, there was a piece of leftover bison steak in the fridge for me to gnaw on.

----------


## angelatc

> Bryan neg repped me yet still let's obvious trolls hang around...


Wow! You think people who assert that liberals don't like libertarians because we don't have enough feelz are trolls?  Yeah me too.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Lilymc was triggered by this post.


She neg repped you for that? Lol. +Rep

----------


## farreri

> Bryan neg repped me yet still let's obvious trolls hang around...


That's nice that he still allows you to hang around.

----------


## RJB

> Become what?


It seems most vegans (breathetarian, drama-on-threadatarian or whatever you actually thrive on) have a severe disconnect to our primitive roots.  A plastic wrapped blob of Tofurkey is seen as more natural and healthier than real meat.  That is unnatural.

It's hard to put into words.  If you desire an insult from me, I hate to disappoint you.  It is more of a sadness I feel at how modern man has lost its connection to what we were.  It extends to meat eater who are fans of factory farming as well.

----------


## angelatc

> I had a salad for dinner but this thread made me want some meat. Luckily, there was a piece of leftover bison steak in the fridge for me to gnaw on.



I am thawing out some deer meat one of my customers gave me  - I am making a Bambi burger tomorrow.  I will put ketchup on it to symbolize the neg rep Lilymc gave me for being an omnivore.

----------


## farreri

> Wow! You think people who assert that liberals don't like libertarians because we don't have enough feelz are trolls?  Yeah me too.


Hint: lot of you aren't being very libertarian about this issue as you might think.

Hint Hint: This issue is more that just property rights.

Hint Hint Hint: And has nothing to do with animal rights, or being vegan.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> From their YouTube page:
> 
> "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, was naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." -Matthew Chapter 25
> 
> Toronto Pig Save's mission is to make slaughterhouses have glass wall through collectively bearing witness and to encourage everyone to go vegan and be an animal activist every day due to the animal emergency suffered by hundreds of millions of animals in Canada and billions of victims worldwide each year.


Cute.

----------


## angelatc

> Hint: lot of you aren't being very libertarian about this issue as you might think.
> 
> Hint Hint: This issue is more that just property rights.
> 
> Hint Hint Hint: And has nothing to do with animal rights, or being vegan.


You have zero credibility when it comes to defining libertarian.  That is not a hint.

----------


## farreri

> It seems most vegans (breathetarian, drama-on-threadatarian or whatever you actually thrive on) have a severe disconnect to our primitive roots.  A plastic wrapped blob of Tofurkey is seen as more natural and healthier than real meat.  That is unnatural.
> 
> It's hard to put into words.  If you desire an insult from me, I hate to disappoint you.  It is more of a sadness I feel at how modern man has lost its connection to what we were.  It extends to meat eater who are fans of factory farming as well.


OK, but what has any of that got to do with this thread?

----------


## farreri

> You have zero credibility when it comes to defining libertarian.  That is not a hint.


I feel I'm actually one of the only few libertarians on this issue.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> It wasn't out of the blue.  I'll do a quick recap.  
> 
> Way earlier in the thread, farreri sarcastically said to someone: "Well don't you ooze compassion for fellow animals."
> 
> JFK later said: "Compassion? Why?"
> 
> ferreri replied with: "And some people wonder why the LP has a problem attracting more people."
> 
> That started an exchange between angela and ferreri, where she said "libertarians are not liberals" among other things, implying that things like compassion and caring about animals and not eating meat were "liberal" things.
> ...


That's not the context. Go back and read the posts again.

----------


## RJB

> OK, but what has any of that got to do with this thread?


Oh the irony of you asking that question  LOL.

----------


## presence

> Hint:


well break it down farreri, what is your philosophical very liberty distillation of this event?

----------


## Origanalist

> Hey, everybody neg farreri until he's all red. Like 6 bars of red. Just for being annoying.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to farreri again.

----------


## Origanalist

> I feel I'm actually one of the only few libertarians on this issue.


"I feel" Yep, that about covers it.

----------


## angelatc

> I feel I'm actually one of the only few libertarians on this issue.


Not with your continual refusal to acknowledge property rights, you're not.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> No, I don't identify as a vegan... even though I no longer eat meat or dairy.   I eat honey occasionally, and since I went plant-based earlier this year, I have had a little seafood, but most likely I'm going to stop that too.    I don't agree with vegans on a few things, and for a number of other reasons, I prefer to use to use the phrase plant-based, when asked about my diet.


Well plant based is awful vague. You could eat plenty of meat with a plant based diet.

----------


## Suzanimal

Maybe the farmer should set the pigs loose in her veg garden and call it even.

----------


## farreri

> Oh the irony of you asking that question  LOL.


How's that ironic?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I am thawing out some deer meat one of my customers gave me  - I am making a Bambi burger tomorrow.  I will put ketchup on it to symbolize the neg rep Lilymc gave me for being an omnivore.


Nah, she wouldn't neg you for being an omnivore. She proly negged you for being a mean old bird in your responses to her. To her credit, lily has been very polite with everyone. She's merely offering her Christian perspective.

Farreri, on the other hand, has been an annoying little gnat. And he/she/it likely is a liberal drone who deserves all the negs he/she/it can get.

----------


## farreri

> well break it down farreri, what is your philosophical very liberty distillation of this event?


Kind of an 8th Amendment thingy even though the trial is not over and it's not in the U.S., but still kind of an 8th Amendment thingy.

----------


## angelatc

> Well plant based is awful vague. You could eat plenty of meat with a plant based diet.


And just so we're clear - I don't care what either of you eat or don't eat.  Just stop proselytizing about it, especially while pretending you're "just curious."

----------


## farreri

> Not with your continual refusal to acknowledge property rights, you're not.


It's clear you haven't been paying close enough attention to this thread.

----------


## farreri

> Maybe the farmer should set the pigs loose in her veg garden and call it even.

----------


## angelatc

> It's clear you haven't been paying close enough attention to this thread.


Of course! None of have.  None of us are as clever and intelligent as you are.  Any minute now you're going to zing us with that eye-opening moment of truth....we're all going to be stunned.  You're leading us like pigs to the slaughter.....

----------


## Suzanimal

> Of course! None of have.  None of us are as clever and intelligent as you are.  Any minute now you're going to zing us with that eye-opening moment of truth....we're all going to be stunned.  You're leading us like *pigs to the slaughter*.....

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Wow! You think people who assert that liberals don't like libertarians because we don't have enough feelz are trolls?  Yeah me too.


That and OP ignores established facts to say the pigs were thirsty and the day was hot something like 158,146 times in one thread.

----------


## farreri

> Of course! None of have.  None of us are as clever and intelligent as you are.  *Any minute now you're going to zing us with that eye-opening moment of truth....we're all going to be stunned*.  You're leading us like pigs to the slaughter.....


I'll announce that tomorrow.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> It seems most vegans (breathetarian, drama-on-threadatarian or whatever you actually thrive on) have a severe disconnect to our primitive roots.  A plastic wrapped blob of Tofurkey is seen as more natural and healthier than real meat.  That is unnatural.
> 
> It's hard to put into words.  If you desire an insult from me, I hate to disappoint you.  It is more of a sadness I feel at how modern man has lost its connection to what we were.  It extends to meat eater who are fans of factory farming as well.


Let's all go live in pithouses again.

----------


## farreri

> That and OP ignores established facts to say the pigs were thirsty and the day was hot something like 158,146 times in one thread.


A Canadian animal rights activist could face up to 10 years in prison for giving water to pigs heading to the slaughter on *a scorching summer day*.

“Jesus said, ‘*If they are thirsty, give them water*,’” she tells him.

----------


## Origanalist

> Of course! None of have.  None of us are as clever and intelligent as you are.  Any minute now you're going to zing us with that eye-opening moment of truth....we're all going to be stunned.  You're leading us like pigs to the slaughter.....


I have a theory. farreri  is somebodies sock puppet, even the most extreme SJW's can't continue to have their world smashed to pieces like he/she has.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Let's all go live in pithouses again.


No need to be extreme. Let's just set all the animals free, quit hunting them, and eating them and see what happens. What could possibly go wrong?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I have a theory. farreri  is somebodies sock puppet, even the most extreme SJW's can't continue to have their world smashed to pieces like he/she has.


I was thinking that same thing. Then again, there really are people who are annoying to that extreme.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> No need to be extreme. Let's just set all the animals free, quit hunting them, and eating them and see what happens. What could possibly go wrong?


We'd die. I'd rather live in a pithouse and hunt meat.

----------


## lilymc

> It seems most vegans (breathetarian, drama-on-threadatarian or whatever you actually thrive on) have a severe disconnect to our primitive roots.  A plastic wrapped blob of Tofurkey is seen as more natural and healthier than real meat.  That is unnatural.
> 
> It's hard to put into words.  If you desire an insult from me, I hate to disappoint you.  It is more of a sadness I feel at how modern man has lost its connection to what we were.  It extends to meat eater who are fans of factory farming as well.


We get it. But if you think everyone should live like they did hundreds of years ago, (hunting/gathering/living off the land) that's a bit unrealistic, wouldn't you agree? 

I think you made some assumptions in your post. I don't think anyone has forgotten that we didn't always live the way we do now. I don't think anyone thinks that faux meat is more natural than actual meat.   

And just in case this needs to be said, being a vegetarian or vegan doesn't make a person better than anyone else.... and the same goes with being a hunter/gatherer/living off the land, in my opinion.

What's sad to me is that people get divisive on this topic, and there's so much hate and animosity.   I don't want more division, but I do realize that this is a very controversial and touchy subject.

----------


## Suzanimal

> *We'd die.* I'd rather live in a pithouse and hunt meat.


Ya think? It sounds like such a great idea.

----------


## farreri

> I have a theory. farreri  is somebodies sock puppet, even the most extreme SJW's can't continue to have their world smashed to pieces like he/she has.


How has my world been smashed to pieces?

----------


## Origanalist

> How has my world been smashed to pieces?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to farreri again.

Done.

Coming around for thirds. I see he went from 3 to 2, he/she deserves to go to 1 and change colors.

Got thirds.

More to come.

And another.

----------


## farreri

> but I do realize that this is a very controversial and touchy subject.


Only to fake libertarians.

(Not saying you are.  )

----------


## lilymc

> Only to fake libertarians.
> 
> (Not saying you are.  )


Well, you gotta admit, it's controversial in general.     It's ok though, with my political and spiritual views, I'm used to controversy.   To put it mildly.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, you gotta admit, it's controversial in general.     It's ok though, with my political and spiritual views, I'm used to controversy.   To put it mildly.


In the real world, eating meat is not controversial in the slightest.  It's only controversial in vegan-land.

----------


## lilymc

> In the real world, eating meat is not controversial in the slightest.  It's only controversial in vegan-land.


I was talking about veganism.  Obviously meat-eating is the norm, since the overwhelming majority of people eat meat.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Ya think? It sounds like such a great idea.


$#@! it. We've lived too long anyway.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to farreri again.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Coming around for thirds. I see he went from 3 to 2, he/she deserves to go to 1 and change colors.
> 
> Got thirds.
> 
> More to come.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again.

Edit: Got 3rds so far as well.

----------


## angelatc

> I was talking about veganism.  Obviously meat-eating is the norm, since the overwhelming majority of people eat meat.


Veganism isn't controversial. People don't get visibly upset when they find out some other people don't eat meat. Or carbs, or fat, or sugar for that matter.  Radical omnivorism is a defensive position, but never an offense.

----------


## lilymc

> Veganism isn't controversial. People don't get visibly upset when they find out some other people don't eat meat. Or carbs, or fat, or sugar for that matter.  Radical omnivorism is a defensive position, but never an offense.


It depends on what is being discussed, and how it's being discussed.  

Anyway, your post brought this to mind.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Anyway, your post brought this to mind.


Ah man. I'm choking over here. That was funny. That's how it is, too.

----------


## Origanalist

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again.
> 
> Edit: Got 3rds so far as well.


Down to one, time to change color.

----------


## lilymc

> Ah man. I'm choking over here. That was funny.


I love that movie.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I love that movie.


I never saw the movie. But that clip was funny. For the record, I don't think you're a weirdo for not eating no meat, lily.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Down to one, time to change color.


It's such a thrilling time to be alive.

----------


## Origanalist

> It's such a thrilling time to be alive.


lol

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's such a thrilling time to be alive.


Mm. This is very, very true. I, for one, am glad to be alive in this time.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Kind of an 8th Amendment thingy even though the trial is not over and it's not in the U.S., but still kind of an 8th Amendment thingy.


Section 12 thingy




> Only to fake libertarians.
> 
> (Not saying you are.  )


- rep

Eating meat doesn't make you a "fake libertarian".

----------


## Suzanimal

> No need to be extreme.* Let's just set all the animals free, quit hunting them, and eating them and see what happens.* What could possibly go wrong?


Seriously, I would love to hear a vegan's thoughts on this ^^^

----------


## Origanalist

> Section 12 thingy
> 
> 
> 
> - rep
> 
> Eating meat doesn't make you a "fake libertarian".


frairy isn't down to new guy status yet, but he's close.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

I've given out too much rep in the last 24hrs.

----------


## lilymc

> I never saw the movie. But that clip was funny. For the record, I don't think you're a weirdo for not eating no meat, lily.


 I know you don't.   Thanks. You should watch that movie, if you get a chance.   You might think it's a chick flick, but it's actually a good movie. 

Anyway... this thread seems to be dying down, apart from people giving farreri neg reps.

Oh, and speaking of neg reps... thank you to the person who reversed their neg rep to me for misunderstanding when I said this is a controversial topic.  You know who you are.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Kind of an 8th Amendment thingy even though the trial is not over and it's not in the U.S., but still kind of an 8th Amendment thingy.


its an old characteristic noted even back in the 1700s by some of the founding fathers... If you are right in your argument and the other side KNOWS you are right, they will still disagree with you if they do not like you. 

You are performing a disservice to veganism in all honesty... People are likely to say "well I was going to go plant based but after seeing that farreri guy screw it, i dont want people thinking im like that - get me a burger"

I know you dont care and youre entertaining yourself but really this is how i feel about the way you conduct yourself here.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

I'm making myself two half pound burgers right now with bacon, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, mayo and turmeric.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I have a bag of grapes. They're nice and cold, too. Big fat ones.

----------


## Origanalist

> I have a bag of grapes. They're nice and cold, too. Big fat ones.


Green, red or black?

----------


## pao

> Seriously, I would love to hear a vegan's thoughts on this ^^^


It's hard to say initially. I'm sure many would get hit by cars, wander in people's yards; some may survive, many would probably starve, some might be adopted as pets. But, because they would no longer be artificially bred by factory farms the population of these animals, I suspect, would drastically reduce and a natural hierarchy would be established within the food chain amongst the animals. Predator animal populations would likely spike due to the increase in easy pray in the initial stages, I suspect; maybe the rats increase because it would be easier for predators to fill on chicken?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Green, red or black?


They're dark purple. I guess you can say red. They have seeds, though. But I'm eating the seeds and all. I don't care. It started out as about 2 pounds. I think I have maybe 20 grapes left.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Seriously, I would love to hear a vegan's thoughts on this ^^^


farreri isnt a vegan. thats what he says anyway

----------


## Origanalist

> They're dark purple. I guess you can say red. They have seeds, though. But I'm eating the seeds and all. I don't care. It started out as about 2 pounds. I think I have maybe 20 grapes left.


Remember when grapes and watermelons all had seeds?

----------


## Origanalist

> No need to be extreme. Let's just set all the animals free, quit hunting them, and eating them and see what happens. What could possibly go wrong?


New wave animal rights activists wet dream, remove mankind from the planet.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Remember when grapes and watermelons all had seeds?


Eeeyep. Spitting watermelon seedswas kind of a fun thing to do. And sometimes they would grow. It's hard to find a nice gritty sweet watermelon these days. You know the real sugary, gritty ones?

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat



----------


## Suzanimal

> Remember when grapes and watermelons all had seeds?


Yes and my mom told me a watermelon would grow in my stomach if I kept swallowing them.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I have a bag of grapes. They're nice and cold, too. Big fat ones.


Purple grapes?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Eeeyep. Spitting watermelon seedswas kind of a fun thing to do. And sometimes they would grow. It's hard to find a nice gritty sweet watermelon these days. You know the real sugary, gritty ones?


you got to get the short fat round ones.. the farmers call them "niggerheads" dont ask me why but they do and you just look for a brown stem and a nice golden spot where the melons be resting on the ground and all is good... im sure you know this stuff already im just talking for everyone.

that niggerhead thing really freaked me out the first time my grandpa franklin (farmer) asked this black farmer from Georgia who was up at the market, "How much for the niggerheads?"

I cringed thinking the black guy was gonna flip or that certainly SOMEONE among the crowded market would take issue with his verbage..

but no..

The black farmer simply replied, "These niggerheads here be $3.50"

and we bought one and it was great.

the end. lol

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Yes and my mom told me a watermelon would grow in my stomach if I kept swallowing them.


people told me that too when I was a little kid but i immediately called them on their bull$#@! because the stomach acid would digest the seed... i was probably 7 or 8 yrs old

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes and my mom told me a watermelon would grow in my stomach if I kept swallowing them.


Mama told me I would grow hair on my palms.

----------


## Danke

> That last sentence I think pinpoints what all this boils down to.  People just don't want to give up eating meat.  I was the same way, so I get it.
> 
> But when I really started looking at it and doing the research, it was easy to make the decision.


OK so you have some film of some terrible slaughterhoses. Are they all that bad? Or is it just some of them? Are consumers given a choice on how their produce and meats are prepared? Should we let the market decide? 

I would like to buy from more humane slaughterhouses.

But, something tells me Paul has no problem with abortions.

----------


## Suzanimal

> people told me that too when I was a little kid but i immediately called them on their bull$#@! because the stomach acid would digest the seed... i was probably 7 or 8 yrs old


I was a dumbass. I'm not sure I even knew (or cared) about stomach acid at 7 or 8.

----------


## Danke

> Mama told me I would grow hair on my palms.


 She never told me that.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Mama told me I would grow hair on my palms.


Okay, a few years ago my mom caught my son playing pocket pool and she told him he'd better quit or he'd go blind. He told her he didn't believe her so she says how do you think I lost my vision. I fell over laughing and my son, bless his heart, is traumatized. 

My mom has Macular, btw, and has very little vision left.

----------


## Origanalist

> OK so you have some film of some terrible slaughterhoses. Are they all that bad? Or is it just some of them? Are consumers given a choice on how their produce and meats are prepared? Should we let the market decide? 
> 
> I would like to buy from more humane slaughterhouses.
> 
> But, something tells me Paul has no problem with abortions.


Yes you have a choice, there are plenty of small local meat suppliers. Who is Paul?

----------


## Origanalist

> Okay, a few years ago my mom caught my son playing pocket pool and she told him he'd better quit or he'd go blind. He told her he didn't believe her so she says how do you think I lost my vision. I fell over laughing and my son, bless his heart, is traumatized. 
> 
> My mom has Macular, btw, and has very little vision left.


Well, my eyesight is failing, but my palms are hair free. Yo mama is right.

----------


## Danke

> Yes you have a choice, there are plenty of small local meat suppliers. Who is Paul?


Famous band member.  You should get out more.

----------


## Origanalist

> She never told me that.


That's because she preferred you took care of your self and left her alone.

----------


## Origanalist

> Famous band member.


RonPaulGeorgeandRingo?

----------


## lilymc

> OK so you have some film of some terrible slaughterhoses. Are they all that bad? Or is it just some of them? Are consumers given a choice on how their produce and meats are prepared? Should we let the market decide? 
> 
> I would like to buy from more humane slaughterhouses.
> 
> But, something tells me Paul has no problem with abortions.


Good questions. I'd like to look into it more. I hope that consumers have a choice, because I think the more that people become aware of what has been going on, the more demand there will be for other options.

I don't know McCartney's view on abortion, but that's actually one of the things that bothers me about many (not all) vegans.  Many are pro-aborts, and don't see the inconsistency of fighting for the life of a chicken or bee, but acting as if human preborn babies are disposable.

----------


## Origanalist

> Good questions. I'd like to look into it more. I hope that consumers have a choice, because I think the more that people become aware of what has been going on, the more demand there will be for other options.
> 
> I don't know McCartney's view on abortion, but that's actually one of the things that bothers me about many (not all) vegans.  Many are pro-aborts, and don't see the inconsistency of fighting for the life of a chicken or bee, but acting as if human preborn babies are disposable.


There are plenty of choices. It's no different than choosing not to let the dead stream media be your source of information. If you live in the city just go out to local rural areas and you will find plenty of small local meat suppliers.

----------


## lilymc

> There are plenty of choices. It's no different than choosing not to let the dead stream media be your source of information. If you live in the city just go out to local rural areas and you will find plenty of small local meat suppliers.


Well, I don't want to eat meat anymore at all, but I'm sure that others looking for better meat suppliers will want to know if there really is much of a difference between the big factory farms and the smaller or more humane places.   I've heard that in many cases, buzzwords like "free range" or "cage free" are deceptive.

In the future, another option will be that "Supermeat" that people have been talking about... but I'm not sure how well that will go over with people. 

Personally, I think that more and more people are going in the direction of veganism.  I think that's the future.  From a biblical perspective, it definitely is. (Isaiah 11:6-9)  But I've already pissed off enough people today on this thread, so I won't say much more about that.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Well, I don't want to eat meat anymore at all, but I'm sure that others looking for better meat suppliers will want to know if there really is much of a difference between the big factory farms and the smaller or more humane places.   I've heard that in many cases, buzzwords like "free range" or "cage free" are deceptive.
> 
> In the future, another option will be that "Supermeat" that people have been talking about... but I'm not sure how well that will go over with people. 
> 
> Personally, I think that more and more people are going in the direction of veganism.  I think that's the future.  From a biblical perspective, it definitely is. (Isaiah 11:6-9)  But I've already pissed off enough people today on this thread, so I won't say much more about that.


We are designed to eat meat. So you have to supplement quite a bit to make up for not eating meat. Vegan is better than vegetarian though since you still get protein and such from dairy.

----------


## Origanalist

> Well, I don't want to eat meat anymore at all, but I'm sure that others looking for better meat suppliers will want to know if there really is much of a difference between the big factory farms and the smaller or more humane places.   I've heard that in many cases, buzzwords like "free range" or "cage free" are deceptive.
> 
> In the future, another option will be that "Supermeat" that people have been talking about... but I'm not sure how well that will go over with people. 
> 
> Personally, I think that more and more people are going in the direction of veganism.  I think that's the future.  From a biblical perspective, it definitely is. (Isaiah 11:6-9)  But I've already pissed off enough people today on this thread, so I won't say much more about that.


That's all good with me. I'm for free choice and you most certainly can eat what you want to. And yes, there is a big difference. In fact, I recommend becoming acquainted with the people that provide their food. It's not like it's forbidden or something.

----------


## lilymc

> We are designed to eat meat. So you have to supplement quite a bit to make up for not eating meat. Vegan is better than vegetarian though since you still get protein and such from dairy.


The word "designed" implies a designer.  In your view, who designed us to eat meat?  I believe what Genesis 1:29-30 says. God's original and ideal plan for mankind was no death, no violence, and basically a vegan diet.

And no, you get everything you need and tons of nutrients from a vegan diet.  The only thing you might have to supplement is B12, but that's a problem for the general population (40 percent are deficient, reportedly).  Probably because we no longer drink water from natural sources and the soil is not the same as it used to be.   And in case anyone thought this,  eating a plant-based diet will not make you less strong or whatever... someone posted this link on another thread, check it out:  http://www.fuelforthefighter.com/dev/the-fighter

----------


## Danke

> The word "designed" implies a designer.  In your view, who designed us to eat meat?  I believe what Genesis 1:29-30 says. God's original and ideal plan for mankind was no death, no violence, and basically a vegan diet.
> 
> And no, you get everything you need and tons of nutrients from a vegan diet.  The only thing you might have to supplement is B12, but that's a problem for the general population (40 percent are deficient, reportedly).  Probably because we no longer drink water from natural sources and the soil is not the same as it used to be.   And in case anyone thought this,  eating a plant-based diet will not make you less strong or whatever... someone posted this link on another thread, check it out:  http://www.fuelforthefighter.com/dev/the-fighter


Our teeth, we are omnivores.  And Jesus ate anamals.

----------


## lilymc

> Our teeth, we are omnivores.  And Jesus ate anamals.


We act like omnivores, but that doesn't mean we were originally designed to be.  Even now, if you look at the physical features of carnivores/omnivores in the animal kingdom, there are many differences between them and us.  As for Jesus, I feel like I need to look beyond the surface and do a study on that topic, before commenting.  I do want to get back to this, though. Just not on this thread or tonight.

----------


## Origanalist

> We act like omnivores, but that doesn't mean we were originally designed to be.  Even now, if you look at the physical features of carnivores/omnivores in the animal kingdom, there are many differences between them and us.  As for Jesus, I feel like I need to look beyond the surface and do a study on that topic, before commenting.  I do want to get back to this, though. Just not on this thread or tonight.


Such as? Even apes will eat meat.

----------


## Origanalist

The OP seems to have taken a beating here.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The word "designed" implies a designer.  In your view, who designed us to eat meat?  I believe what Genesis 1:29-30 says. God's original and ideal plan for mankind was no death, no violence, and basically a vegan diet.
> 
> And no, you get everything you need and tons of nutrients from a vegan diet.  The only thing you might have to supplement is B12, but that's a problem for the general population (40 percent are deficient, reportedly).  Probably because we no longer drink water from natural sources and the soil is not the same as it used to be.   And in case anyone thought this,  eating a plant-based diet will not make you less strong or whatever... someone posted this link on another thread, check it out:  http://www.fuelforthefighter.com/dev/the-fighter


I believe we were created by extraterrestrial aliens, a mix of their DNA with a humanoid from here on Earth.

I did say vegan is better than vegetarian

----------


## Suzanimal

> Well, I don't want to eat meat anymore at all, but I'm sure that others looking for better meat suppliers will want to know if there really is much of a difference between the big factory farms and the smaller or more humane places.   I've heard that in many cases, buzzwords like *"free range" or "cage free" are deceptive*.


They are. Personally, I don't think anything's gonna change until people aren't so far removed from their food source and, by people, I'm looking at vegans, too. Big Ag isn't doing the world any favors, ya know. 




> In the future, another option will be that "Supermeat" that people have been talking about... but I'm not sure how well that will go over with people.


What could possibly go wrong? 




> Personally, I think that more and more people are going in the direction of veganism.  I think that's the future.


I don't think so. As lovely as it sounds, think seriously about what would happen if humans stopped eating animals. Have you ever witnessed the crop damage feral pigs can do? It's a very real problem. Frankly, I look forward to hunting season because my yard is overrun with deer. They love to get in my veg garden, btw. And the rabbits and squirrels especially have wrecked havoc on my strawberry patch. Fifty frickin plants and I've gotten about 5 strawberries. I'm tempted to sit out there with a pellet gun and blow the little bastards away. That leads me to wonder if it's morally sound (from a vegan perspective) for me to protect my veg (so I can eat) from animals. Or should I just give up on my garden and buy my veg at the grocery store where I'm quite certain a lot of animals were harmed to get that on the table. I'm sure their pest control methods are more inhumane than mine, btw. At what point is it morally okay to kill an animal (I'm sure most vegans would be okay with self defense) and should I just leave the corpse for the buzzards or would it be morally okay for me to eat it at that point? I think about these things. And what animals are okay to kill? Rats? We don't eat them but we kill them. I'm curious as to where the line is drawn. 

If you eat vegan, thank a hunter, because, without them, you would probably have to kill animals yourself to survive. I'm not trying to be an $#@! when I say that, I'm just stating a fact. 




> From a biblical perspective, it definitely is. (Isaiah 11:6-9)


Most likely but in the meantime. (Genesis 9:3) And how is it being good stewards of the earth to not keep animal populations under control for their own survival and ours? 





> But I've already pissed off enough people today on this thread, so I won't say much more about that.


You haven't pissed me off in the least. And my post wasn't meant to attack you, I just wonder about this stuff.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The OP seems to have taken a beating here.


From 3 green bars to red. If I'm not mistaken that's over 300 neg reps in a few hours. And only 4 were from me, so far.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Well, I don't want to eat meat anymore at all, but I'm sure that others looking for better meat suppliers will want to know if there really is much of a difference between the big factory farms and the smaller or more humane places.   I've heard that in many cases, buzzwords like "free range" or "cage free" are deceptive.
> 
> In the future, another option will be that "Supermeat" that people have been talking about... but I'm not sure how well that will go over with people. 
> 
> Personally, I think that more and more people are going in the direction of veganism.  I think that's the future.  From a biblical perspective, it definitely is. (Isaiah 11:6-9)  But I've already pissed off enough people today on this thread, so I won't say much more about that.


yeah you really cant rely on terms.. just like they advertise "vegetarian diet" for some chickens in whole food.. which is definitely better than chickens eating other grouns up chickens but it also means they can be fed GMO grains without issue so for me its all about them being 100% grassfed or pastured animals... Letting chickens walk around and eat the insects and worms etc.. Give the cows just grass or straw.... For me the answer has been just to go to Amish country to a farm where I know the animals are out in the open and fed naturally... I can see the animals, talk to the farmer.. Buy raw grassfed milk, raw honey, grassfed meats and eggs, etc etc. The prices are probably cheaper than regular crappy meat in a supermarket and definitely better priced than a Whole foods.. however the trade off means I have to drive 2 1/2 hours to the farm and 2 1/2hours back so basically I make a whole day of it and just enjoy myself and go eat at a nice amish restaurant...walk around the various stores and shops.. but some people dont want to use up a saturday every month like that which I understand.

----------


## Origanalist

> From 3 green bars to red. If I'm not mistaken that's over 300 neg reps in a few hours. And only 4 were from me, so far.


I don't it's possible to get that many reps here in that amount of time, lol.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Well, I don't want to eat meat anymore at all, but I'm sure that others looking for better meat suppliers will want to know if there really is much of a difference between the big factory farms and the smaller or more humane places.   I've heard that in many cases, buzzwords like "free range" or "cage free" are deceptive.


Also, just as an fyi, there's no such thing as a_ completely_ cage free chicken. You can let them out to peck around and free range but you'd better keep an eye on them and you'd better be ready to defend them because chickens are easy pickens. And then we're back to the morality of killing animals...is it okay for me to defend my chickens against a predator - what if it's a dog? And eggs? Can I kill a snake getting into the coop? Snakes gotta eat, too. 

Personally, I think chickens are evil. They probably rank somewhere between Dick Cheney and clowns on my evil scale.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Also, just as an fyi, there's no such thing as a_ completely_ cage free chicken. You can let them out to peck around and free range but you'd better keep an eye on them and you'd better be ready to defend them because chickens are easy pickens. And then we're back to the morality of killing animals...is it okay for me to defend my chickens against a predator - what if it's a dog? And eggs? Can I kill a snake getting into the coop? Snakes gotta eat, too. 
> 
> Personally, I think chickens are evil. They probably rank somewhere between Dick Cheney and clowns on my evil scale.


Thats funny that you mentioned that and maybe thats why my Amish farmer does what he does with his chickens... He puts them under a cage-like enclosure...  kind of looks like a mesh tent and you can see the chickens and theyre free to walk around within the enclosure... the enclosure is placed on grass on the field and moved around every day to a different part so the chickens are free to eat grass and bugs etc... I never understood why it was necessary but it makes sense now as the enclosure prevents predators from killing them plus keeps them from running away...  This farm is primarily a dairy farm but the farmer raises chickens as well... The other farm we go to is just for meat and all the animals just roam around where ever with no enclosures and no fences or nothing basically...they even have peacocks running around...guess the animals know where their next meal is coming from so they hang around.... and they have a tremendous selection of various cuts and types of meat.. can even get beef tallow or leaf lard for cheap.. some of the meats are more expensive than the dairy farm but the selection for meats is much more...So  since the dairy farm always has the better prices I shop there mostly and only go to the other if i want something exotic like turkey sausage or something like that...

----------


## Origanalist

> Thats funny that you mentioned that and maybe thats why my Amish farmer does what he does with his chickens... He puts them under a cage-like enclosure...  kind of looks like a mesh tent and you can see the chickens and theyre free to walk around within the enclosure... the enclosure is placed on grass on the field and moved around every day to a different part so the chickens are free to eat grass and bugs etc... I never understood why it was necessary but it makes sense now as the enclosure prevents predators from killing them plus keeps them from running away...  This farm is primarily a dairy farm but the farmer raises chickens as well... The other farm we go to is just for meat and all the animals just roam around where ever with no enclosures and no fences or nothing basically...they even have peacocks running around...guess the animals know where their next meal is coming from so they hang around.... and they have a tremendous selection of various cuts and types of meat.. can even get beef tallow or leaf lard for cheap.. some of the meats are more expensive than the dairy farm but the selection for meats is much more...So  since the dairy farm always has the better prices I shop there mostly and only go to the other if i want something exotic like turkey sausage or something like that...


The person we get our eggs from lets them out all day and puts them away every night, they're just some more pets to her.

----------


## RJB

> The person we get our eggs from lets them out all day and puts them away every night, they're just some more pets to her.


That's what I do with my ladies.  A happy bird makes the best eggs.

----------


## pao

> I did say vegan is better than vegetarian


JFK3, just to clarify, vegetarians do eat dairy and eggs. Vegans are the ones that eat no animal products. I believe you got to terms mixed up. Though with the above statement, I personally would agree with it as written.

----------


## farreri

> Well, you gotta admit, it's controversial in general.


Only to people who can't be blind when it comes to justice.

(Again, not saying you can't.  )

----------


## farreri

> Section 12 thingy


We can't be concerned about liberty issues in other countries?




> - rep
> 
> Eating meat doesn't make you a "fake libertarian".


If that's what you think I meant by that, you need to seriously start getting in some more calories.

----------


## farreri

> You are performing a disservice to veganism in all honesty...


You still haven't figured out this thread is not about veganism, have you?

----------


## farreri

> Seriously, I would love to hear a vegan's thoughts on this ^^^


A good question for a different thread, but what if this post of lilymc's with the video she posted went viral and stopped everyone who watched it from eating animals? Stuff can happen in a free market that can dry up certain markets in a snap.




> People just don't want to give up eating meat.  I was the same way, so I get it.
> 
> But when I really started looking at it and doing the research, it was easy to make the decision.

----------


## farreri

> We are designed to eat meat. So you have to supplement quite a bit to make up for not eating meat. 
> 
> Vegan is better than vegetarian though since you still get protein and such from dairy.


I have questions about this response, so I responded to it here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6308985

----------


## farreri

> The OP seems to have taken a beating here.


I have?

----------


## farreri

> I'm looking at vegans, too. Big Ag isn't doing the world any favors, ya know.


Big Cattle, Dairy, and Egg are?

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

I'm a little insane. I feel less bad eating chickens and fish, than closer related animals. 

Chickens are Dinosaurs!!!!!! So, it's okay to eat Dinosaurs, they are mean. 

Also Nirvana taught me. It's okay to eat fish, because they don't have any feelings. 

Poor cows and pigs, they have feelings like us. A chicken though, will walk around without a head!


So, I'm pro reducing Cow/Pig eating... Damn those dinosaurs though, munch, munch, munch. Revenge, I watched Jurassic Park.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm a little insane. I feel less bad eating chickens and fish, than closer related animals. 
> 
> Chickens are Dinosaurs!!!!!! So, it's okay to eat Dinosaurs, they are mean. 
> 
> Also Nirvana taught me. It's okay to eat fish, because they don't have any feelings. 
> 
> Poor cows and pigs, they have feelings like us. A chicken though, will walk around without a head!
> 
> 
> So, I'm pro reducing Cow/Pig eating... Damn those dinosaurs though, munch, munch, munch. Revenge, I watched Jurassic Park.


Pigs are mean too.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Thats funny that you mentioned that and maybe thats why my Amish farmer does what he does with his chickens... He puts them under a cage-like enclosure...  kind of looks like a mesh tent and you can see the chickens and theyre free to walk around within the enclosure... the enclosure is placed on grass on the field and moved around every day to a different part so the chickens are free to eat grass and bugs etc... I never understood why it was necessary but it makes sense now as the enclosure prevents predators from killing them plus keeps them from running away...  This farm is primarily a dairy farm but the farmer raises chickens as well... The other farm we go to is just for meat and all the animals just roam around where ever with no enclosures and no fences or nothing basically...*they even have peacocks running around*...guess the animals know where their next meal is coming from so they hang around.... and they have a tremendous selection of various cuts and types of meat.. can even get beef tallow or leaf lard for cheap.. some of the meats are more expensive than the dairy farm but the selection for meats is much more...So  since the dairy farm always has the better prices I shop there mostly and only go to the other if i want something exotic like turkey sausage or something like that...


My aunt raises peacocks, too. Also mean and part of the animal axis of evil. They don't eat their peacocks, though. I wonder why, it never occurred to me to ask.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm showing the liberty people on this forum aren't really liberty people.


Looks like yer sporting a busted lip instead.

----------


## Suzanimal

> The person we get our eggs from lets them out all day and puts them away every night, they're just some more pets to her.


That's what my aunt does, too but she has to keep an eye on them (she's lost quite a few to stray dogs) and pens them up at night so if you're looking to eat "cage free" I guess technically, they are caged.

----------


## lilymc

> JFK3, just to clarify, vegetarians do eat dairy and eggs. Vegans are the ones that eat no animal products. I believe you got to terms mixed up. Though with the above statement, I personally would agree with it as written.


I was going to tell him that last night, but then I thought maybe it was just a writing error on his part.

----------


## lilymc

> They are. Personally, I don't think anything's gonna change until people aren't so far removed from their food source and, by people, I'm looking at vegans, too. Big Ag isn't doing the world any favors, ya know.


Yeah, definitely true that awareness is necessary before things can change.





> What could possibly go wrong?


Amazingly, a lot of people seem to think it's a great idea.   I don't have a good feeling about it, but this is a topic for its own thread.





> I don't think so. As lovely as it sounds, think seriously about what would happen if humans stopped eating animals. Have you ever witnessed the crop damage feral pigs can do? It's a very real problem. Frankly, I look forward to hunting season because my yard is overrun with deer. They love to get in my veg garden, btw. And the rabbits and squirrels especially have wrecked havoc on my strawberry patch. Fifty frickin plants and I've gotten about 5 strawberries. I'm tempted to sit out there with a pellet gun and blow the little bastards away. That leads me to wonder if it's morally sound (from a vegan perspective) for me to protect my veg (so I can eat) from animals. Or should I just give up on my garden and buy my veg at the grocery store where I'm quite certain a lot of animals were harmed to get that on the table. I'm sure their pest control methods are more inhumane than mine, btw. At what point is it morally okay to kill an animal (I'm sure most vegans would be okay with self defense) and should I just leave the corpse for the buzzards or would it be morally okay for me to eat it at that point? I think about these things. And what animals are okay to kill? Rats? We don't eat them but we kill them. I'm curious as to where the line is drawn.


If a huge change happens, it will most likely be very gradual, and I don't think anyone should worry about farm animals running amok.    Most animals we eat are bred into existence, so if we stop eating them, we'll stop breeding them.     As for what you said about killing pests or predators... I think it's good that you think about these things.  I'm sure that we can come up with solutions for those problems. After all, God did entrust us with the animals, so I think (hope) we're smart enough to come up with solutions that are both practical and ethical.





> If you eat vegan, thank a hunter, because, without them, you would probably have to kill animals yourself to survive. I'm not trying to be an $#@! when I say that, I'm just stating a fact.


Did you mean to say if I stop eating vegan?  





> You haven't pissed me off in the least. And my post wasn't meant to attack you, I just wonder about this stuff.


I know it wasn't.  And thanks, I'm glad to hear that.  Sometimes I have a hard time keeping quiet about certain things... but I think what is important is how a person communicates, and that is something I want to work on.

----------


## Suzanimal

> If a huge change happens, it will most likely be very gradual, and I don't think anyone should worry about farm animals running amok.


I'm not worried about farm animals going amok with a few exceptions. Pigs being one of them. They will go feral and they are extremely destructive and can get pretty damn mean and aggressive. 





> Most animals we eat are bred into existence, so if we stop eating them, we'll stop breeding them.


Chickens wouldn't make it but pigs don't need our help. 




> As for what you said about killing pests or predators... I think it's good that you think about these things.  I'm sure that we can come up with solutions for those problems. After all, God did entrust us with the animals, so I think (hope) we're smart enough to come up with solutions that are both practical and ethical.


God also entrusted us to take care of each other and the earth and pests present very real dangers to both humans and the environment. The only practical way to deal with a critter, like rats, is to kill them. We can't possibly round them all up and sterilize them. If someone wasn't willing to kill, then the world would probably be a very ugly place. Rats are God's creatures too and I seriously doubt He has a problem with rodent control.




> Did you mean to say if I stop eating vegan?


Nope. What do you think would happen if meat fell off the menu? We (humans) would very likely be fighting a losing battle keeping herbivores/omnivores out of our fields and I imagine carnivore predator numbers would rise, as well, and with no one hunting them...Would it be more ethical to watch them starve? Or kill them to protect our crops and not eat them? Personally, I like being at the top of the food chain and there's a very good reason God put us there. 

Feral hogs can tear up a crop overnight and if it weren't for the deer hunters around here, it would be pointless to for me to even bother with a veg garden. I'd be working to feed the wildlife. If the pigs (and that's just one species) were allowed to run amok and populations not kept to a manageable size, I imagine you might have a problem acquiring veg. They're not just a problem in Texas, they're a problem all over the southeast and travelling. Now, I suppose people could quit hunting hogs and you could try growing a veg garden and try keeping them out without killing them but I doubt you'll have much luck. 

I'm not sure most vegans have thought this scenario all the way through. 












> *As pigs spread, they wreak havoc on the lands they inhabit. Wild pigs cause at least $1.5 billion in damages and control costs each year, according to a 2007 survey, mostly to agriculture. Dubbed the rototillers of nature, they dig up fields, create wallows in pastures and destroy fences. A church in Texas was so worried that pigs would devour its annual pumpkin sale that it lobbied the local government to let hunters stand watch over the patch at night. They were right to fret. The 2.6 million pigs in Texas cause $500 million in damage each yeara liability of $200 per pig. Ive never seen any one species that can affect so many livelihoods and resources, says Michael Bodenchuk, state director of Texas Wildlife Services. He is particularly worried about harm to native species and the 400 stream segments in Texas that are infected with bacteria from the pigs defecation.*
> 
> Heeding concerns from state wildlife agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture created a new national program in April to halt and reverse this trend. It aims to wipe out pigs from two states every three to five years and stabilize the population within a decade. Dale Nolte, national coordinator of the program, says his first priority will be states with the fewest pigs; he will then work back to those like Texas that are overrun. One reason he wants to confront the states with the fewest pigs first is because the animals reproduce rapidly once they invade an area. *If 70 percent of the pigs in a region are killed, the remaining ones can have piglets fast enough to replace all those lost in just two and a half years.*
> 
> Those odds havent stopped wildlife agents from trying to rid their states of the scourge even before a federal program was in place. Although the traditional methods of hunting and trapping have helped, they have not stopped overall population growth. Practitioners are refining these tried-and-true methods while also exploring new ways to destroy larger numbers of pigs.
> 
> Trapping, for example, works well in areas with a low to medium density of pigs but has one major pitfall. Pigs travel in groups of eight to 15 called sounders, and trappers rarely catch all the members at once. Those that escape will learn to avoid traps in the future. Ditchkoff and Mark Smith, an animal specialist at Auburn University, teach landowners to practice whole sounder removal in which trappers patiently bait and rebait traps for days or weeks to improve their chance of capturing the entire group. It's not how many pigs you remove, Smith says. The real question is, How many pigs did you miss?
> 
> ...
> ...



And that's just an example of the damage one critter can do. 





> I know it wasn't.  And thanks, I'm glad to hear that.  Sometimes I have a hard time keeping quiet about certain things... but I think what is important is how a person communicates, and that is something I want to work on.


Well, I just think folks would do good to understand that if everyone in the world went vegan, animals would still have to be dealt with in ways they might not find palatable. Food for thought. HAHAHA!

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I don't it's possible to get that many reps here in that amount of time, lol.


Lol it's either that or neg reps take away more than one rep.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> JFK3, just to clarify, vegetarians do eat dairy and eggs. Vegans are the ones that eat no animal products. I believe you got to terms mixed up. Though with the above statement, I personally would agree with it as written.


Thanks. Why then would you say vegan is better than vegetarian?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think I happen to like this solution best because its the best and perhaps only way to get a heavy handed liberal to turn into a hands off libertarian... Give them a dose of the medicine they seek to dole out on others.


Doesn't that kind of make you like them?  Isn't that something we want to avoid?

----------


## lilymc

> I'm not worried about farm animals going amok with a few exceptions. Pigs being one of them. They will go feral and they are extremely destructive and can get pretty damn mean and aggressive. 
> 
> Chickens wouldn't make it but pigs don't need our help.


Again, a big change is most likely going to happen very gradually. There will be less breeding and fewer farm animals. And even if it were to happen quickly,   the existing farm animals (pigs, for example) aren't going to suddenly go feral.  Maybe some would go to animal sanctuaries. But in the event of a sudden stop to the breeding,  it seems to me that it would only be a matter of time before the amount of existing pigs decreases significantly.




> Nope. What do you think would happen if meat fell off the menu? We (humans) would very likely be fighting a losing battle keeping herbivores/omnivores out of our fields and I imagine carnivore predator numbers would rise, as well, and with no one hunting them...Would it be more ethical to watch them starve? Or kill them to protect our crops and not eat them? Personally, I like being at the top of the food chain and there's a very good reason God put us there. 
> 
> Feral hogs can tear up a crop overnight and if it weren't for the deer hunters around here, it would be pointless to for me to even bother with a veg garden. I'd be working to feed the wildlife. If the pigs (and that's just one species) were allowed to run amok and populations not kept to a manageable size, I imagine you might have a problem acquiring veg. They're not just a problem in Texas, they're a problem all over the southeast and travelling. Now, I suppose people could quit hunting hogs and you could try growing a veg garden and try keeping them out without killing them but I doubt you'll have much luck. 
> 
> I'm not sure most vegans have thought this scenario all the way through.


This gets back to what I said earlier.   I just dont see a future where billions of animals are running around like crazy I have more faith in mankind to figure out solutions to potential problems like that.

I was doing some reading, and apparently the reason why there is an overpopulation of certain animals (like deer) is because humans have caused that problem.

From an article I read on this:

Hunters sometimes argue that if they were to stop hunting, the deer population would explode. This is a false argument, because if hunting were to stop, we would also stop the practices that increase the deer population. State wildlife management agencies artificially boost the deer population  in order to increase recreational hunting opportunities for hunters. By clearcutting forests, planting deer-preferred plants and requiring tenant farmers to leave a certain amount of their crops unharvested in order to feed the deer, the agencies are creating the edge habitat that is preferred by deer and also feeding the deer. If we stop hunting, we would also stop these tactics that increase the deer population.

If we stopped hunting, we would also stop breeding animals in captivity for hunters. Many nonhunters are unaware of state and private programs that breed quail, partridges and pheasants in captivity, for the purpose of releasing them in the wild, to be hunted.




> Well, I just think folks would do good to understand that if everyone in the world went vegan, animals would still have to be dealt with in ways they might not find palatable. Food for thought. HAHAHA!


I know that this is an imperfect world, and there will definitely be problems and challenges.  But I dont believe it is hopeless, and although it is definitely good to think about these things, I dont see it as a reason to dismiss veganism. In my opinion there are far more _positive_ reasons to go plant-based, and to change our minds on certain things we were conditioned to believe.  And thank you, I always like food for thought.

----------


## jllundqu

> Dog food and water. Get to your point.


Does your dog eat meat derived from the killing of animals (IE dog food)?  If you feed your dog any type of animal protein (other than say, eggs), then I am simply pointing out that hypocrisy touches even you... Somewhere down the food chain, animals were bred, transported, slaughtered, chopped into tiny pieces, and you feed it to little muffy without batting an eye all while chastising us meat eaters with your vitriol.

----------


## goldenequity

Russia: Ramzan Kadyrov leads camel sacrifice to mark beginning of Muslim Eid Observance




I don't think the Governor of Minnesota is quite ready for this.

----------


## puppetmaster

> ;6307367]You're just not getting what my purpose of posting this story is, do you?!


   Your liberty does not give you rights to infringe on someone else's liberty.  Her actions were an infringement 





> ;6307367] The water she gave them to drink was probably a lot cleaner than the water the farmers give the pigs!


  You're just not getting what your purpose of posting this thread........

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Russia: Ramzan Kadyrov leads camel sacrifice to mark beginning of Muslim Eid Observance


That's messed up.

----------


## dannno

> I'm a little insane. I feel less bad eating chickens and fish, than closer related animals. 
> 
> Chickens are Dinosaurs!!!!!! So, it's okay to eat Dinosaurs, they are mean. 
> 
> Also Nirvana taught me. It's okay to eat fish, because they don't have any feelings. 
> 
> Poor cows and pigs, they have feelings like us. A chicken though, will walk around without a head!
> 
> 
> So, I'm pro reducing Cow/Pig eating... Damn those dinosaurs though, munch, munch, munch. Revenge, I watched Jurassic Park.


You can kill one water buffalo and eat for 8 months... or you can kill a chicken almost every day for 8 months.. 

There is a trade off to eating smaller vs. larger animals.

That said I have a friend who is vegetarian leaning, he will occasionally eat fish, and has no issue at all with bivalves (scallops, clams, oysters). Bivalves are almost like eating really nutritious plants.

----------


## lilymc

I love this pic.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I love this pic.


Mmmm. Bacon.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I love this pic.


What do you think of this lil feller?

----------


## lilymc

> What do you think of this lil feller?


I think that little feller plays pool better than some people I know.  

Pigs are so flippin cute! And smart.  They're fast becoming one of my favorite animals.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Crazy pig. Heh.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I think that little feller plays pool better than some people I know.  
> 
> Pigs are so flippin cute! And smart.  They're fast becoming one of my favorite animals.


Don't get sucked in by their cuteness, they grow up to make hogs of themselves.

----------


## farreri

> Does your dog eat meat derived from the killing of animals (IE dog food)?  If you feed your dog any type of animal protein (other than say, eggs), then I am simply pointing out that hypocrisy touches even you... Somewhere down the food chain, animals were bred, transported, slaughtered, chopped into tiny pieces, and you feed it to little muffy without batting an eye all while chastising us meat eaters with your vitriol.


What am I chastising meat eaters about?

----------


## farreri

> Your liberty does not give you rights to infringe on someone else's liberty.  Her actions were an infringement 
> 
> You're just not getting what your purpose of posting this thread........


You're not getting it either because no one's complaining that she got charged with property rights infringement.

----------


## jllundqu

> What am I chastising meat eaters about?


You've started a bunch of threads wherein you claim veganism is superior, humans are not natural predators, and other such nonsense.  Your dodging of the question simply proves my point.

----------


## Natural Citizen

If we're going to have vegan threads, I'd rather see ones that are less antagonistic. Ones that don't have an agenda attached to them (like environmentalist agendas and whatnot). Sometimes I go through vegetable phases.

Farreri, I wouldn't mind if somebody duct taped him to a wall or suntin.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If we're going to have vegan threads, I'd rather see one that are less antagonisic. Ones that don't have an agenda attached to them (like environmentalist agendas and whatnot). Sometimes I go through vegetable phases.
> *
> Farreri, I woudn't mind if somebody duct taped him to a wall or suntin.*


lulz

----------


## tod evans

Neighbor just stopped by, my hog is ready if anybody wants to bring bottled water for the trip to the slaughter house....

She's "cute". "smart" and looks like food to me...

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Doesn't that kind of make you like them?  Isn't that something we want to avoid?


No I dont think so since im not the one doling it out... I just engage in educational conversation. But sometimes perhaps its needed to show people the unintended consequences of their actions

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> What am I chastising meat eaters about?


i would neg rep you for your obviously stupid rhetorical question.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> You're not getting it either because no one's complaining that she got charged with property rights infringement.


did you ever tell everybody what the purpose of your thread was about? Ive been away for a bit

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> You've started a bunch of threads wherein you claim veganism is superior, humans are not natural predators, and other such nonsense.  Your dodging of the question simply proves my point.


thats what he does dude.. 24/7... never answers questions. never gets into sincere conversation. just wants to harangue non vegans 24/7 and point out how everybody is obviously intellectually inferior to him and is going to die a quick and ignoble death due to animal fat ingestion

----------


## farreri

> You've started a bunch of threads wherein you claim veganism is superior, humans are not natural predators, and other such nonsense.  Your dodging of the question simply proves my point.


Well, how a plant based diet is superior for human health--blame the science for that--but what does that have to do with my dog eating meat? A meat based diet is superior for dogs.

----------


## farreri

> did you ever tell everybody what the purpose of your thread was about? Ive been away for a bit


I was going to, but I've been so triggered lately by everyone giving me a neg rep. Soon as I heal from my emotional trauma from it, I'll tell everyone. boo hoo, sniff sniff

----------


## farreri

> and is going to die a quick and ignoble death due to animal fat ingestion


Isn't that what the Health section is about?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Isn't that what the Health section is about?


Well, _ideally_ it's about* factual* information on such subjects and not done in an abrasive, rude, and condescending manner.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, _ideally_ it's about* factual* information on such subjects and not done in an abrasive, rude, and condescending manner.


Personally, I think that section should benchmark on discussion about how to grow the perfect tomato and whatnot.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Who keeps plus repping Farreri? I just negged him twice today, he should be further in the red, not back in the green. It's not like he makes +rep worthy comments.

Edit: 3 negs today so far.

----------


## farreri

> Well, ideally it's about factual information on such subjects and not done in *an abrasive, rude, and condescending manner*.


Then stop doing that.

----------


## farreri

> I just negged him twice today, he should be further in the red, not back in the green. It's not like he makes +rep worthy comments.
> 
> Edit: 3 negs today so far.


I'm glad I make your life worth living.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Let's give a little bit of credit where it's due.  Farerri is right about veggies being healthier.  Veganism is a great lifestyle for humans if you can keep it up.  If you do, bravo.  If you don't, oh well.  That's your decision.  

That said, he is a condescending, rude, obnoxious $#@! and so are many of the meat-eaters who seek to berate him.  The $#@! vegans and the $#@! meat eaters are all idiots and we should avoid becoming either one.  The $#@! vegans preach to you and throw in presumptuous terms like "thirsty pigs" while the meat-eaters make stupid jokes and thump their chests over their pride in identifying as a meat-eater.  They've both become cultish and I'm sick of both sides of the argument.  There's no need for the snark and no need for the condescension and chest-thumping.  

While I think some type of force was certainly warranted against the hippie hoardes for attacking the pig truck, I also think a lot of people let the whole ideology get to their heads and they brashly start shouting "murder the bastards" if somebody so much as touches somebody else's property.  So, in conclusion, everyone please shut the $#@! up.

----------


## tod evans

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well aren't you feeling a bit pretentious today... ^^^^^^^^^^^

Go eat some dog with your flied lice.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Well, how a plant based diet is superior for human health--blame the science for that--but what does that have to do with my dog eating meat? A meat based diet is superior for dogs.


wow, gotta love the way you justify your bulls.hit hahaha

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I was going to, but I've been so triggered lately by everyone giving me a neg rep. Soon as I heal from my emotional trauma from it, I'll tell everyone. boo hoo, sniff sniff


just like I thought.

----------


## farreri

> Let's give a little bit of credit where it's due.  Farerri is right about veggies being healthier.  Veganism is a great lifestyle for humans if you can keep it up.  If you do, bravo.  If you don't, oh well.  That's your decision.


Well thanks, but this thread has nothing to do with anything vegan or diet related.




> That said, he is a condescending, rude, obnoxious $#@! and so are many of the meat-eaters who seek to berate him.


Ever consider my behavior is a result of their berate-ment?

----------


## farreri

> wow, gotta love the way you justify your bulls.hit hahaha

----------


## farreri

So the reason for posting this article?


Not because it involved a vegan.

Not because it involved an animal rights activist.

Not even because the activist was arrested. 

Because: *faces 10 yrs* for giving slaughter house pigs water on hot day.

Because: Showing how biased and rattled some liberty people here get when the topic has anything to do related with veganism.

----------


## farreri

bump

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> bump


 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to farreri again

----------


## Danke

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to farreri again


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to John F Kennedy III again.

----------


## specsaregood

Just had a big meal of Pulled Pork Shoulder on top of butternut squash with some hot ass peppers.   Yum.

edit: oops, I thought this was the dinner thread.  oh well.

----------


## farreri

> *Woman who gave water to pigs ‘just following the golden rule’*
> 
> Mon., Oct. 3, 2016
> 
> BURLINGTON, ONT.—An animal-rights activist testified Monday that she “was just following the golden rule” when *she gave pigs en route to slaughter a drink of water on a hot day* last year.
> 
> She testified that seeing a truck full of pigs is, to her, like seeing “*a truck full of 4-year-old children*,” saying that *pigs have the same level of intelligence as those kids*.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...lden-rule.html


Sounds sensible.

----------


## tod evans

> Sounds sensible.


It certainly does not sound sensible.

Livestock is livestock plain and simple.

Leave other peoples livestock alone.

----------


## farreri

> It certainly does not sound sensible.
> 
> Livestock is livestock plain and simple.
> 
> Leave other peoples livestock alone.


Even if they are thirsty on a hot day?

----------


## tod evans

How 'bout an entire article instead of snippets?


*Vegan who gave water to pigs headed for slaughter finds it 'unfathomable' she was charged*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...rial-1.3786632

A Toronto woman facing mischief charges for giving water to pigs on a truck headed to slaughter used the witness box like a pulpit in court today, with her testimony almost completely centring on her beliefs that everyone should be vegan and an activist.

Anita Krajnc, 49, appeared in a Burlington, Ont., courtroom as her trial resumed in front of a judge alone for the third day.

The animal rights activist is charged with mischief and faces jail time or a maximum $5,000 fine for providing water through the narrow openings of a metal trailer to the pigs as they were headed to Fearman's Pork Inc. in Burlington on June 22, 2015. 

Activists fill courtroom at water-for-pigs trial
Pigs headed for slaughter were in distress: expert
"I just find it unfathomable that someone would be charged for giving thirsty animals water," she said, while also testifying that she had no idea she could be charged for what she was doing.

"In the three years we've given water to pigs, police have been present, so we took that as an endorsement."

'I think it's child abuse to give bacon to children.'

- Anita Krajnc, animal rights activist
Krajnc is part of the group Toronto Pig Save, which regularly holds vigils outside the pork processing plant. Krajnc has said the pigs were overheated and severely dehydrated.

When the trial was last in session in August, an animal welfare expert testified the animals appeared to be in "severe distress" from the heat inside the trailer  but because she hadn't examined them, she couldn't say for sure.

Outside the courthouse, Krajnc told CBC News that testifying gave her an opportunity to spread her message.

"The pig trial has turned around from being a trial about one woman giving water to pigs to really putting animal agriculture on trial for what it does to animals, what it does to the environment, and what it does to people's health and what it does to our conscience," she said.

*'I think they're better than people'*

In many ways, Monday's session was less about Krajnc's charges specifically, and more about the meat industry and the ethics surrounding it. The defence and the Crown spent roughly 15 minutes talking about the incident itself, while the rest of the day centred on Krajnc's personal beliefs.

The court did not qualify her as an expert in any field, but she was still allowed to present evidence about climate change, the agriculture industry, and even how many pigs were slaughtered inside Fearman's on an annual basis. Krajnc testified she has a PhD in political science and did a case study on climate change.

Krajnc mentioned Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi several times, and referred to Pastor Martin Niemoeller's poem about the way German intellectuals acted following the Nazis' rise to power before the Second World War, comparing that to how humans treat animals.


*"I think they're better than people*, they're more noble," Krajnc said about pigs.

At one point, she mentioned a 2015 report from the World Health Organization that looked at the evidence about whether processed meat and red meat cause cancer, calling bacon a "carcinogen." The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer said that eating processed meat can cause cancer.

"If you wouldn't give a cigarette to a child, why would you give bacon to a child?" Krajnc testified. *"I think it's child abuse to give bacon to children."*

Squeals disturb some in court

On Monday, the defence showed several videos the group has shot during its vigils, showing pigs squealing and climbing on each other in tight confines.

The lawyers also showed videos shot from inside slaughterhouses, showing pigs being gassed, prodded with electrodes and loaded unconscious on conveyor belts on the way to slaughter.

Several people inside the courtroom covered their ears and eyes when faced with the sounds of the pigs squealing. Some people wiped away tears.

Jeffrey Veldjesgraaf, the truck's driver, testified in August that it wasn't unusual for Krajnc and other animal rights activists to offer water to the pigs, and said Fearman's Pork Inc. has never turned away the animals he hauls there because of it. 

Water to pigs
Toronto Pig Save volunteers give water to pigs heading to slaughter in Burlington. (Anita Krajnc/Facebook)

During cross-examination, Veldjesgraaf said the animals are given water before and after they're loaded onto the trucks, but not during transit.

Court also watched video of the 2015 incident, in which Krajnc is seen yelling to the truck driver, "Have some compassion, have some compassion!"

Krajnc testified Monday that she offered the driver water after she had given water to the pigs, but he refused.

Animal rights activists planned to hold a demonstration at a Vancouver courthouse today calling on the courts to drop Krajnc's charges.

"Any sane person can see that allowing pigs to suffer, rather than relieving their suffering, is what should be the crime," said demonstration organizer Meghan Beattie in a statement. "This case is shining a spotlight on the failure of our animal agriculture system to recognize that animals are thinking, feeling individuals, not inanimate property." 

Krajnc's trial is due to continue on Nov. 1.

----------


## tod evans

> Even if they are thirsty on a hot day?


Re-read this thread.

I've addressed your opinions of other peoples livestock several times, my opinion won't change.

----------


## farreri

> How 'bout an entire article instead of snippets?


What about it?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

that lady is crazy...

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Re-read this thread.
> 
> I've addressed your opinions of other peoples livestock several times, my opinion won't change.


hes not here to read and learn hes only here to spread his bulls.hit... you know how hes a vegan but he eats meat but really doesnt

----------


## jllundqu

> 'I think it's child abuse to give bacon to children.'


/facepalm/

----------


## tod evans

> What about it?


The broad is quite obviously deranged if not a complete lunatic.

If she can't learn to control herself she's going to get some human hurt, in her own words she values pigs lives more than humans.

Government Dr.'s and big-pharm can't address such lunacy, and they shouldn't. These matters should be settled on the spot by the person charged with the care and transportation of livestock. 

Clearly she's a danger to both the driver and his livelihood.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Even if they are thirsty on a hot day?


is that the hot sweltering 72 degree day??

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> The broad is quite obviously deranged if not a complete lunatic.
> 
> If she can't learn to control herself she's going to get some human hurt, in her own words she values pigs lives more than humans.
> 
> Government Dr.'s and big-pharm can't address such lunacy, and they shouldn't. These matters should be settled on the spot by the person charged with the care and transportation of livestock. 
> 
> Clearly she's a danger to both the driver and his livelihood.


yeah basically this lady would be more inclined to eat a child than a pig... id call that dangerous... vegans are $#@!ing crazy

----------


## tod evans

> Even if they are thirsty *on a hot day*?


Hot enough for the lunatic to be wearing pants and long sleeves.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Hot enough for the lunatic to be wearing pants and long sleeves.


and that my friends is how an educated person wins an argument against an uneducated farreri.

----------


## farreri

> The broad is quite obviously deranged if not a complete lunatic.
> 
> If she can't learn to control herself she's going to get some human hurt, in her own words she values pigs lives more than humans.
> 
> Clearly she's a danger to both the driver and his livelihood.


Yeah, complete lunacy to give these thirsty pigs water on a hot day. It might hydrate the pigs and keep them alive till slaughter. 




> Government Dr.'s and big-pharm can't address such lunacy, and they shouldn't. *These matters should be settled on the spot by the person charged with the care and transportation of livestock*.


He should have shot her?

----------


## farreri

> Hot enough for the lunatic to be wearing pants and long sleeves.


That's not even on the same day the incident happened!

----------


## tod evans

> He should have shot her?


Why is it that folks of your ilk always spin off to using firearms?

This obsession with swine and firearms really isn't healthy...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, complete lunacy to give these thirsty pigs water on a hot day. It might hydrate the pigs and keep them alive till slaughter.


How's the owner to know it's even water? There are $#@!s out there who poison cats and dogs just for lolz  -no doubt there are at least a few who would get shiggles from "watering" pigs with antifreeze.

----------


## farreri

> Why is it that folks of your ilk


Who are my ilk?




> always spin off to using firearms?


How you suggest it should have been handled? Didn't he call the police?

----------


## farreri

> How's the owner to know it's even water? There are $#@!s out there who poison cats and dogs just for lolz  -no doubt there are at least a few who would get shiggles from "watering" pigs with antifreeze.


I'm going to borrow a line from tod.  This obsession with poison and water really isn't healthy...

----------


## osan

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to John F Kennedy III again.


You must spread some syphilis before giving it to Danke again.

----------


## osan

> He should have shot her?


What in hell is your defect?  You seem to display bivalent thinking, believing the only ways to deal with people are either to such their dicks or shoot them.

You might want to see someone about this.

----------


## lilymc

A question for  @tod evans and whoever else called that lady a lunatic....

If you saw someone taking puppies and torturing them, so that they die a slow, painful death....would you consider that unethical?    

Please answer with a yes or no.

(Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the law, but what you personally believe.)

----------


## tod evans

> A question for  @tod evans and whoever else called that lady a lunatic....
> 
> If you saw someone taking puppies and torturing them, so that they die a slow, painful death....would you consider that unethical?    
> 
> Please answer with a yes or no.
> 
> (Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the law, but what you personally believe.)


Yes.

Now that you got your yes/no answer.............I also consider it even more unethical to meddle in another mans business.

Livestock, dogs or pigs, horses or cows, are his business not mine.

Under what authority, (not law) would you feel justified meddling in another mans business?

You don't have to answer yes or no.

----------


## lilymc

> Yes.


Ok, thank you for answering that.

The reason I asked is because pigs are as smart as dogs. On some lists they're ranked even higher than dogs, in intelligence.   So, I don't see why it's so shocking (or ridiculous) that some people consider the torture pigs go through in slaughterhouses to be unethical.   





> Now that you got your yes/no answer.............I also consider it even more unethical to meddle in another mans business.
> 
> Livestock, dogs or pigs, horses or cows, are his business not mine.
> 
> Under what authority, (not law) would you feel justified meddling in another mans business?
> 
> You don't have to answer yes or no.


I don't agree that livestock are our property that we can do anything we want with.  From a Christian perspective, animals belong to God. We are only their caretakers.


For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
—Psalm 50:10 


The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.
— Psalm 24:1


"The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants."
— Leviticus 25:23 


“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s sight.” 
—Luke 12:6


Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.
—1 Corinthians 4:2

That said, I don't agree with what that woman did... I mean, the way she did it.  As I said earlier in the thread, I don't condone what she did, but I think her intentions were good.  So I find the hate and rage against her to be a bit... odd.  And interesting.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Okay, so having read through most of the thread, here's my take:

A. The pigs were the property of the driver. By touching them without his permission, she violated his property rights. She's liable for any damage. Apparently, because of health regulations, the damages in this case might be the entire value of the pigs in the truck. In any event, her only punishment should be to compensate the victim; there should be no imprisonment. 

B. He had the right to use force to stop her, _but not just any force_. He could only have used the amount of force necessary to stop her. That said, if she resisted his initial effort to stop her, he could justly use more force; and then if she resisted that, he could use even more force, and so forth, in an escalation of violence. Ultimately, if no lesser amount of force would have sufficed, he could have justly used lethal force (though, obviously, in this situation, that would not have actually been necessary, since she was an unarmed woman).

C. Bacon is delicious.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm going to borrow a line from tod.  This obsession with poison and water really isn't healthy...


Difference is tod had a valid point. You don't.

----------


## squarepusher

The "liberty" movement has a long way to go!  Most people commenting only seem to believe in liberty for themselves, not how it effects others.  Probably the same people who 200 years ago would be owning slaves and tell you not to mess with other peoples slaves.

----------


## Danke

> The "liberty" movement has a long way to go!  Most people commenting only seem to believe in liberty for themselves, not how it effects others.  Probably the same people who 200 years ago would be owning slaves and tell you not to mess with other peoples slaves.


Could you buy slave meat in the grocery store back then too?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The "liberty" movement has a long way to go!  Most people commenting only seem to believe in liberty for themselves, not how it effects others.  Probably the same people who 200 years ago would be owning slaves and tell you not to mess with other peoples slaves.


The "others" being...the pigs?

----------


## Origanalist

This thread is still going? What the hell.


Muh pigs.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Could you buy slave meat in the grocery store back then too?


You sir, are no lover of slave-meat liberty.

----------


## Danke

> You sir, are no lover of slave-meat liberty.


Very predictable response.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The "liberty" movement has a long way to go!  Most people commenting only seem to believe in liberty for themselves, not how it effects others.  Probably the same people who 200 years ago would be owning slaves and tell you not to mess with other peoples slaves.


Not sure if srs or /snark. If srs, SMFH@profoundly bad logic.

----------


## farreri

> What in hell is your defect?  You seem to display bivalent thinking, believing the only ways to deal with people are either to such their dicks or shoot them.
> 
> You might want to see someone about this.


He said:




> These matters *should be settled on the spot* by the person charged with the care and transportation of livestock. 
> 
> Clearly she's a danger to both the driver and his livelihood.


What does that sound like he's referring to if not street justice?

----------


## farreri

> Under what authority, (not law) would you feel justified meddling in another mans business?


Remember slaves? She's just trying to give some thirsty pigs cramped in a truck some water on a hot day.

----------


## farreri

> Okay, so having read through most of the thread, here's my take:
> 
> A. The pigs were the property of the driver. By touching them without his permission, she violated his property rights. She's liable for any damage. Apparently, because of health regulations, the damages in this case might be the entire value of the pigs in the truck. In any event, her only punishment should be to compensate the victim; there should be no imprisonment.


She's facing 10 yrs in prison for doing a nice gesture in her mind, so I'm glad you agree there should be no imprisonment even if she accidentally harmed any of his pigs.




> B. *He had the right to use force to stop her, but not just any force. He could only have used the amount of force necessary to stop her.* That said, if she resisted his initial effort to stop her, he could justly use more force; and then if she resisted that, he could use even more force, and so forth, in an escalation of violence. Ultimately, if no lesser amount of force would have sufficed, he could have justly used lethal force (though, obviously, in this situation, that would not have actually been necessary, since she was an unarmed woman).


I bolded the only part i agree to in this case because escalating the force to stop her beyond trying to block her from what she was doing seems to go against a civilized society because she was only trying to give water to thirsty pigs on a hot day, not trying to steal or harm any of his pigs. If it was found later that she had poison in her water (for all the paranoid conspiracy theorists on this thread) she should be charged accordingly.




> C. Bacon is delicious.


Not for your heart.

----------


## farreri

> The "liberty" movement has a long way to go!  Most people commenting only seem to believe in liberty for themselves, not how it effects others.  Probably the same people who 200 years ago would be owning slaves and tell you not to mess with other peoples slaves.


Snap!

----------


## farreri

Over 7,500 views so far. Wow!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Over 7,500 views so far. Wow!


Someody should probably update the status of the woman's case. Well. Heh. One would think, anyway. If one really cared about the woman's case in the first place.

----------


## farreri

NC, I'll give you a chance to edit or delete your post so you don't look like a fool.

----------


## lilymc

> What in hell is your defect?  You seem to display bivalent thinking, believing the only ways to deal with people are either to such their dicks or shoot them.
> 
> You might want to see someone about this.





> He said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by tod evans
> 
> 
> ...



He also said this earlier on the thread:




> *Farmers/ranchers are well within their "rights" to shoot rustlers* or feral creatures that mess with their livestock.
> 
> Been that way for centuries.
> 
> *The ignorant $#@! is lucky to be sucking air into her plant addled body.*


So in light of that, I don't think farreri's question in post #757 warranted your response.

----------


## farreri

> He also said this earlier on the thread:
> 
> So in light of that, I don't think farreri's question in post #757 warranted your response.


Thanks for finding that quote. I knew he said something stupid like that, but didn't want to waste my time searching through my popular thread about something vegan-related that gets so many "liberty" people here so riled up!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> NC, I'll give you a chance to edit or delete your post so you don't look like a fool.


Oh, I see. I didn't see that tod posted a full report on its status. Thank You.

I don't really care about what I look like, though. So my post will stay just the way it is. I'm a firm believer in accountability and whatnot.

But since my post is staying just the way it is given that I'm a firm believer in accountability and whatnot, what was it that you had in mind to make me look foolish if I didn't edit or delete it? Which I didn't. Hm?

----------


## tod evans

> Ok, thank you for answering that.
> 
> The reason I asked is because pigs are as smart as dogs. On some lists they're ranked even higher than dogs, in intelligence.   So, I don't see why it's so shocking (or ridiculous) that some people consider the torture pigs go through in slaughterhouses to be unethical.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that livestock are our property that we can do anything we want with.  From a Christian perspective, animals belong to God. We are only their caretakers.
> 
> ...


You have quoted scripture regarding Gods creatures but my question wasn't about Gods views of his creatures, it was about one man meddling in another mans affairs.

Why is it that you believe I'm exhibiting _"hate and rage against her"_ ? 

I don't hate the woman, I believe she's a lunatic.

----------


## tod evans

> Originally Posted by osan
> 
> 
> What in hell is your defect?  You seem to display bivalent thinking, believing the only ways to deal with people are either to such their dicks or shoot them.
> 
> You might want to see someone about this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So ya'll have taken facts I've stated as an endorsement to actually shoot nutty people on the side of the road eh?

Being justified and advising one to actually take action are two completely different things but don't let that fact get in the way of the narrative you're trying to paint. 

Here's another fact that both you and farreri have conviently left out of your quoting of my post;




> *The broad is quite obviously deranged if not a complete lunatic.
> 
> If she can't learn to control herself she's going to get some human hurt, in her own words she values pigs lives more than humans.*
> 
> Government Dr.'s and big-pharm can't address such lunacy, and they shouldn't. These matters should be settled on the spot by the person charged with the care and transportation of livestock. 
> 
> *Clearly she's a danger to both the driver and his livelihood.*


If ya'll are going to quote me and try to twist what I've typed at least use the entire quote, especially when it's relevant to the sentence you wish to focus on. 



Now..............

How 'bout I pose the question in another light?

If there's a person who values plant life above that of his fellow humans, and if that person can quote scripture from his Bible to justify his beliefs, should he be justified interfering in the transportation of your foodstuffs?

To what extremes should the driver of the produce truck go to protect his livelihood and your food?

Just because you might agree with the lunatic in the OP, and maybe her behaviors, doesn't matter, the issue at hand isn't whether or not she's acting out of good faith, the issue at hand is if by her actions she's meddling in another man's affairs. And this gives rise to the question; What ends may the man whose affairs are being meddled with employ to protect his interests?

Both actors in this scenario were wrong, Loony-Tunes for messing with livestock, and the driver for involving kops.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> She's facing 10 yrs in prison for doing a nice gesture in her mind


No, that's wrong. She did it because she's a sick puppy. It was an act of defiance and protest.

This story reminds me of a neighbor I once had. She was a vegan and PETA activist. One time she and a few PETA buddies went to East Texas to protest an annual father-son Thanksgiving turkey hunt that had been going on for years. Neighbor and her animal rights buddies actually went out in the fields between the shooters and the turkeys..... pretty much daring the hunters to shoot them.  All because animals.

----------


## tod evans

> No, that's wrong. She did it because she's a sick puppy. It was an act of defiance and rebellion.
> 
> This story reminds me of a neighbor I once had. She was a vegan and PETA activist. One time she and a few PETA buddies went to East Texas to protest an annual father-son Thanksgiving turkey hunt that had been going on for years. Neighbor and her animal rights buddies actually went out in the fields between the shooters and the turkeys..... pretty much daring the hunters to shoot them.  All because animals.


Trespassing on private property eh?

Wonder what has been the accepted response to trespassers for centuries?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Trespassing on private property eh?
> 
> Wonder what has been the accepted response to trespassers for centuries?


yeah... I was actually very surprised any of them made it home lol

Can you imagine?  East Texas country boys with shotguns in hand confronted by a bunch of tied-dyed hippies telling them they shouldn't be shooting no turkeys!!

----------


## Jamesiv1

//

----------


## tod evans

> Ok, thank you for answering that.
> 
> The reason I asked is because pigs are as smart as dogs. On some lists they're ranked even higher than dogs, in intelligence.   So, I don't see why it's so shocking (or ridiculous) that some people consider the torture pigs go through in slaughterhouses to be unethical.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't agree that livestock are our property that we can do anything we want with.*  From a Christian perspective, animals belong to God. We are only their caretakers.
> 
> ...



My 1st response to this post was really early over my 1st cuppa..............It's still relevant but this particular sentence needs its own response.

Nowhere in this thread have I read anybody claiming it was okay to "abuse" or "torture" animals.

What I keep reading however is how some of you believe you're entitled to enforce your definition of abuse or torture on those of us who have actually husbanded livestock.

Why do you, specifically, think you're qualified to determine how anybody else should treat their livestock?

And as to the intelligence of mammals, there are some dog-n-pigs that're more intelligent than humans, should they be consulted on how to care for the stupid humans?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

everybody eating plants is torturing and hurting plants... plants are sentinent creatures... they are aware of their surroundings just like us.

----------


## osan

> What does that sound like he's referring to if not street justice?


It COULD mean that.  It could also mean other things.  That you immediately glommed to violence reveals much regarding the way you think and see the world around you.  It suggests fear and mistrust of your fellow human beings, which often stems from mistrust of self.

He could have meant that he asserts his rights in all manner of non-violent ways.  The driver is responsible for delivering the livestock _intact_ to the destination.  He therefore holds a right by way of that responsibility to see that he fulfills his obligation.  He discovers the situation in the apparent context of a world where the animal rights activists have been known to taint the meat of such animals by feeding them substances that accomplish that end.  That for which he has assumed responsibility has been threatened.  He stands within his rights to protect those assets.  To that end, he can demand they stop.  That is non-violent.  Whatever happens thereafter is anyone's guess, and it may well include violence, whether it be the verbal threat to slap someone, or shoot them as you so eagerly offered as the first and sole possibility.

He could call a cop, which I gather he did; no violence in evidence.  But you went directly to the extreme, the subtext clearly being that this is the only other possibility in the repertoire of he who defends his rights because apparently it is the only other possibility _in yours_.

I could personally care less how you see things, but I would think that you might be concerned with that issue.  Words reveal inner states, or are at least strongly suggestive of them.  They do not always accurately do so, but once a pattern of repetition begins to emerge, it is usually a safe bet that whatever it is that is indicated is perhaps the reality beneath.

----------


## osan

> He also said this earlier on the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> So in light of that, I don't think farreri's question in post #757 warranted your response.


I think you are mistaken.  I have addressed this elsewhere.

----------


## osan

> So ya'll have taken facts I've stated as an endorsement to actually shoot nutty people on the side of the road eh?


Not me, pal.  Don't lump me in with the loonies.

The answer to all this apparent conflict is being properly smart and respecting private property rights.

I agree that people may not abuse animals.  I will either speak or even stop a person doing such things, but we all need to eat at the very least.  To live is to kill, whether dinner be a squirrel or a head of lettuce.  When the vegan loonies can come up with a long-term health-viable method of eating and crapping rocks and sand that also does not _taste_ like I'm eating rocks and sand (or dryer lint), I may be persuaded to refrain from animal and plant life.  

Until then, get the hell out of my cross-hairs because I will not be starving for the sake of your wounded sensibilities and middle-class angst.  I'm shooting dinner and will remove your interferences by whatever means I must.  

Coming between a man and his meal has generally proven unwise.

----------


## tod evans

> Not me, pal.  Don't lump me in with the loonies.


My apologies!

'Twasn't my intention to lump you in with the loonies...

I merely quoted your post for relevance..

----------


## angelatc

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...mals-1.3791972

This was only a matter of time: 




> A woman on trial on mischief charges for giving water to pigs that were headed to slaughter last summer has been arrested again, this time at the scene of an accident today when another truck full of pigs also headed to the same pork plant flipped over in Burlington, Ont.





> The new charges Krajnc is facing are unclear. 
> 
> "We will release further information in regards to this occurrence at a later time," said Halton Police Sgt. Barry Malciw.
> 
> The truck carrying the pigs lost control and flipped over just after 7 a.m. ET Wednesday, Halton police say, near the corner of Appleby Line and Harvester Road. That's at the corner of the Fearmans Pork Plant, where the animals were headed for slaughter.

----------


## presence

> Let's put it this way, if the headlines of the story said Animal Rights Activist Faces Citation for Giving Slaughter-bound Pigs Water, I would never have posted the story.


these aren't slaughter bound pets, they are pigs containing pork meant for human consumption; which changes the nature of the property crime.  You're not just disturbing the peace, you potentially poisoning the food chain; you stand in the path of someone's duty to protect human life.  

let me ask you this... would the trucker be within his rights to snatch the water bottles for testing?

what if she resisted?

in my eyes the moment those bottles touched the lips of the livestock in transit they became the property of the trucker
this is the type of thing which elevates robbery above theft; the element of imposed immediate violent conflict

----------


## tod evans

Too many kops for my taste....

But the loonies sure were out in force.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> these aren't slaughter bound pets, they are pigs containing pork meant for human consumption; which changes the nature of the property crime.  You're not just disturbing the peace, you potentially poisoning the food chain; you stand in the path of someone's duty to protect human life.  
> 
> let me ask you this... would the trucker be within his rights to snatch the water bottles for testing?
> 
> *what if she resisted?*
> 
> in my eyes the moment those bottles touched the lips of the livestock in transit they became the property of the trucker
> this is the type of thing which elevates robbery above theft; the element of imposed immediate violent conflict


Trucker to Vegan Loonie: "Stop resisting!! Stop resisting!!"

SMACK!! Fist lands right on the kisser. Loonie drops water bottle, falls down goes boom.

Trucker carries on about his business.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Too many kops for my taste....
> 
> But the loonies sure were out in force.


"JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS!  JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS!!!"

Sheesh.  Vegan/PETA/Animal Rights Activists are the worst kind of loonie.  I can't think of a loon more annoying.

Putting a quash on a man's livelihood...
Throwing blood on someone's expensive garments...
Obnoxiously standing in the way of a hunter with a shotgun........

^definition of a loonie

----------


## presence

> SMACK!! Fist lands right on the kisser.


seems appropriate use of force


what I find really loonie about this claim to be genuinely just "giving pigs water on a hot day" as opposed to making an anti meat eating political statement at the expense of potentially contaminating other peoples food...

How exactly do they think the farmer managed to raise those fat pigs without keeping them hydrated and why would you suspect the owner would want to bring dehydrated pigs to slaughter where he gets paid based on body weight?    

"giving pigs water on a hot day" is bull$#@!.

----------


## tod evans

> "JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS!  JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS!!!"
> 
> Sheesh.  Vegan/PETA/Animal Rights Activists are the worst kind of loonie.  I can't think of a loon more annoying.
> 
> Putting a quash on a man's livelihood...
> *Throwing blood on someone's expensive garments...*
> Obnoxiously standing in the way of a hunter with a shotgun........
> 
> ^definition of a loonie


You never read about the nut-jobs spouting off at biker rallies or BDSM conventions where there's more leather than that truck carried....

----------


## Natural Citizen

Well. Heh. I've just pulled some of farreri's bait (not all of it, just some) in the thread here. Y'all should stop feeding this troll. Seems like he's targeting libertarianism in general for the purpose of projecting a negative view of it/them and likely cares very little of the incident itself. 





> This is a liberty forum.





> This is a libertarian forum. Who's forcing anyone to debate me?





> Maybe I'm showing the liberty people on this forum aren't really liberty people.





> Liberty people don't care about judicial tyranny anymore?





> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.





> lol, you guys are starting to sound like kooky conspiracy theorists.





> Heartlessness? Liberty folks are accused of that a lot.





> I wonder why liberty people get accused of being heartless?!





> Liberals are known for giving potential long prison sentences for acts of compassion? Really?





> Over 7,500 views so far. Wow!





> bump





>

----------


## lilymc

> Why is it that you believe I'm exhibiting _"hate and rage against her"_ ? 
> 
> I don't hate the woman, I believe she's a lunatic.


It's not just you, a bunch of you are clearly exhibiting anger and hate toward that woman, and "loonie" animal rights/vegan activists. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make you feel condemned, I just find it interesting, that's all. 

It reminds me of the abortion debate. The amount of utter hate and anger toward pro-lifers from pro-aborts is also interesting to me.... from a purely psychological standpoint.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This was only a matter of time:
> 
> A woman on trial on mischief charges for giving water to pigs that were headed to slaughter last summer has been arrested again, this time at the scene of an accident today where another truck full of pigs headed to the same pork plant flipped over in Burlington, Ont.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...mals-1.3791972


Hm. I wonder if she/they had anything to do with the accident. Per the report, no other vehicles were involved.





> At least one pig was carted from the scene of the crash in a bobcat tractor, draped in a tarp.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...mals-1.3791972

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Well. Heh. I've just pulled of few of farreri's bait in the thread here. Y'all should stop feeding this troll. He's targeting libertarians in general to project a negative view of them and likely cares very little of the incident itself.


he deserves to be banned but then he will just come back as CPUD2 or something.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> It's not just you, a bunch of you are clearly exhibiting anger and hate toward that woman, and "loonie" animal rights/vegan activists. 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make you feel condemned, I just find it interesting, that's all. 
> 
> It reminds me of the abortion debate. The amount of utter hate and anger toward pro-lifers from pro-aborts is also interesting to me.... from a purely psychological standpoint.


When people force their viewpoint on others they can expect others to push back... especially on a liberty minded forum that values private property rights.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> he deserves to be banned...


Wait for it...

----------


## lilymc

> So ya'll have taken facts I've stated as an endorsement to actually shoot nutty people on the side of the road eh?
> 
> Being justified and advising one to actually take action are two completely different things but don't let that fact get in the way of the narrative you're trying to paint.


No.  He asked you a _question_, so you would clarify your post.

And all I was saying to the other guy was that in light of your previous posts (such as, "Farmers/ranchers are well within their "rights" to shoot rustlers or feral creatures that mess with their livestock. The ignorant $#@! is lucky to be sucking air into her plant addled body.")   - I don't think his question warranted the response it got from osan.





> Here's another fact that both you and farreri have conviently left out of your quoting of my post;
> 
> 
> 
> If ya'll are going to quote me and try to twist what I've typed at least use the entire quote, especially when it's relevant to the sentence you wish to focus on.


Ok.  I hear what you're saying.   I'm not going to argue with you on that.  I don't agree with it,  but  I can understand your point of view. 




> Now..............
> 
> How 'bout I pose the question in another light?
> 
> If there's a person who values plant life above that of his fellow humans, and if that person can quote scripture from his Bible to justify his beliefs, should he be justified interfering in the transportation of your foodstuffs?
> 
> To what extremes should the driver of the produce truck go to protect his livelihood and your food?
> 
> Just because you might agree with the lunatic in the OP, and maybe her behaviors, doesn't matter, the issue at hand isn't whether or not she's acting out of good faith, the issue at hand is if by her actions she's meddling in another man's affairs. And this gives rise to the question; What ends may the man whose affairs are being meddled with employ to protect his interests?
> ...


I clearly stated that I don't agree with or condone what that woman did.  You seemed to have ignored that.   But to answer your question, everything should be taken on a case by case basis.   And I do think intentions are important.

This reminds me of many years ago, my family had a couple dogs and one day they somehow went over to the neighbor's property, where there were horses or livestock, IIRC.  Anyway, the owner of the property shot at the dogs, and one of them (a sweet, gentle female dog) was shot in the face and blinded in one eye.  The other one was shot at too, but he was ok.

I was furious at the guy for being trigger happy, because those dogs were clearly not there to cause harm and his animals were bigger than the dogs, so I thought shooting them was unnecessary.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I knew he said something stupid like that, but didn't want to waste my time searching through *my popular thread about something vegan-related* that gets so many "liberty" people here so riled up!



I thought you said that this thread has nothing to do with anything vegan or diet related....




> Well thanks, but *this thread has nothing to do with anything vegan or diet related*.





Anyway. I think we all know what your intention is here. Again....




> This is a liberty forum.


 


> This is a libertarian forum. Who's forcing anyone to debate me?


 


> Maybe I'm showing the liberty people on this forum aren't really liberty people.


 


> Liberty people don't care about judicial tyranny anymore?





> You think that lady would deserve to be shot for giving thirsty pigs some water?


 


> Not quite the answers I was expecting from a liberty forum.


 


> lol, you guys are starting to sound like kooky conspiracy theorists.


 


> Heartlessness? Liberty folks are accused of that a lot.


 


> I wonder why liberty people get accused of being heartless?!


 


> Liberals are known for giving potential long prison sentences for acts of compassion? Really?


 


> Over 7,500 views so far. Wow!


 


> bump


 


>

----------


## lilymc

> When people force their viewpoint on others they can expect others to push back... especially on a liberty minded forum that values private property rights.


True, but I wasn't talking about mere "push back."   

As for what you said, others see it differently.  Others do not consider human beings or other sentient beings to be mere "property."  Whether they are right or wrong is another issue.  I was only commenting on the extreme emotion -  the hate and anger - aimed at those who speak out for beings that cannot speak for themselves.  Whether you agree with them or not, they have good intentions.  That's why I find the hate and anger to be odd.

----------


## presence

> It's not just you, a bunch of you are clearly exhibiting anger and hate toward that woman, and "loonie" animal rights/vegan activists.


what makes it loonie is the intention to pass off the notion of "giving animals water on a hot day" as some bs act of compassion when really its nothing to do with that... the day's not hot and the pigs aren't thirsty.   Its a political statement wrapped up in a charade.   If the individual wants others to take as a matter of fact that she's "giving animals water on a hot day" when in fact we all know she's really making a political statement about meat eating then we can either see 1) loonie or 2) property vandalism for political purposes.... which is no better than inner city black folks stealing tv's and nikes during a riot.  There is nothing in this action to be proud of from a liberty standpoint.

----------


## tod evans

> what makes it loonie is the intention to pass off the notion of "giving animals water on a hot day" as some bs act of compassion when really its nothing to do with that... the day's not hot and the pigs aren't thirsty.   Its a political statement wrapped up in a charade.   If the individual wants others to take as a matter of fact that she's "giving animals water on a hot day" when in fact we all know she's really making a political statement about meat eating then we can either see 1) loonie or 2) property vandalism for political purposes.... which is no better than inner city black folks stealing tv's and nikes during a riot.  There is nothing in this action to be proud of from a liberty standpoint.


There's nothing to be "proud" about from an animal rights standpoint either.

People behaving like the OP did are a disgrace for any who associate with them.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> True, but I wasn't talking about mere "push back."   
> 
> As for what you said, others see it differently.  Others do not consider human beings or other sentient beings to be mere "property."  Whether they are right or wrong is another issue.  I was only commenting on the extreme emotion -  the hate and anger - aimed at those who speak out for beings that cannot speak for themselves.  Whether you agree with them or not, they have good intentions.  That's why I find the hate and anger to be odd.


its all in levels and POV... Only a sick twisted individual would want to see an animal being harmed or tortured in any way.  And I can feel for an animal rights activist doing what they think is best for the welfare of an animal. Im not so sure if this anna lady is just looking to grab headlines or not.. who knows.

But for the same reason I think is why everybody here has no problem talking and discussing the topic with you - youre sincere.  Other people like farreri are just here to goof off and stir the s.hit pot to get people riled up so I think some of the resentment and anger that should be leveled at him gets misdirected at the current topic at hand that he pretends to support. (If you ever see a cranky obtuse message on the topic from me you can rest assured its 100% misdirected anger)

Personally I view plants just as sentient as animals or ourselves. But we all have to eat and we all have to draw a line somewhere. I can have a rational discussion with you on the topic whereas people like farreri will pull up some anti-vegan talking points to belittle my sentient plant claims.  I happen to agree with Ender that the reason we are more sensitive to the sufferings of animals are because we are animals ourselves and we hear their cries and we see their tears and we feel the emotions that we know they are feeling as well. Plants do not have the same mechanisms in place to express emotion so we do not recognize it.. However a tree knows when it is getting chopped down, It knows when its getting burned in a forest fire.  It can communicate emotion and pain to other plants who also recognize it because they do have the proper mechanisms in place to recognize the emotions whereas we would have to hook up equipment to the plant to perceive their emotions.

There is no easy answer. People must find out what works best for them.  For me I do what I think is best for nutrition. While Ive eaten my share of junk food in the past when it comes to food I like my meats to be naturally pastured or grass fed. I like my seafood to be wild-caught. I like my fruits and vegetables to be free from pesticides and God knows what else. I like my milk and honey to be raw and unpasteurized. The closer to nature the better.

Sometimes you just need a good steak other times I just want to eat salad and fruit. I try to listen to my body because I figure that if im in the mood to eat a particular food, its because my body wants the nutrition thats in that particular food.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This was only a matter of time:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman on trial on mischief charges for giving water to pigs that were headed to slaughter last summer has been *arrested again, this time at the scene of an accident today when another truck full of pigs also headed to the same pork plant flipped over* in Burlington, Ont.
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...mals-1.3791972


Drone footage...full length 4k zoomed video of the scene and the protestors to come...

----------


## lilymc

> what makes it loonie is the intention to pass off the notion of "giving animals water on a hot day" as some bs act of compassion when really its nothing to do with that... the day's not hot and the pigs aren't thirsty.   Its a political statement wrapped up in a charade.   If the individual wants others to take as a matter of fact that she's "giving animals water on a hot day" when in fact we all know she's really making a political statement about meat eating then we can either see 1) loonie or 2) property vandalism for political purposes.... which is no better than inner city black folks stealing tv's and nikes during a riot.  There is nothing in this action to be proud of from a liberty standpoint.


I thought it was obvious that it was a political statement, or something to bring attention to the bigger issue.

TBH, I haven't read many articles about it, so I don't know if that woman claimed it was only about giving the pigs water, or if she claimed that it was to bring awareness to the bigger issue.

Maybe in her mind it was both?

Anyway, that's the main reason I don't condone what she did... because I think there are better ways to make a statement or protest something.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> *I thought it was obvious that it was a political statement,* or something to bring attention to the bigger issue.
> 
> TBH, I haven't read many articles about it, so I don't know if that woman claimed it was only about giving the pigs water, or if she claimed that it was to bring awareness to the bigger issue.
> 
> Maybe in her mind it was both?
> 
> Anyway, that's the main reason I don't condone what she did... because I think there are better ways to make a statement or protest something.


Not to me.. The only thing clear to me is that the OP tried to disguise a political statement as a humanitarian or charitable appeal.  Maybe in anna's mind it was, or it was both like you say... who knows

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Also want to point out that Farreri put this thread in the wrong forum on purpose. He probably figured that he couldnt win against the people in the health & nutrition forum so he puts this thread up under "World News & Affairs" to try and reach more people to rile up... 


This thread certainly has nothing to do with World News & Affairs.

Flagging it for removal to proper sub forum

----------


## angelatc

> N
> I was furious at the guy for being trigger happy, because those dogs were clearly not there to cause harm and his animals were bigger than the dogs, so I thought shooting them was unnecessary.


Maybe it was.  But you do not get to make the rules on his land.

----------


## farreri

> Oh, I see. I didn't see that tod posted a full report on its status. Thank You.


Um, it was me who first posted the update:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6326025





> But since my post is staying just the way it is given that I'm a firm believer in accountability and whatnot, what was it that you had in mind to make me look foolish if I didn't edit or delete it? Which I didn't. Hm?


You were passive-aggressively suggesting I really didn't care about her case:




> Someody should probably update the status of the woman's case. Well. Heh. One would think, anyway. *If one really cared about the woman's case in the first place*.

----------


## farreri

> The broad is quite obviously deranged if not a complete lunatic.


For trying to give thirsty pigs some water on a hot day?  Not saying no law was broken, but calling her obviously deranged and a lunatic for doing that is quite a stretch.

----------


## farreri

> No, that's wrong. She did it because she's a sick puppy. It was an act of defiance and protest.


Every person who does an act of defiance and protest is a sick puppy? You sure you're libertarian?

----------


## tod evans

> The closer to nature the better.


_



			
				You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chester Copperpot again.
			
		

_

I tried....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Um, it was me who first posted the update:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6326025


Well. As I said, I didn't see that tod had posted the full update.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6326346 Which he did. 

You, on the other hand, did nothing of the sort. You posted a couple of sentences from the woman's personal statements that highlighted her self-justification in bold letters.

tod actually posted the full report. 






> You were passive-aggressively suggesting I really didn't care about her case:


I'm not passivelly-aggressively suggesting jack squat nothin. I'm telling it to you to your  face. 

So "um" nothin. 

You have no business trying to create some bullsht kind of illusion of moral decency because you've demonstrated that you personally lack the foundation for it yourself.

Thread needs closed. You're trolling here.

----------


## farreri

> Trespassing on private property eh?
> 
> Wonder what has been the accepted response to trespassers for centuries?





> yeah... I was actually very surprised any of them made it home lol
> 
> Can you imagine?  East Texas country boys with shotguns in hand confronted by a bunch of tied-dyed hippies telling them they shouldn't be shooting no turkeys!!


Thanks for confirming I was right in insinuating you seem to have suggested the driver should have settled it on the spot by shooting her.

----------


## farreri

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...mals-1.3791972
> 
> This was only a matter of time:


Only a matter of time for what?

----------


## tod evans

> For trying to give thirsty pigs some water on a hot day?  Not saying no law was broken, but calling her obviously deranged and a lunatic for doing that is quite a stretch.


Playing ignorant isn't becoming..........

Or have you already honestly forgotten the umpteen times it's been explained to you that these were not her animals to $#@! with?

Either way showing your ass repeatedly doesn't make it any more appealing...

(Notice no neg-rep even though you certainly deserve another)

----------


## tod evans

> Thanks for confirming I was right in insinuating you seem to have suggested the driver should have settled it on the spot by shooting her.


Being full of $#@! doesn't change what I typed earlier, go ahead and quote it in full you deceitful lying bastard.

Advising anybody to shoot someone goes against the TOS, *do not*  try to implicate me with your deceitful practices!

----------


## farreri

> You're not just disturbing the peace, *you potentially poisoning the food chain*; you stand in the path of someone's duty to protect human life.


It was just water. Chill.




> let me ask you this... would the trucker be within his rights to snatch the water bottles for testing?


Yes.




> what if she resisted?


Call the cops so the peace is kept--ideally.




> in my eyes the moment those bottles touched the lips of the livestock in transit they became the property of the trucker
> this is the type of thing which elevates robbery above theft; the element of imposed immediate violent conflict


In a CIVILIZED society, nothing should ever turn violent over a person wanting to give some thirsty animals some water on a hot day.

----------


## farreri

> Trucker to Vegan Loonie: "Stop resisting!! Stop resisting!!"
> 
> SMACK!! Fist lands right on the kisser. Loonie drops water bottle, falls down goes boom.
> 
> Trucker carries on about his business.
> 
> Nothing to see here. Move along.


I thought libertarians were for a civil society? Was I wrong?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Only a matter of time for what?


She insinuated that it was only a matter of time before she got arrested again for the same thing. Which she did just get arrested again for the same thing. A report and video was posted to confirm. So the insinuation was certainly correct, wasn't it?

----------


## farreri

> "JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS!  JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS!!!"
> 
> Sheesh.  Vegan/PETA/Animal Rights Activists are the worst kind of loonie.  I can't think of a loon more annoying.
> 
> Putting a quash on a man's livelihood...
> Throwing blood on someone's expensive garments...
> Obnoxiously standing in the way of a hunter with a shotgun........
> 
> ^definition of a loonie


Let's turn it around:




> "JUSTICE FOR SLAVES!  JUSTICE FOR SLAVES!!!"
> 
> Sheesh.  Abolitionists/Slave Rights Activists are the worst kind of loonie.  I can't think of a loon more annoying.
> 
> Putting a quash on a slave owner's livelihood...
> Cutting off someone's expensive cuffs and chains...
> Obnoxiously standing in the way of a slave owner with a shotgun........
> 
> ^definition of a loonie


And why some think libertarians have no heart.

----------


## farreri

> Well. Heh. I've just pulled some of farreri's bait (not all of it, just some) in the thread here. Y'all should stop feeding this troll. Seems like he's targeting libertarianism in general for the purpose of projecting a negative view of it/them and likely cares very little of the incident itself.


No, only the one's who are making libertarians look bad.


I should have wrote this quote a little differently:




> Maybe I'm showing [that some of] the liberty people on this forum aren't really liberty people.

----------


## farreri

> It's not just you, a bunch of you are clearly exhibiting anger and hate toward that woman, and "loonie" animal rights/vegan activists.


It's partly why I posted this story that involved a vegan. To show some of these RPF member's true colors.

----------


## farreri

> he deserves to be banned


Why?




> When people force their viewpoint on others they can expect others to push back... especially on a liberty minded forum *that values private property rights.*


What about judicial fairness? Right to civil disobedience? Or is property rights the only thing that matters to libertarians?

----------


## jllundqu

> Let's turn it around:
> 
> 
> And why some think libertarians have no heart.


Did you really just equate pigs with slaves?  Did that just happen?  

Pigs headed for slaughter have magically become the new civil rights movement!  PIG LIVES MATTER!

You're off your rocker, chica.  As has been stated here ad nauseum..... the woman should never have touched someone else's property... the whole "thirsty on a hot day" is a bull$#@! strawman appeal to emotion.  She should not be faced with harsh prison, but she should be punished to the extent necessary to prevent her (and others) from jacking with others' said property.  Period.  End of Thread.

Your constant attempts (like the above) to somehow personify animals to the point where you're equating their 'plight' with that of slaves is not only intellectually dishonest... it is by definition TROLLING.

Add one more neg-rep and good day to you!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's partly why I posted this story that involved a vegan. To show some of these RPF member's true colors.


Well there you have it, boys. The former is nothing more than bait to project the latter.

----------


## farreri

> I clearly stated that I don't agree with or condone what that woman did.  You seemed to have ignored that.


The loonies here also seem to ignore that's I've stated numerous times that I have no problem that she got into legal trouble.

----------


## angelatc

> Let's turn it around:
> 
> 
> And why some think libertarians have no heart.


You're equating slaves with pigs.  This is why some think Libertarians are racist.

----------


## farreri

> I thought you said that this thread has nothing to do with anything vegan or diet related....


It doesn't, but I knew the loonies on here would be so fixated on the story involving a vegan that the real point of the story would be lost.




> Anyway. I think we all know what your intention is here. Again....


Oh I'm very open to why I posted the story.

----------


## farreri

> Its a political statement wrapped up in a charade.


So she should get up to 10 yrs for making a non-violent political statement wrapped up in a charade?

----------


## farreri

> People behaving like the OP did are a disgrace for any who associate with them.


Tod, we all know you hate vegans and animal rights activists. Don't try to dress it up.

----------


## farreri

> Also want to point out that Farreri put this thread in the wrong forum on purpose. He probably figured that he couldnt win against the people in the health & nutrition forum so he puts this thread up under "World News & Affairs" to try and reach more people to rile up... 
> 
> 
> This thread certainly has nothing to do with World News & Affairs.
> 
> Flagging it for removal to proper sub forum


Um, it has nothing to do with nutrition and it happened in Canada.

----------


## farreri

> I'm not passivelly-aggressively suggesting jack squat nothin. I'm telling it to you to your  face. 
> 
> So "um" nothin. 
> 
> You have no business trying to create some bullsht kind of illusion of moral decency because you've demonstrated that you personally lack the foundation for it yourself.
> 
> Thread needs closed. You're trolling here.


You mad, bro?

----------


## farreri

> She insinuated that it was only a matter of time before she got arrested again for the same thing.


Well, she is an activist and activists take that risk.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You mad, bro?


Nope. In fact, I'm kind of chuckling a bit to myself over here because I know how this thread is going to end, silly goose.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Well. As I said, I didn't see that tod had posted the full update.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6326346 Which he did. 
> 
> You, on the other hand, did nothing of the sort. You posted a couple of sentences from the woman's personal statements that highlighted her self-justification in bold letters.
> 
> tod actually posted the full report. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how dare you not recognize that it was the great farreri that outsmarted you... how dare you give credit to tod evans. hahah

----------


## farreri

> Did you really just equate pigs with slaves?  Did that just happen?


The activists seems to think so. Who says she's wrong?




> She should not be faced with harsh prison


Finally someone gets the main point of posting the story.




> Your constant attempts (like the above) to somehow personify animals to the point where you're equating their 'plight' with that of slaves is not only intellectually dishonest... it is by definition TROLLING.
> 
> Add one more neg-rep and good day to you!


You mad too, bro?

----------


## tod evans

> Tod, we all know you hate vegans and animal rights activists. Don't try to dress it up.


Here you go again telling me what I think.....

What an $#@!.

----------


## farreri

> You're equating slaves with pigs.  This is why some think Libertarians are racist.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Why?
> 
> 
> What about judicial fairness? Right to civil disobedience? Or is property rights the only thing that matters to libertarians?


(mod edit) I can see that youve made the jump in your mind that libertarians=meat eaters so libertarians have now become evil and deranged and deserving of being mocked and trolled all the time.

Again, if you really cared about a discussion on private property rights or judicial fairness or civil disobedience everybody would be happy to discuss those issues.. But you do not care about any of them.. You only use them as tools to push your own agenda.. (mod edit)

----------


## donnay

> Tod, we all know you hate vegans and animal rights activists. Don't try to dress it up.


You're trying to put lipstick on the pig. (Pun intended)

PETA pulls these kind of stunts all the time.  Some of us loonies pay attention.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Plus youre a d.ick because you made fun of me having had cancer and you actually thought it was funny.. Youre the type of twisted person who probably kicks their dog and then you go have a salad to forgive yourself.



I know, right? How rude.

----------


## farreri

> PETA pulls these kind of stunts all the time.


They are an activist organization, why wouldn't they?

A lot of you are acting like people should just fall in line and submit. I'm pretty sure that's not a libertarian principal.

----------


## farreri

> it has nothing to do with world news & affairs either...


Canada is a state?

----------


## farreri

> I know, right? How rude.


What was rude?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Canada is a state?


World News & Affairs has to do with _International politics and other headlines from around the world_. It means countries interacting with other countries. It doesnt mean pigs in Canada... Everybody here knows what its for.. So do you.  The only question I have for you is if you get paid to spew your nonsense or are you just some crazy militant person who hates Ron Paul and libertarianism... because Im starting to think thats your only purpose in coming here.

How about we meet face to face and discuss Jury Nullification.  My entirely emaciated body of 165lbs @6' 2" certainly wouldnt pose any threat to you.

----------


## farreri

> _and other headlines from around the world_.


Yes, this was headlines in Canada, a different country.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> escalating the force to stop her beyond trying to block her from what she was doing seems to go against a civilized society


If one isn't allowed to respond in kind to an aggressor's resistance, then the right to defend property is a dead letter. 

Think about it.

I walk onto your lawn and pitch a tent, telling you that I plan to live there for the next couple months. 

You say, "no, get off my lawn." 

I refuse. 

You try to push me off the property. 

I push back, and I'm stronger than you so you lose that shoving match. 

What now? Do you have to give up and let me live on your lawn? 

No, you should able to escalate as necessary; maybe you go get a baseball bat.  

How much force you can use depends on how much I choose to resist. 

If I create a situation where you have no way of removing me other than by using deadly force, that's my problem.

----------


## angelatc

> They are an activist organization, why wouldn't they?
> 
> A lot of you are acting like people should just fall in line and submit. I'm pretty sure that's not a libertarian principal.


You clearly do not understand property rights.  If you did, you would not be here arguing against them while accusing us of not understanding it.


This is classic Marxism - accuse your opponent of being what you are.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> You clearly do not understand property rights.  If you did, you would not be here arguing against them while accusing us of not understanding it.
> 
> 
> This is classic Marxism - accuse your opponent of being what you are.


+1

----------


## lilymc

> You clearly do not understand property rights.  If you did, you would not be here arguing against them while accusing us of not understanding it.


Did you miss this post of his?




> *... I've stated numerous times that I have no problem that she got into legal trouble.*



Maybe I missed it.... can you point to a specific post of his where he stated that she should not have been charged for her actions?

----------


## lilymc

> Maybe it was.  But you do not get to make the rules on his land.


I never argued otherwise. You seem to be looking at this topic in a very one-dimensional way.  No one here (that I have seen) is arguing against property rights, or saying that the woman should not have been charged... but for some reason you want to keep arguing that straw man.  Do you feel uncomfortable discussing other aspects of this topic?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Every person who does an act of defiance and protest is a sick puppy? You sure you're libertarian?


We're all sick/flawed/sinful.

Some are sicker than others.

----------


## Danke

> We're all sick/flawed/sinful.
> 
> Some are sicker than others.


I'll just have to take your word for it on that one.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I'll just have to take your word for it on that one.


I'm going to include your reply in my book of 2017 Excellent Predictions. Will be out soon.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I'm going to include your reply in my book of 2017 Excellent Predictions. Will be out soon.


LOL!

----------


## farreri

> I push back, and I'm stronger than you so you lose that shoving match. 
> 
> What now? Do you have to give up and let me live on your lawn? 
> 
> No, you should able to escalate as necessary; maybe you go get a baseball bat.


How about call the cops since there is no immediate danger? _Civilized._

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> How about call the cops since there is no immediate danger? _Civilized._


And what will the cops do if I refuse to leave?

----------


## farreri

> You clearly do not understand property rights.  If you did, you would not be here arguing against them while accusing us of not understanding it.


If someone is walking down the street and pours the rest of their water on my plants on my property thinking best pour their water on my plants than waste it pouring it down the sewer drain, do I have a right to blow that person away with my 45 revolver? I mean, that person was messin with and trespassing on my property, right?

----------


## farreri

> And what will the cops do if I refuse to leave?


Escort you off.

"And if I still refuse?"

Have a couple cops escort you off.

"And if I'm strong enough to resist the force of a couple of cops?"

They use non-lethal means to subdue you, like pepper spray or a tazer, then handcuff you, then escort you off.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Escort you off.
> 
> "And if I still refuse?"
> 
> Have a couple cops escort you off.
> 
> "And if I'm strong enough to resist the force of a couple of cops?"
> 
> They use non-lethal means to subdue you, like pepper spray or a tazer, then handcuff you, then escort you off.


And if I'm armed?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Escort you off.
> 
> "And if I still refuse?"
> 
> Have a couple cops escort you off.
> 
> "And if I'm strong enough to resist the force of a couple of cops?"
> 
> They use non-lethal means to subdue you, like pepper spray or a tazer, then handcuff you, then escort you off.


Seems like a lot of times they show up, shoot the owner, and ask questions later. 

Never call men from the government with guns. 

My gosh. You're fully indoctrinated, aren't you?

----------


## farreri

> And if I'm armed?


Well, you better drop your weapon, or be a faster shot than the multiple cops surrounding you.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well, you better drop your weapon, or be a faster shot than the multiple cops surrounding you.


In other words, if I escalated my resistance to the point that they had no choice but to use lethal force, they'd be justified in doing so. 

(as would a private person in the same situation)

QED

----------


## lilymc

> its all in levels and POV... Only a sick twisted individual would want to see an animal being harmed or tortured in any way.  And I can feel for an animal rights activist doing what they think is best for the welfare of an animal. Im not so sure if this anna lady is just looking to grab headlines or not.. who knows.


I agree, but the reality is, animals _are_ harmed and _do_ suffer everyday, in slaughterhouses.  And if we truly love animals, how can we say that it's sick and twisted to see an animal being harmed and tortured, yet support that, by continuing to support the animal industries?   

Here are a few vids that show what pigs go through everyday, for no other reason but our desire to eat pork. And these aren't even the graphic videos.
















> But for the same reason I think is why everybody here has no problem talking and discussing the topic with you - youre sincere.  Other people like farreri are just here to goof off and stir the s.hit pot to get people riled up so I think some of the resentment and anger that should be leveled at him gets misdirected at the current topic at hand that he pretends to support. (If you ever see a cranky obtuse message on the topic from me you can rest assured its 100% misdirected anger)


Thank you.   I hope that we all can at least try to have genuine discussions here in a civil way.   Including farreri.





> Personally I view plants just as sentient as animals or ourselves. But we all have to eat and we all have to draw a line somewhere. I can have a rational discussion with you on the topic whereas people like farreri will pull up some anti-vegan talking points to belittle my sentient plant claims.  I happen to agree with Ender that the reason we are more sensitive to the sufferings of animals are because we are animals ourselves and we hear their cries and we see their tears and we feel the emotions that we know they are feeling as well. Plants do not have the same mechanisms in place to express emotion so we do not recognize it.. However a tree knows when it is getting chopped down, It knows when its getting burned in a forest fire.  It can communicate emotion and pain to other plants who also recognize it because they do have the proper mechanisms in place to recognize the emotions whereas we would have to hook up equipment to the plant to perceive their emotions.
> 
> There is no easy answer. People must find out what works best for them.  For me I do what I think is best for nutrition. While Ive eaten my share of junk food in the past when it comes to food I like my meats to be naturally pastured or grass fed. I like my seafood to be wild-caught. I like my fruits and vegetables to be free from pesticides and God knows what else. I like my milk and honey to be raw and unpasteurized. The closer to nature the beter.
> 
> Sometimes you just need a good steak other times I just want to eat salad and fruit. I try to listen to my body because I figure that if im in the mood to eat a particular food, its because my body wants the nutrition thats in that particular food.


Plants don't have a nervous system or sensory organs. If God/nature _had_ created plants to feel pain, then they would have been created with a way to avoid that pain...animals can move or run, plants cannot get up and move.    From a biblical perspective, God gave us plants (fruits, nuts, seeds and veggies) as our original, ideal diet (Genesis 1:29-30).  So from both a biblical and evolutionary perspective, it makes no sense to say plants feel pain and suffering.   

In addition to that, the reasoning is faulty to begin with because even if it was true (which it isn't) the argument seems to be, "Because plants feel pain, we should go ahead and continue to slaughter and eat animals."  But that's like saying two wrongs make a right.   

So I respectfully disagree with that objection.

----------


## farreri

> In other words, if I escalated my resistance to the point that they had no choice but to use lethal force, they'd be justified in doing so. 
> 
> (as would a private person in the same situation)
> 
> QED


Then as the land owner, you'd be out of the loop for any possible lawsuits and the blood wouldn't be on your hands.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Then as the land owner, you'd be out of the loop for any possible lawsuits and the blood wouldn't be on your hands.


My point is that a property owner has the _right_ to use as much force as necessary defend his property, up to and including lethal force. 

Whether it's_ prudent_ to do so is a separate question.

----------


## farreri

> My point is that a property owner has the _right_ to use as much force as necessary defend his property, up to and including lethal force. 
> 
> Whether it's_ prudent_ to do so is a separate question.


In a civil society, you don't automatically blow away someone for pitching a tent and sleeping on your property. Now if they are dumb enough to break in your house to sleep inside, well they get what they deserve for being so dumb.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> In a civil society, you don't automatically blow away someone for pitching a tent and sleeping on your property.


Again, the point is that you can use whatever force is necessary, but no more than is necessary.

If shoving will do, shooting would be criminal. 

But if shoving won't do, if nothing short of shooting will do, then shooting is perfectly justifiable.

----------


## farreri

> Again, the point is that you can use whatever force is necessary, but no more than is necessary.
> 
> If shoving will do, shooting would be criminal. 
> 
> But if shoving won't do, if nothing short of shooting will do, then shooting is perfectly justifiable.


Well if you tell the squatter they need to go and they start getting aggressive and you feel threatened, they yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you're putting yourself at risk because it's usually he said, she said in those matters and from the behavior of a lot of you on here, seems like more force than was deemed necessary will be used if the squatters happen to be some hippie vegans.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well if you tell the squatter they need to go and they start getting aggressive and you feel threatened, they yes, you have the right to defend yourself


Then we're in agreement. 




> but you're putting yourself at risk because it's usually he said, she said in those matters and from the behavior of a lot of you on here, seems like more force than was deemed necessary will be used if the squatters happen to be some hippie vegans.


Maybe so, but that's their problem (they'll be liable for any such overreaction).

----------


## farreri

> Maybe so, but that's their problem (they'll be liable for any such overreaction).


But you put yourself at risk of lawsuit or prosecution if you take it in your own hands instead of call the police, especially if there are no witnesses or video. There was video in the OP story that will probably favor the vegan lady.

----------


## Danke



----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But you put yourself at risk of lawsuit or prosecution if you take it in your own hands instead of call the police, especially if there are no witnesses or video. There was video in the OP story that will probably favor the vegan lady.


Once again, I'm not arguing that it's always prudent for property owners to use force to defend their property.

...sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. 

I'm just saying they have the right to do so.

Since we're in agreement on that point, there's nothing more to debate.

----------


## farreri

> Once again, I'm not arguing that it's always prudent for property owners to use force to defend their property.
> 
> ...sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. 
> 
> I'm just saying they have the right to do so.


Let's get back to the OP story. Would the truck driver have the right to walk up to her and put a cap in her ass as a lot of vegan haters on this thread would seem to like to do?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Let's get back to the OP story. Would the truck driver have the right to walk up to her and put a cap in her ass as a lot of vegan haters on this thread would seem to like to do?


What did I say in my first post?

----------


## farreri

> What did I say in my first post?


Well my point is the amount of force will escalate because of political reasons--ie hatred of animal rights activists, etc-- than the actually force needed to repel the trespasser.

Look how angry some here are with that vegan lady. They think she's the worst thing in the world!

Best to keep it civil and call the cops and if the cops get over-aggressive, then that's on them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well my point is the amount of force will escalate because of political reasons--ie hatred of animal rights activists, etc-- than the actually force needed to repel the trespasser.


The pig owner could have justly use the amount of force necessary to stop her, no more.

If he used more (say, because of his hatred for animal rights activists), then he'd have committed a crime and should be prosecuted.

As a matter of fact, he didn't use any force at all, so it's all moot. 

 ...don't know what else there is to say.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I agree, but the reality is, animals _are_ harmed and _do_ suffer everyday, in slaughterhouses.  And if we truly love animals, how can we say that it's sick and twisted to see an animal being harmed and tortured, yet support that, by continuing to support the animal industries?   
> 
> Here are a few vids that show what pigs go through everyday, for no other reason but our desire to eat pork. And these aren't even the graphic videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think plants feel pain and emotion. Ive seen enough evidence of it to believe it. Their organs per se are not recognizable to us because they are plant and we are animal.. Some scientists now believe their roots are their nervous system. I dont know if thats true or not but when you see some strange events like plants being hooked up to lie detectors and being able to catch a murderer because of their emotions it makes you wonder about things.  I view the killing of broccoli not much different than an animal. Of course emotionally I side with the animal over the plant because im an animal... I dont really like those factory farming conditions either... The farms I go to dont treat their animals like that.. though of course there are times Im going to eat factory farmed meat.. Sometimes its so prevalent it just cant be helped. But overalll I try not to eat too much of that nor farm raised fish.

----------


## angelatc

> I
> 
> Here are a few vids that show what pigs go through everyday, for no other reason but our desire to eat pork.


LOL @ "our."

----------


## angelatc



----------


## farreri

> The pig owner could have justly use the amount of force necessary to stop her, no more.
> 
> If he used more (say, because of his hatred for animal rights activists), then he'd have committed a crime and should be prosecuted.
> 
> As a matter of fact, he didn't use any force at all, so it's all moot. 
> 
>  ...don't know what else there is to say.


He did the civil thing by staying back and letting the police handle it. Some here seem to wanted to see street justice giving libertarians a bad name.

----------


## lilymc

> LOL @ "our."


Well, since about 95% of Americans eat meat, I figured there wouldn't be much objection to my use of the word "our"... I just meant people in general.

I no longer have a desire to eat pork...(or any dead animals)  so yeah, maybe I shouldn't have said "our."

----------


## oyarde

What satanist sent this thread to open discussion ?

----------


## Danke

> Well, since about 95% of Americans eat meat, I figured there wouldn't be much objection to my use of the word "our"... I just meant people in general.
> 
> I no longer have a desire to eat pork...(or any dead animals)  so yeah, maybe I shouldn't have said "our."


So live meat is still ok?

----------


## pcosmar

> How about call the cops since there is no immediate danger? _Civilized._


Cop are an immediate danger.  and usually uncivilized .

----------


## oyarde

> So live meat is still ok?


My brother calls that fresh.

----------


## Danke

> My brother calls that fresh.


Another savage cannibal in your tribe.

----------


## oyarde

> Another savage cannibal in your tribe.


Probably why he is single. He does not empty the ash tray as well , it just boils over onto the floor .

----------


## farreri

> Cop are an immediate danger.  and usually uncivilized .


That's just not true. Only a in a minority of situations it is.

----------


## oyarde

I challenge someone to find a locked thread on RPF that is not better than this .

----------


## lilymc

I can't believe this thread is still going too.

I was going to post a general thread on veganism... because we have so many little threads related to that topic here and there.  So it would be good to have it all one place.  But I've been busy, so I just haven't done it yet.

----------


## tod evans

> I can't believe this thread is still going too.
> *
> I was going to post a general thread on veganism...* because we have so many little threads related to that topic here and there.  So it would be good to have it all one place.  But I've been busy, so I just haven't done it yet.


I'm willing to bet it'll be populated with sane, sensible commentary that's respectful of your beliefs.....

Until folks who have social inadequacies join in and start spouting their rhetoric.

Speaking only for myself, I can promise to try to be polite and try not to rise to the bait....

----------


## lilymc

> I'm willing to bet it'll be populated with sane, sensible commentary that's respectful of your beliefs.....
> 
> Until folks who have social inadequacies join in and start spouting their rhetoric.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I can promise to try to be polite and try not to rise to the bait....


Thanks.  I appreciate that.

If I post it, I'll make sure to state in the OP that it's not for trolling or baiting.  So we'll see how it goes.

----------


## tod evans

> Thanks.  I appreciate that.
> 
> If I post it, I'll make sure to state in the OP that it's not for trolling or baiting.  So we'll see how it goes.


Best of luck!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thanks.  I appreciate that.
> 
> If I post it, I'll make sure to state in the OP that it's not for trolling or baiting.  So we'll see how it goes.


Just don't trigger anyone and it should be alright.    ~hugs~

----------


## tod evans

> Just don't trigger anyone and it should be alright.    ~hugs~


Whachusay Willis?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Thanks.  I appreciate that.
> 
> If I post it, I'll make sure to state in the OP that it's not for trolling or baiting.  So we'll see how it goes.


i have a couple legitimate questions about the whole veganism thing that might sound trollish but theyre not... theyre sincere questions.. so whenever you get that thread startd ill be happy to ask them to you.

----------


## JK/SEA

> What the hell is the matter with you?


he's a disgruntled 49'er fan, and only talks tough on the internet.

lol

----------


## Jamesiv1

*"I'm willing to bet it'll be populated with sane, sensible commentary that's respectful of your beliefs....."*
boooooring

*"Until folks who have social inadequacies join in and start spouting their rhetoric."*
sweet!!  where's the thread???

----------


## JK/SEA

it must be noted, but perhaps not in this case, that animal abuse leads to human abuse.

----------


## Origanalist

> *"I'm willing to bet it'll be populated with sane, sensible commentary that's respectful of your beliefs....."*
> boooooring
> 
> *"Until folks who have social inadequacies join in and start spouting their rhetoric."*
> sweet!!  where's the thread???


You're in it.

----------


## farreri

> Over 7,500 views so far. Wow!


Views: 8,851

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Whachusay Willis?


  Ain'tchu heard, bro? Triggers are the new Great Source Of Fear, Angst, And Despair for the Booboisie with too much time on their hands.

----------


## squarepusher



----------


## angelatc



----------


## presence

bwaaaahaha!

----------


## farreri



----------


## Chester Copperpot

> 


vegan gains is such a douchebag... at least he didnt go crazy and scream in that video... but hes still a douche

----------


## lilymc

> [video=youtube;lhQR1wi3cwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhQR1wi3cwg[/ video]


He didn't mention it, but I heard that even though people were ready and willing to take the injured pigs to an animal sanctuary, so they could heal and live out the rest of their lives in peace, those pigs were killed right there on the street, then thrown away like garbage.   I'm not talking about the pigs that were slaughtered for meat, but some pigs that weren't going to be used at all.... even though people were begging to take them, they were killed in front of everyone then thrown in the dumpster.

In my view, stuff like this just shows how low humankind has sunk, it's very sad.

----------


## tod evans

> He didn't mention it, but I heard that even though people were ready and willing to take the injured pigs to an animal sanctuary, so they could heal and live out the rest of their lives in peace, those pigs were killed right there on the street, then thrown away like garbage.   I'm not talking about the pigs that were slaughtered for meat, but some pigs that weren't going to be used at all.... even though people were begging to take them, they were killed in front of everyone then thrown in the dumpster.
> 
> In my view, stuff like this just shows how low humankind has sunk, it's very sad.


Putting an animal out of its misery when it's wounded isn't cruel in my opinion.

I was taught, and still believe, that permitting an animal to suffer is one of the most immoral things a person can do.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> He didn't mention it, but I heard that even though people were ready and willing to take the injured pigs to an animal sanctuary, so they could heal and live out the rest of their lives in peace, those pigs were killed right there on the street, then thrown away like garbage.   I'm not talking about the pigs that were slaughtered for meat, but some pigs that weren't going to be used at all.... even though people were begging to take them, they were killed in front of everyone then thrown in the dumpster.
> 
> In my view, stuff like this just shows how low humankind has sunk, it's very sad.


i would have a hard time watching that.

----------


## lilymc

> Putting an animal out of its misery when it's wounded isn't cruel in my opinion.
> 
> I was taught, and still believe, that permitting an animal to suffer is one of the most immoral things a person can do.


I wasn't talking about putting an animal out of its misery.  There were some pigs that were alive and ok, but were injured and there were people willing to take those pigs to a sanctuary to nurse them back to health. NOT permit them to suffer. But instead they were killed in front of those people and thrown in the dumpster.   My point was that if they were going to throw those pigs away anyway, why not allow the people willing to show them kindness take them?

----------


## lilymc

> i would have a hard time watching that.


Yeah, it was sad.  Bite Size vegan did a video on it.  But I think most of you here would probably think she's too 'extreme', so I won't share the video.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I wasn't talking about putting an animal out of its misery.  There were some pigs that were alive and ok, but were injured and there were people willing to take those pigs to a sanctuary to nurse them back to health. NOT permit them to suffer. But instead they were killed in front of those people and thrown in the dumpster.   My point was that if they were going to throw those pigs away anyway, why not allow the people willing to show them kindness take them?


because they are chattel. Now if the pig activists quickly pulled out cash or offered to buy the injured pigs im sure that would have stopped the immediate killing of the pigs.. but people arent going to just give them away free... I know it isnt rational but its like when people throw away their used couch which is perfectly fine and perhaps even not that old.. some people will purposely tear it up to prevent some would-be garbage picker from getting a free somewhat new couch... its their right of course but its so silly.. let somebody have a free couch if youre willing to throw it away....

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Yeah, it was sad.  Bite Size vegan did a video on it.  But I think most of you here would probably think she's too 'extreme', so I won't share the video.


it cant be any worse than all the vegan gain videos that farreri shares.. that guy is the worst.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Originally facing 10 years in prison for giving water to pigs on their way to a slaughterhouse, a Canadian animal rights activist is a free woman after a judge dismissed the mischief charge against her Thursday, the Guardian reports. According to CBC, the pigs were in a truck headed for an Ontario slaughterhouse in 2015 when 49-year-old Anita Krajnc gave them water, ignoring the truck driver's orders to stop. She was accused of tampering with private property and giving the pigs an "unknown substance," the Canadian Press reports. The farmer who owned the pigs says he was worried Krajnc had contaminated them in some way.
> 
> Judge David Harris ruled Krajnc only gave the pigs water, and since the pigs were still accepted by the slaughterhouse, Krajnc didn't "obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of the property." By the time the charge was dismissed, Krajnc was only facing a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $3,600 fine. Krajnc's lawyers say she was acting in the public good and compared her actions to those of Nelson Mandela and Gandhi. Following her victory in court, Krajnc said she and her fellow activists still have "a lot of work to do" because while the judge ruled in her favor, he also ruled that pigs were property and not persons.


http://www.newser.com/story/242281/a...rsty-pigs.html

----------


## Danke

"...activists still have "a lot of work to do" because while the judge ruled in her favor, he also ruled that pigs were property and not persons."

----------


## oyarde

The pig I am eating today was ruled not a person by this judge .

----------


## lilymc

Not to spark up more debate on this thread, but

Pigs are smarter than cats and dogs.  They definitely have personalities and emotions.   In fact, according to the study in this video, they're even smarter than toddlers. 







The good news (from my perspective) is that more and more people are starting to realize that there are numerous good reasons to not eat pigs (and other animals for that matter)...all of which outweigh simply satisfying one's taste buds.  Some influential people are realizing this too, as you can see in this tweet below by Franklin Graham:

----------


## Danke

> Because bacon tastes good...pork chops taste good...and if a pig had a more charming personality, it would cease to be a filthy animal. 
> 
> LOL - Now, in reality Mrs. AF agrees wholeheartedly, she will not eat or cook pork, which basically means that the rest of the family does not either.


Somehow I guess you eat pork products on the boat.  Pig out as it may.

----------


## Danke

I stopped eating out pigs a long time ago, mostly because of peer pressure.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The paranoia is thick with many libertarians.


In light of the incredible, stunning loss of freedoms in so many areas, that people of a libertarian bent have been warning about like so many screaming Cassandras for decades now...our "paranoia" is, in fact, well founded.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is not about him.  My earlier point was simply that more and more people are waking up to the many reasons to not eat meat, and some of those people are influential,  which is why I posted his tweet.  So unless you want to argue that he is not influential, or that people are not changing their mind on this issue, anything else is irrelevant to the point you replied to.


No, quite the opposite, he *is* very influential, and uses that influence to promote a viewpoint that is the siren song of slavery and submission, and basing it on the authority of God himself. The Communist Pope does the same thing, as he rails against "libertarian individualism".

I have no doubt he will use that influence to spread the word of the evils of meat.




> But since you did bring up a different matter, I do want to address it.  You said: "That said, take heart in the fact that you or your philosophy or point of view, is ultimately going to win the day."
> 
> Yes, that is absolutely true. But not for the reasons you think. We're going in that direction because it is biblical. Everything that is happening in this world is (as Johnny Cash put it) "goin' by the book."   As Genesis 1:29 states, it was never God's original design for humans to eat animals. It does not make God happy to see the animals He created being abused, tortured and exploited and treated like garbage.  
> 
> I may not be able to prove this to you, but in the end we are going back to how it was at the very beginning… peace and harmony among all living beings, the way God wants it and originally designed it to be.   
> 
> That doesn't mean that vegans are doing it for biblical reasons or even realize that it's God's will for that peace and harmony that existed in the beginning to be restored. Most of them don't even believe in God.  Most of them do it for ethical or environmental reasons, but I digress.


Hmmm...the future I see is Idiocracy and kindergarten every day for grown men...I *hope* that's not God's plan...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Somehow I guess you eat pork products on the boat.  Pig out as it may.


No, honestly I don't...every so often I might have a breakfast sausage or bacon, that's about it.

She won't believe a word of it, but I try to be respectful even if I disagree.

----------


## lilymc

> No, quite the opposite, he *is* very influential, and uses that influence to promote a viewpoint that is the siren song of slavery and submission, and basing it on the authority of God himself. The Communist Pope does the same thing, as he rails against "libertarian individualism".
> 
> I have no doubt he will use that influence to spread the word of the evils of meat.


Again, this is not about him, but to reply to what you just said, there's nothing wrong with simply sharing one's viewpoint.... even if someone is influential.  Now if he went beyond that, that would be a different story, but I highly doubt that will happen. Besides, he seems to have done it for health reasons, and people who do it for health reasons often aren't as passionate about it as people who do it for ethical reasons.




> Hmmm...the future I see is Idiocracy and kindergarten every day for grown men...I *hope* that's not God's plan...


That's not what I was talking about.  I was talking about the future restoration of peace on earth, when Jesus returns.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I don't eat pork, myself. I did when I was a kid, though. But my dad sure as heck treated our animals with some dignity. Even in death.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's not a sin to eat pork.  It goes against your health, that's all.


Well, what about Corinthians 6:19? I've wondered about that few times. If you think about it, it is the opposite of giving glory to God if the body is His Temple and does not belong to you. And, then, maybe even a situation where we get into the lost consciousness of ones sins. I dunno.

----------


## lilymc

> In light of the incredible, stunning loss of freedoms in so many areas, that people of a libertarian bent have been warning about like so many screaming Cassandras for decades now...our "paranoia" is, in fact, well founded.


Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that our "paranoia" over losing freedom is in fact well-founded. I wasn't talking about that.

This might sound crazy to some people here, but I believe that the powers-that-be want us to remain sick and unhealthy, so I really don't think they're going to be forcing people to eat a healthy plant-based diet anytime soon.  Besides, there is a lot of collusion between the meat and dairy industry and the government, so the conspiracy theory doesn't ring true to me at this point. 

I do believe that veganism is growing rapidly, I see it every day But that's because of the internet and rising awareness on how atrociously innocent animals are being treated, how bad animal agriculture is for the planet, and how unhealthy it is.

And YouTube videos like this:

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This might sound crazy to some people here, but I believe that the powers-that-be want us to remain sick and unhealthy, so I really don't think they're going to be forcing people to eat a healthy plant-based diet anytime soon.  Besides, there is a lot of collusion between the meat and dairy industry and the government, so the conspiracy theory doesn't ring true to me at this point.


Don't forget big pharma, lily. It's a revolving door. The mercantilists are getting crazy rich. I think they even have government legislation in the works for medicine police. There was a thread on that some place around here. One big ol revolving, mercantilist, circle. 

 I think somebody here mentioned about all of the great modern agriculture we have. lol. Sht, they even have laws in the works to take away our freedom of choice there, too...but, hey...there's a pill to make it feel better, you don't need to know what you're eating. Ah yes. Modern agriculture. lol. It's for the chidrens...

----------


## lilymc

> Don't forget big pharma, lily. It's a revolving door. The mercantilists are getting crazy rich. I think they even have government legislation in the works for medicine police. There was a thread on that some place around here. One big ol revolving, mercantilist, circle. 
> 
>  I think somebody here mentioned about all of the great modern agriculture we have. lol. Sht, they even have laws in the works to take away our freedom of choice there, too...but, hey...there's a pill to make it feel better, you don't need to know what you're eating. Ah yes. Modern agriculture. lol. It's for the chidrens...


Yep, I agree that it is a sinister cycle.  I didn't realize how bad it was until I started researching all of this stuff when my dad got cancer. It is truly sad that the whole system is corrupt and certain powers care more about money and control than getting to the root of the problem and prevention through good nutrition, etc.

----------


## lilymc

> Nice snark, lily.


I was going to put an 'I'm playing' smiley after that, but I forgot to.

It may have sounded too harsh, but that word _is_ pretty close to the reality. It's just that people don't think of it that way. It reminds me of this meme.  

OK, I'll stop before I piss off more people.

----------


## donnay

> Well, what about Corinthians 6:19? I've wondered about that few times. If you think about it, it is the opposite of giving glory to God if the body is His Temple and does not belong to you. And, then, maybe even a situation where we get into the lost consciousness of ones sins. I dunno.


Good point.  However, in the Bible it speaks of statues, ordinances and law.  

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

When Christ died on the cross, he took the stripes and we get the healing.  The statutes and ordinances were nail to the cross but the law remained the same.

Isaiah 53:5  (KJV)
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Colossians 2:14-17 (KJV)

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

God spoke Hosea 6:6 
6 For I desired mercy, [Love] and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I was going to put an 'I'm playing' smiley after that, but I forgot to.
> 
> It may have sounded too harsh, but that word _is_ pretty close to the reality. It's just that people don't think of it that way. It reminds me of this meme.  
> 
> OK, I'll stop before I piss off more people.


It must've been my paranoia. 

As far as the meme goes, the vegan options they form to look like meat is gross and weird. Why do that? I've stated before that I like those chipolte veggie burgers but I think it's dumb to call them a burger. I also think it's dumb to put the fake grill marks on them. It's not just meat eaters who feel that way, I know a few vegetarians who agree the meat shaped tofu is weird too.

----------


## angelatc

> It's not paranoia. Many vegans _do_ advocate for forcing people to give up our beloved carcasses. 
> 
> Nice snark, lily.


Adding the religious twist gives a whole new level of the whole "holier than thou" things vegans emit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that our "paranoia" over losing freedom is in fact well-founded. I wasn't talking about that.
> *
> This might sound crazy to some people here, but I believe that the powers-that-be want us to remain sick and unhealthy, so I really don't think they're going to be forcing people to eat a healthy plant-based diet anytime soon.  Besides, there is a lot of collusion between the meat and dairy industry and the government, so the conspiracy theory doesn't ring true to me at this point.* 
> 
> I do believe that veganism is growing rapidly, I see it every day… But that's because of the internet and rising awareness on how atrociously innocent animals are being treated, how bad animal agriculture is for the planet, and how unhealthy it is.
> 
> And YouTube videos like this:


Totally agree. But the fruit and veggie producers in big agra aren't exactly perfect angels either. If you don't source your fruits, veggies, seeds, grains, and legumes well, it can make you sick too.  Nowadays I'm *almost* lacto-ovo vegetarian simply because I can get the macronutrients and nutrients I need cheaper and more efficiently this way. Eggs ftw.  (When I do have fleshmeats, I typically prefer poultry/fish to beef)

----------


## Anti Federalist

I guess eating meat is OK if you're a cop, according to Franklin Graham, who weighed in on the fake news story about the entire staff of a BBQ joint in NC rapping NWA's "$#@! da Police" at a couple of cops there having a meal.




> Smithfield’s Chicken ’N Bar-B-Q restaurants have great fried chicken and barbecue—being from North Carolina, I’ve eaten there many times. I was shocked and disappointed to see where workers at one location had disrespected police officers by singing a vulgar, explicit, “anti-cop” rap song to them as they were there trying to have a meal.
> 
>     It is beyond explanation why they would even think about treating law enforcement this way. I’m sure the owner was appalled as well—he has apologized and said he would “terminate anyone employed that doesn’t share our RESPECT of ALL law enforcement.”
> 
>     The employees who participated deserve to be fired! They haven’t asked my opinion, but I think this restaurant should give any uniformed police officers who are forgiving enough to come there to eat this month a barbecue sandwich and drink on the house. Do you agree?


Fact of the matter is the cop's story posted online was bull$#@!...after reviewing security cameras, it was shown nothing of the sort happened.

And Graham then back pedaled...but he doesn't sound vegan to me.




> I’m so glad Smithfield’s Bar-B-Q ‘N Chicken Restaurant and the Raleigh Police Department have investigated and clarified what took place in the Jones Sausage Road location incident reported on Fox News a couple of days ago, and that the employee involved no longer works there.
> 
> *    I agree with franchise owner David Harris who emphasized everyone’s support of law enforcement–“God bless all the men and women who put their lives at risk.” This restaurant has some of the best fried chicken, barbecue, and coleslaw I’ve ever eaten anywhere—if you get a chance, I recommend you go try it. It makes me hungry just posting about i*t!


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/zim...s-told-police/

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Adding the religious twist gives a whole new level of the whole "holier than thou" things vegans emit.


Ha. Excuse me, but your comment just screams of "holier than thou" 

In fact, I don't think I've ever read a comment from you that didn't. Ya witch. lolol.

It reads to me like you're trying to get the board to gang up on lily like you used to try to do to donnay with your little smartass remarks. 

And quit coming off like you're little miss queen bee libertarian. You aren't one. If it were up to you, and if your posting history is of any relevance, I think that one's Liberty of freedom of choice with due respect for the equal rights of others would be a thing of the past at the barrel of a government gun.

In fact, and consistent with the traditional American philosophy of self-governance, it's not even possibe to identify oneself as a libertarian if one rejects a relationship with God, as you do. So please do try not to open your pie hole about things which you clearly do not, nor want to understand.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Matter of fact, whenever I read some folks mocking Religion or ones personal relationship with God (two entirely different things, btw) while simultaneously pimping like they understand what liberty-responsibility, meaning both its fundamental principles as well as its primary foundation for moral code as an Indivisible whole, really means in traditional America, I always think of a very good book that I have. Which I'll paste from. It's no surprise it'd be Principle 1 that is the greatest shortcoming of many self-proclaimed libertarians. 



*
A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy*


*The Principle*

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance *compared with things material*.


*Religious Nature
*
2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. *The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man.* *To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
*
*The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.
*

*An Indivisible Whole
*
3. *The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

*

*The Individual's Self-respect*

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.


*Some Things Excluded*

5. *This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.
*
*It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
*

*The Truly American Concept*

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.


*America a Haven For All Religions*

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.


*The Conclusion*

8. *Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

*The American ideal of 1776: the twelve basic American principles

----------


## donnay

John 8:32 - And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

John 8:33 - They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

John 8:36 - If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

2 Peter 2:19 - While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Gal 2:4 -  And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Gal 5:1 - Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Corinthians 3:17 - *Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.*

James 1:25 - But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

----------


## lilymc

> It must've been my paranoia. 
> 
> As far as the meme goes, the vegan options they form to look like meat is gross and weird. Why do that? I've stated before that I like those chipolte veggie burgers but I think it's dumb to call them a burger. I also think it's dumb to put the fake grill marks on them. It's not just meat eaters who feel that way, I know a few vegetarians who agree the meat shaped tofu is weird too.


Yeah, I too am not a big fan of how they try to make meat substitutes seem exactly like meat.  But I think they do that for people who are transitioning into veganism, who might still have some desire for "meat."   I mean, when someone spends decades eating meat/dairy and suddenly begins a radically different diet, maybe it helps with the transition to have things that appear like food they used to eat. They are getting better at creating meat substitutes... The funny thing is, I've heard of vegans giving their relatives something that had faux meat in it, and person who ate it thought it was meat.  From a vegan perspective, that's a good thing... for those who are trying to get their family or friends to go vegan.

----------


## lilymc

> Totally agree. But the fruit and veggie producers in big agra aren't exactly perfect angels either. If you don't source your fruits, veggies, seeds, grains, and legumes well, it can make you sick too.  Nowadays I'm *almost* lacto-ovo vegetarian simply because I can get the macronutrients and nutrients I need cheaper and more efficiently this way. Eggs ftw.  (When I do have fleshmeats, I typically prefer poultry/fish to beef)


Good point. I need to find a local farmers market. I moved a few months ago and I've just been getting my food from the grocery store.  And different topic, but Mexico (where I'm living now) is one of the least vegan places around.  I never see products for vegans at the grocery store here. And it's hilarious when I go to a restaurant and ask for a burrito without meat.   One time the lady was visibly shocked, like if I was from another planet. Ha ha.  Times like that I wished I lived in a big city in the US, where there are tons of options.

----------


## Superfluous Man

I keep thinking this thread is about Canadian bacon.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I keep thinking this thread is about Canadian bacon.




Not bacon.



Bacon!

----------


## specsaregood

> Not bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> Bacon!



pork roll.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good point. I need to find a local farmers market. I moved a few months ago and I've just been getting my food from the grocery store.  And different topic, but Mexico (where I'm living now) is one of the least vegan places around.  I never see products for vegans at the grocery store here. And it's hilarious when I go to a restaurant and ask for a burrito without meat.   One time the lady was visibly shocked, like if I was from another planet. Ha ha.  Times like that I wished I lived in a big city in the US, where there are tons of options.


LOL  The good thing about Mexico is that the region is good for growing lots of high-protein and high-fiber beans and lentils. Harder to grow cruciferous vegetables and all but citrus and a few other fruits, but it's do-able.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Yeah, I too am not a big fan of how they try to make meat substitutes seem exactly like meat.  But I think they do that for people who are transitioning into veganism, who might still have some desire for "meat."   I mean, when someone spends decades eating meat/dairy and suddenly begins a radically different diet, maybe it helps with the transition to have things that appear like food they used to eat. They are getting better at creating meat substitutes... The funny thing is, *I've heard of vegans giving their relatives something that had faux meat in it, and person who ate it thought it was meat.*  From a vegan perspective, that's a good thing... for those who are trying to get their family or friends to go vegan.


I've tried a lot of meat substitutes and anyone who was tricked is probably used to eating McNuggets - they're not meat, either. I think it actually makes it harder on people. When they see Burger in the name and the fake grill marks, they're expecting it to be a burger and even thought it may come close to tasting like one, texturally it's all wrong. I think going in with that mentality is a set up for disappointment. I think it would sell better as a veggie patty or something like that. I'd also ditch the fake grill marks and put a crunchy coating on them. That sounds good, I may make one tomorrow.

----------


## Danke

Last vegan dish I ate smelled like tuna.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

in 5 years "Woman given 10 years in prison for giving loaf of bread to Cis white male"

----------


## Anti Federalist

> pork roll.


I miss Jersey sandwiches.

----------


## donnay

Taylor ham cooking smell like feet and ass cooking.

----------


## tod evans

I had bacon-n-eggs for breakfast.....


None of that turkey $#@! either!

----------


## specsaregood

> I miss Jersey sandwiches.


I hear my FIL (deceased) won a scrapple songwriting contest year ago.  There is supposed to be a tape floating around somewhere, but it has yet to turn up.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I had bacon-n-eggs for breakfast.....
> 
> 
> None of that turkey $#@! either!


Have you ever had fresh bacon? The kind that's not smoked? That's how my dad always had the bacon done when he sent his pigs in. Bacon for us kinda sucked growing up. Didn't really taste like the bacon you get in the store. Totally flavorless.

----------


## tod evans

> Have you ever had fresh bacon? The kind that's not smoked? That's how my dad always had the bacon done when he sent his pigs in. Bacon for us kinda sucked growing up. Didn't really taste like the bacon you get in the store. Totally flavorless.


I have the slaughter house smoke bacon, hams and hocks...

But to answer your question yes I've tried unsmoked bacon....Blech!

----------


## Danke

> Taylor ham cooking smell like feet and ass cooking.


I'm not gonna ask how you know that, but I suspect AF has something to do with it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm not gonna ask how you know that, but I suspect AF has something to do with it.


You forgot to add diesel and gas, smoke, frumunda and mansweat odors.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Taylor ham cooking smell like feet and ass cooking.


I don't know what a taylor ham is but a craving for biscuits, country ham, and red eye gravy just flew up on me.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I hear my FIL (deceased) won a scrapple songwriting contest year ago.  There is supposed to be a tape floating around somewhere, but it has yet to turn up.


Now that I would like to hear.

Not only do I miss a good pork roll, egg and cheese on a hard roll sammich...but why the hell can't anybody make a good Jersey sub?

Waiting for a Jersey Mikes to open near me.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't know what a taylor ham is but a craving for biscuits, country ham, and red eye gravy just flew up on me.


Taylor ham is the bastardized name for pork roll, which is bacon's hot, slutty sister.

----------


## donnay

> I don't know what a taylor ham is but a craving for biscuits, country ham, and red eye gravy just flew up on me.


It's like salami and you slice it and cook it.  When you are cooking it make sure to open all the windows in your house. *gag*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's like salami and you slice it and cook it.  When you are cooking it make sure to open all the windows in your house. *gag*


Oh please...nicely done pork roll smells like heaven.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I don't know what a taylor ham is but a craving for biscuits, country ham, and red eye gravy just flew up on me.


oh, man... that was one of my Dad's favorite things. His brother every Christmas sent us a Virginia ham and Mom would make eggs, home-made biscuits, grilled ham and red-eye gravy.

good eats.

----------


## Suzanimal

> It's like salami and you slice it and cook it.  When you are cooking it make sure to open all the windows in your house. *gag*


I don't plan on cooking it. It sounds like Spam and looks like fried bologna.


I think I'm gonna need some grits to go with my biscuits, ham, and red eye. I'm hungry.

----------


## Suzanimal

> oh, man... that was one of my Dad's favorite things. His brother every Christmas sent us a Virginia ham and Mom would make eggs, home-made biscuits, grilled ham and red-eye gravy.
> 
> good eats.


It'll make a dog break his chain.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't plan on cooking it. It sounds like Spam and looks like fried bologna.
> 
> 
> I think I'm gonna need some grits to go with my biscuits, ham, and red eye. I'm hungry.


Put some extra cayenne in the redeye, throw in a cuppa strong black coffee and I'm in.......

You can have the grits though...

----------


## ARealConservative

> Thank you! Finally someone is rational around here. I wonder why liberty people get accused of being heartless?!


you are an idiot - property rights matter.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You can have the grits though...

----------


## donnay

> I don't plan on cooking it. It sounds like Spam and looks like fried bologna.
> 
> 
> I think I'm gonna need some grits to go with my biscuits, ham, and red eye. I'm hungry.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't plan on cooking it. It sounds like Spam and looks like fried bologna.


Blasphemy!

----------


## Jamesiv1

> 


lol

Yankees don't understand the magic of well-prepared grits

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yeah, I too am not a big fan of how they try to make meat substitutes seem exactly like meat.  But I think they do that for people who are *transitioning into veganism*, who might still have some desire for "meat."   I mean, when someone spends decades eating meat/dairy and suddenly begins a radically different diet, maybe it helps with the transition to have things that appear like food they used to eat. They are getting better at creating meat substitutes... The funny thing is, I've heard of vegans giving their relatives something that had faux meat in it, and person who ate it thought it was meat.  From a vegan perspective, that's a good thing... for those who are trying to get their family or friends to go vegan.


Are people who are transitioning to veganism, trans-vegan?

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Barack Obama: Eating More Steaks Contributes to Climate Change*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...limate-change/

by Charlie Spiering 9 May 2017

Former President Barack Obama warned the world that more people on the planet were eating meat, causing a dramatic rise in climate emissions.

“As people want to increase meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sector,” Obama said, pointing to countries that were consuming more meat.

The former president shared his views about the growing threat during a conversation about food with his former chef Sam Kass at a food innovation summit in Milan.

“People aren’t as familiar with the impact of cows and methane,” Obama said, adding that “as people want to increase more meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sectors.”

The amount of cows, Obama explained, were contributing to global pollution, alluding to the amounts of methane gas emissions from cow herds.

“No matter what, we are going to see an increase in meat consumption,” Obama said, pointing to developing economies in China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. More advanced countries, Obama said, would have to teach people to “have a smaller steak” and explore reductions to their meat consumption.

“What it does mean is that we’re also going to have to find ways to produce protein in a more efficient way,” he said.

During the conversation, Obama argued with Kass about how many steaks he had cooked him.

Kass said that he probably cooked “thousands of steaks” for the president, but Obama interrupted.

“I don’t think, thousands,” he protested.

“Well hundreds maybe,” Kass backtracked. “I’ve been cooking for you for 10 years.”

“What is true is that I’m not a vegetarian,” Obama admitted, adding that he “respected vegetarians” but continued to eat meat.

----------


## Suzanimal

> 



 I love grits.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> lol
> 
> Yankees don't understand the magic of well-prepared grits


QFT

----------


## Suzanimal

> Put some extra cayenne in the redeye, throw in a cuppa strong black coffee and I'm in.......
> 
> You can have the grits though...


I've never put cayenne in the red eye (strong black coffee is a must) but it sounds good. I think I'm gonna need a fried (egg over easy), too.

----------


## tod evans

> *I've never put cayenne in the red eye* (strong black coffee is a must) but it sounds good. I think I'm gonna need a fried (egg over easy), too.


Try it....

I do black pepper too...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I love grits.


U know how to make chicken fried steak, suz? I haven't had that since I've last been to Kentucky to visit gramma (R.I.P.) a really long time ago. That's the last time I had grits, too.  I'm-a gonna come visit you and sample ur delicious cookings!     It will be a handy #lifeskill to work on.

----------


## Suzanimal

> U know how to make chicken fried steak, suz? I haven't had that since I've last been to Kentucky to visit gramma (R.I.P.) a really long time ago. That's the last time I had grits, too.  I'm-a gonna come visit you and sample ur delicious cookings!     It will be a handy #lifeskill to work on.


Hell, yeah! Cube steak and gravy is one of my all time favorites. I think fried pork chops is my very favorite, though. 

I don't make that stuff often but I do love it.

----------


## Danke

> *Barack Obama: Eating More Steaks Contributes to Climate Change*
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...limate-change/
> 
> by Charlie Spiering 9 May 2017
> 
> Former President Barack Obama warned the world that more people on the planet were eating meat, causing a dramatic rise in climate emissions.
> 
> “As people want to increase meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sector,” Obama said, pointing to countries that were consuming more meat.
> ...


https://www.google.com/search?sclien...jHEbsB7ChvlPM:

----------


## lilymc

> you are an idiot - property rights matter.


Animals do not belong to you.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Animals do not belong to you.


The ones I purchase do.

----------


## lilymc

> Are people who are transitioning to veganism, trans-vegan?


Ha. Fortunately, I've never heard anyone use that term.

----------


## lilymc

> The ones I purchase do.


Not according to God.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Animals do not belong to you.


Wow, that's a pretty stunning reversal of property rights.

So what are they then, "rent seekers"?

"Dependents"?

----------


## lilymc

I made a video on that topic, a few weeks ago. Even if you guys disagree, you should check it out.

----------


## lilymc

> Wow, that's a pretty stunning reversal of property rights.
> 
> So what are they then, "rent seekers"?
> 
> "Dependents"?


Psalm 24:1.  God owns everything. We are just the caretakers or managers.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Not according to God.


Then why is stealing an animal considered theft?

 Exodus 22:1
If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

----------


## Danke

> I made a video on that topic, a few weeks ago. Even if you guys disagree, you should check it out.


Why don't you show all those carnivores eating?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Psalm 24:1.  God owns everything. We are just the caretakers or managers.


But the best management practices include the concept of private property.

People *own* cattle...thus, billions of cattle.

People did *not* own right whales...thus, almost extinct.

----------


## lilymc

> Then why is stealing an animal considered theft?
> 
>  Exodus 22:1
> If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.


Obviously stealing is a sin, but God owns everything. The Bible is very clear on that. I realize of course that not everyone here believes the Bible, but, just saying.





> Why don't you show all those carnivores eating?


That actually wasn't the way things originally were designed to be. As hard to believe as this may sound, according to the Bible in the beginning even the animals were vegetarian. (Genesis 1:30)

----------


## Danke

> People did *not* own right whales...thus, almost extinct.


It must be god's fault, he being the owner.

----------


## Danke

> That actually wasn't the way things originally were designed to be. As hard to believe as this may sound, according to the Bible in the beginning even the animals were vegetarian. (Genesis 1:30)



i always suspected Spot was a sinner, especially how he humps everyone's legs.

----------


## lilymc

> But the best management practices include the concept of private property.
> 
> People *own* cattle...thus, billions of cattle.
> 
> People did *not* own right whales...thus, almost extinct.


The reason certain types of animals are going extinct is because people hunt them too much. 

Just to be clear, I'm not against the concept of private property I'm all for it.  I just know that in reality we don't actually own these things, God does. We are expected to take care of everything, and we've done a horrible job of that.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Not according to God.


I don't give a rats ass about your god.

you mess with animals I own, and you can meet him right quick though

----------


## lilymc

> I don't give a rats ass about your god.
> 
> you mess with animals I own, and you can meet him right quick though


Yes, I can see you don't.

----------


## William Tell

> I don't give a rats ass about your god.
> 
> you mess with animals I own, and you can meet him right quick though


 Fortunately her God doesn't want to mess with your animals. God is the Author of Liberty who has given us all the good things we have.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Yes, I can see you you don't.


you you are a dumb dumb

----------


## tod evans

> I can't believe this thread is still going too.
> 
> I was going to post a general thread on veganism... because we have so many little threads related to that topic here and there.  So it would be good to have it all one place.  But I've been busy, so I just haven't done it yet.





> I'm willing to bet it'll be populated with sane, sensible commentary that's respectful of your beliefs.....
> 
> Until folks who have social inadequacies join in and start spouting their rhetoric.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I can promise to try to be polite and try not to rise to the bait....





> Thanks.  I appreciate that.
> 
> If I post it, I'll make sure to state in the OP that it's not for trolling or baiting.  So we'll see how it goes.





> Best of luck!






> I don't give a rats ass about your god.
> 
> you mess with animals I own, and you can meet him right quick though





> you you are a dumb dumb


Oh goody you're back....

----------


## ARealConservative

> Oh goody you're back....


so we can add "back" to the long list of words you misuse.

----------


## tod evans

> so *we* can add "back" to the long list of words you misuse.


You may do as you please but speaking for others is pretty ignorant..

I'd expect no less though.

----------


## ARealConservative

> You may do as you please but speaking for others is pretty ignorant..
> 
> I'd expect no less though.


speaking of expecting no less - I'm arguing with someone about if we can own animals

you are arguing about I vs We.

have at it clown shoes.  I'm not interested

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Just to be clear, I'm not against the concept of private property… I'm all for it.  I just know that in reality we don't actually own these things, God does.


That's doublethink.

There can be no such thing as private property, if all things are owned by someone or something else.

This is pretty much what the Red Pope thinks.

----------


## William Tell

> The reason certain types of animals are going extinct is because people hunt them too much. 
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not against the concept of private property… I'm all for it.  I just know that in reality we don't actually own these things, God does. We are expected to take care of everything, and we've done a horrible job of that.


So, on the one hand you say you believe in the concept of private property, but on the other you tell Suz that according to God she doesn't own property even though there are hundreds of bible verses that back her up?

I guess the logic is something like if you say Suz doesn't own something, then you can speak on God's behalf and tell her what to do with it?

God does say we should manage our property well, but it is our property he has given it to us and our neighbor doesn't get to control our use of it in God's name.

----------


## tod evans

> speaking of expecting no less - I'm arguing with someone about if we can own animals
> 
> *you are arguing about I vs We.*
> 
> have at it clown shoes.  I'm not interested


No imbecile I'm calling you out for being an $#@! again...That and your inability to pen coherent English.

We agree on owning animals.

----------


## lilymc

> That's doublethink.
> 
> There can be no such thing as private property, if all things are owned by someone or something else.
> 
> This is pretty much what the Red Pope thinks.


We can still have what is called "private property" even though we don't actually own it, in a bigger picture sort of way.  Because the only other alternative is what the leftists want, which both you and I completely disagree with.





> So, on the one hand you say you believe in the concept of private property, but on the other you tell Suz that according to God she doesn't own property even though there are hundreds of bible verses that back her up?
> 
> I guess the logic is something like if you say Suz doesn't own something, then you can speak on God's behalf and tell her what to do with it?
> 
> God does say we should manage our property well, but it is our property he has given it to us and our neighbor doesn't get to control our use of it in God's name.


Actually, there are numerous verses that clearly state that God owns everything. I'm surprised you're even arguing that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> We can still have what is called "private property" even though we don't actually own it, in a bigger picture sort of way.  Because the only other alternative is what the leftists want, which both you and I completely disagree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are numerous verses that clearly state that God owns everything. I'm surprised you're even arguing that.


But what about Genesis 1:26?

----------


## donnay

Genesis 1:28
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: *and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.*” 


DOMINION, noun [Latin See Dominant.]

1. Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling.

The dominion of the Most High is an everlasting dominion Daniel 4:3.

2. Power to direct, control, use and dispose of at pleasure; right of possession and use without being accountable; as the private dominion of individuals.

3. Territory under a government; region; country; district governed, or within the limits of the authority of a prince or state; as the British dominions.

4. Government; right of governing. Jamaica is under the dominion of Great Britain.

5. Predominance; ascendant.

6. An order of angels.

Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. Colossians 1:16.

7. Persons governed.

Judah was his sanctuary; Israel his dominion Psalms 114:2.

----------


## lilymc

> But what about Genesis 1:26?


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 1:26

Yes, we have dominion over the animals and the earth. But I believe that the concept of dominion has been greatly misunderstood. First of all, it doesn't mean that we own it, it means that we have been put in charge of it.  Just as the store manager is not the same thing as the owner.

Secondly, it doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want… In other words, God still expects us to treat His creation with respect and care and mercy.

I believe that dominion is like a kingship.  So do we want to be good kings or bad kings? Who should be model ourselves after? We should probably model ourselves after the King of kings...wouldn't you agree?  Jesus is merciful, kind, loving, sacrificial.  He taught us to treat others the way we would like to be treated.  So as kings or rulers, should we be exploiting, abusing and terrorizing the animals just because we have dominion over them?

In the very beginning, which was God's original design, we did not eat animals. (Genesis 1:29 – 30).  That was the way God wanted it, and since we don't have to eat animals in order to survive, I see no reason to go against God's original design, and go against His command to be merciful.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
> 
> Genesis 1:26
> 
> Yes, we have dominion over the animals and the earth. But I believe that the concept of dominion has been greatly misunderstood. First of all, it doesn't mean that we own it, it means that we have been put in charge of it.  Just as the store manager is not the same thing as the owner.
> 
> Secondly, it doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want… In other words, God still expects us to treat His creation with respect and care and mercy.
> 
> I believe that dominion is like a kingship.  So do we want to be good kings or bad kings? Who should be model ourselves after? We should probably model ourselves after the King of kings...wouldn't you agree?  *Jesus is merciful, kind, loving, sacrificial.  He taught us to treat others the way we would like to be treated.  So as kings or rulers, should we be exploiting, abusing and terrorizing the animals just because we have dominion over them?*
> ...


Jesus also ate meat and not one person in this thread has advocated abusing animals.

----------


## Danke

I bet a good slab of veal will change your mind.

----------


## Danke

> Jesus also ate meat and not one person in this thread has advocated abusing animals.


Some animals like a little abuse from  time to time.

----------


## lilymc

> Jesus also ate meat and not one person in this thread has advocated abusing animals.


There are many people who believe that the verse about Jesus eating fish was an interpolation, for a few reasons.  I don't want to go into this in depth right now because I have to start cooking dinner and as I told William, I want to do a lot more studying on this.

As for abusing animals, I agree with you… I know that none of you guys are for animal abuse. But the sad reality is that something like 99% of meat comes from factory farms, and the animals are totally abused there.   Even the places that claim to be humane are anything but. 

So by eating meat, we are (knowingly or not) contributing to that and supporting it.

----------


## Dr.3D

Chicken hens lay nearly an egg a day, even if there is no rooster in the coup. 

Is it wrong to gather those eggs and eat them?    

If they are not gathered, they spoil and rot in the nest.

----------


## Suzanimal

> There are many people who believe that the verse about Jesus eating fish was an interpolation, for a few reasons.  I don't want to go into this in depth right now because I have to start cooking dinner and as I told William, I want to do a lot more studying on this.


I've read some of the arguments and found them fairly lame.




> As for abusing animals, I agree with you… I know that none of you guys are for animal abuse. But the sad reality is that something like 99% of meat comes from factory farms, and the animals are totally abused there.   Even the places that claim to be humane are anything but. 
> 
> *So by eating meat, we are (knowingly or not) contributing to that and supporting it.*


So by eating venison my uncle humanely killed I'm contributing to abuse on factory farms? That's nonsense.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Chicken hens lay nearly an egg a day, even if there is no rooster in the coup. 
> 
> Is it wrong to gather those eggs and eat them?    
> 
> If they are not gathered, they spoil and rot in the nest.


In a vegan world, I imagine chickens would be extinct.

----------


## lilymc

> Chicken hens lay nearly an egg a day, even if there is no rooster in the coup. 
> 
> Is it wrong to gather those eggs and eat them?    
> 
> If they are not gathered, they spoil and rot in the nest.



I think it's because chickens have been genetically modified to lay that many eggs. 

When you have time, check this out:

----------


## Lamp

I suppose there will be kangaroo courts pertaining to the eating of porterhouses now?

----------


## lilymc

> I've read some of the arguments and found them fairly lame.
> 
> 
> So by eating venison my uncle humanely killed I'm contributing to abuse on factory farms? That's nonsense.


I was talking about people in general, not you or anyone here in particular.

----------


## tod evans

> In a vegan world, I imagine chickens would be extinct.


Chickens are awful animals, dirty and cannibalistic but they sure do taste good!

The first time a rooster spurs a vegan they might understand how good it feels to chop off a head...

----------


## Suzanimal

> Chickens are awful animals, dirty and cannibalistic but they sure do taste good!
> 
> The first time a rooster spurs a vegan they might understand how good it feels to chop off a head...


Thank you!!! I hate the nasty things. Eating's all they're good for.

I suppose in a vegan world there'd be a rat problem, too. If it's not okay to kill to eat then it certainty can't be okay to kill because you dislike an animal.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think it's because chickens have been genetically modified to lay that many eggs. 
> 
> When you have time, check this out:


Well, you didn't answer my question.  

Say I have 10 chickens out in my backyard coup.  Is it wrong to eat the eggs my chickens lay or should I get rid of my chickens and forget about the eggs?

----------


## Danke

> 


I'd eat her.

----------


## tod evans

> Thank you!!! I hate the nasty things. Eating's all they're good for.
> 
> I suppose in a vegan world there'd be a rat problem, too. If it's not okay to kill to eat then it certainty can't be okay to kill because you dislike an animal.


I'm bettin' once the rats got into their beans and rice they'd be for killing them too.....

----------


## lilymc

> Well, you didn't answer my question.  
> 
> Say I have 10 chickens out in my backyard coup.  Is it wrong to eat the eggs my chickens lay or should I get rid of my chickens and forget about the eggs?


I'm not going to say it's wrong for everyone, but to me it feels wrong. This is coming from someone who used to love eggs and  used to eat eggs probably five times a week at least.    Why, well, for some of the reasons that are stated in that video.  I don't think it's right to genetically alter an animal for our benefit, if it causes harm to the animal. 

 Plus, I just don't see it as necessary. I can get protein from other sources. I'll let the chickens eat their own eggs if they want.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Good debating....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't give a rats ass about your god.
> 
> you mess with animals I own, and you can meet him right quick though


Except for you, you're a dick. She didn't say not one thing about tinkering with your stuff. And now you got her dead in the argument. lolol. That's a little strong, isn't it? heh. Ya wackobird.

----------


## Danke

> Except for you, you're a dick. She didn't say not one thing about tinkering with your stuff. And now you got her dead in the argument. lolol.That's a little strong, isn't it? heh. Ya wackobird.


Yes she did, she believes you don't have ownership.  That means the collective will decide your fate.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yes she did, she believes you don't have ownership.


No, she doesn't. She simply doesn't believe that animals are material things. This is a biblical interpretation on her part.




> That means the collective will decide your fate.


This would be true if she accepted that animals are material things.

Seems to me that lily's bringing her argument from a lawful premise. Not a legal one. 

Do you know the difference between what is lawful and what is legal, Dank?

----------


## Danke

> No, she doesn't. She simply doesn't believe that animals are material things. This is a biblical interpretation on her part.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be true if she accepted that animals are material things.
> 
> Seems to me that lily's bringing her argument from a lawful premise. Not a legal one. 
> 
> Do you know the difference between what is lawful and what is legal, Dank?



You r one stupid $#@!.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'm pretty sur that God permitted Noah to bleed the animals and eat em after the flood. I still haven't wrapped my head around that all the way but I think it was supposed to be a temporary situation because everything was wiped off the Earth.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'm not going to say it's wrong for everyone, but to me it feels wrong. This is coming from someone who used to love eggs and  used to eat eggs probably five times a week at least.    Why, well, for some of the reasons that are stated in that video.  I don't think it's right to genetically alter an animal for our benefit, if it causes harm to the animal. 
> 
>  Plus, I just don't see it as necessary. I can get protein from other sources. I'll let the chickens eat their own eggs if they want.


Well then comes the problem of why I would bother to keep chickens at all.   Is it better for the chickens if they don't exist?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You r one stupid $#@!.


Well, at least I'm not gonna burn in Hell. Tee hee hee hee hee.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> In the very beginning, which was God's original design, we did not eat animals.


But that has never been the case.

Predator and prey has been the way of life on this earth for hundreds of millions of years.

----------


## lilymc

> Well then comes the problem of why I would bother to keep chickens at all.   Is it better for the chickens if they don't exist?



Yeah, I'd say so... especially the factory farm chickens.   It's kind of the same way with all farm animals. We breed them, in order to use and eat them, that's why there are so many of them.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yeah, I'd say so... especially the factory farm chickens.   It's kind of the same way with all farm animals. We breed them, in order to use and eat them, that's why there are so many of them.


Right...because they are regarded as private property.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I think it's because chickens have been genetically modified to lay that many eggs.


I've kept Rhode Island Reds before, and they have been known for being "good layers" for 200 years, long before laboratory genetic modification was even possible.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I've kept Rhode Island Reds before, and they have been known for being "good layers" for 200 years, long before laboratory genetic modification was even possible.


Same with the Barred Rocks.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Yeah, I'd say so... especially the factory farm chickens.   It's kind of the same way with all farm animals. We breed them, in order to use and eat them,* that's why there are so many of them.*


There would be none if we set them free.

----------


## Dr.3D

> There would be none if we set them free.


Yep, a raccoon or some other varmint would make short work of them.

----------


## William Tell

> No, she doesn't. She simply doesn't believe that animals are material things. This is a biblical interpretation on her part.


 That's not what I'm getting. The verse she used was the one that says God owns all things on earth. So its kind of like walking up to a gas station owner and saying he doesn't own that because God does.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's not what I'm getting. The verse she used was the one that says God owns all things on earth. So its kind of like walking up to a gas station owner and saying he doesn't own that because God does.


Of course one must realize, God put the owner in charge of His gas station.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's not what I'm getting.


Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so  yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here. 




> The verse she used was the one that says God owns all things on earth. So its kind of like walking up to a gas station owner and saying he doesn't own that because God does.


Well, again, that's the scenario you guys are spinning it into.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so  yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here.


But that was my point all along.

Ownership comes with and implies responsibility.

If it belongs to someone else, well, frankly, who cares then?

----------


## William Tell

> Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so  yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here. 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, that's the scenario you guys are spinning it into.


 No. I'm not flipping the debate. In fact I agree that we should treat animals decently. I just disagree that can't include eating them since Jesus Christ did eat them and there's no way around it without denying some verses are accurate.

I also disagree on ownership because there are countless verses where God talks about man owning things including animals.

I know you are friends with lily but you really don't need to defend her here. I'm being perfectly nice and having an honest and friendly debate.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Yes, I can see that. Respectfully, though, I think some of you are flipping the terms of controversy in order to change the debate so  yuns can kind of create the situation where y'all can defend libertariaism without having to acknowledge responsibility. It's not a new phenomenon. It's always like that around here.


Responsibility? For what? Eating animals? I take full responsibility.





> Well, again, that's the scenario you guys are spinning it into.


WT wasn't spinning what she said. She quoted a verse and he's looking for clarification. Frankly, I don't get where she's going with it, either.

----------


## lilymc

> If it belongs to someone else, well, frankly, who cares then?



If the Owner is going to hold the manager accountable for the things that were entrusted to him… then how can you say who cares?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> But that was my point all along.
> 
> Ownership comes with and implies responsibility.
> 
> If it belongs to someone else, well, frankly, who cares then?


Sure. I agree with that. Which is why I posted what I did on post #979

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If the Owner is going to hold the manager accountable for the things that were entrusted to him… then how can you say who cares?


That assumes that I agreed to that contract and job description.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Responsibility? For what? Eating animals? I take full responsibility.


Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm talking about liberty-responsibility as an Indivisible whole. Meaning the primary foundation for moral cade as well as liberty's principles together as an Indivisible whole. I'm not even talking about bacon, per se. 

It just seems to me that the former is gradually being removed and replaced with man's personal indulgences being the new foundation for moral code. That's actually destroying traditional libertarianism.






> WT wasn't spinning what she said. She quoted a verse and he's looking for clarification. Frankly, I don't get where she's going with it, either.


Maybe not purposely spinning it, but it just happens.

You know what it is, Suz. I'll tell ya. Everybody always wants to always posture in order to make it look like they're defending liberty against somebody else. lol. I do it myself.

----------


## lilymc

> That assumes that I agreed to that contract and job description.


Well, I don't know what your beliefs are, in matters of faith.  But from a biblical perspective, we are not the owners, and we are accountable to the Owner for what we do with the things He entrusted to us.  I realize that this is a tough concept to accept.

But in a weird way, it is actually far more liberating to not only understand this, but to fully surrender everything that we think is ours.

Here's an article in case anyone wants to read:  Stewards, Not Owners.  (The article is about money, but the concept is the same for other things as well.)

----------


## William Tell

> Actually, there are numerous verses that clearly state that God owns everything. I'm surprised you're even arguing that.


 Oh come now, lily. As the Creator, God owns the entire universe, you know I'm not denying that. But you are selectively applying that to animals to make your argument that we should treat them how you want us to. Despite the fact that Jesus ate lamb.

If you walk up to a girl at a park and say God is our father in heaven I don't have a problem with that, you are right. But if instead you say God is our father in heaven and therefor her parents aren't her parents you are kind of twisting things. 

There are countless references to humans owning animals in the bible, surely you know that. 




> Deuteronomy 22:1
>   If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its *own*er.





> Job 1:3
> 
>   and he *own*ed seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels,  five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large  number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the  East.





> Matthew 18:12
>   “What do you think? If a man *own*s a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?





> John 10:12
>   The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not *own* the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.


So what are these, poor translations? Verses added afterwards? Can you honestly go around telling people that they don't own animals according to God and believe yourself?

I can respect your personal views. But when you are presenting them in a way that is turning people in this thread off to Christianity it bothers me. Because the people in this thread are worth more than many sparrows, or lambs, or chihuahuas as Jesus said.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That assumes that I agreed to that contract and job description.


Aw man, you gonna mess around and catch a lightning bolt talking like that. You know she's talking about the spiritual relationship of God and Man, right? Geez.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Well, I don't know about you guys but I'm talking about liberty-responsibility as an Indivisible whole. Meaning the primary foundation for moral cade as well as liberty's principles together as an Indivisible whole. *I'm not even talking about bacon, per se.* 
> 
> It just seems to me that the former is gradually being removed and replaced with *man's personal indulgences being the new foundation for moral code.*


Well, which personal indulgences are we discussing?








> Maybe not purposely spinning it, but it just happens.
> 
> You know what it is, Suz. I'll tell ya. Everybody always wants to always posture in order to make it look like they're defending liberty against somebody else. lol. I do it myself.


NC, I don't care what the heck she eats or why but I have to admit, the Jesus angle is pretty tough to swallow. I can't find any indication in The Bible that supports her claim and if you're gonna drop a bombshell like that, you should have real proof. 

I also happen to think the farmer owned the pigs in the op and quoted scripture that supports my claim. That's not spin.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Oh come now, lily. As the Creator, God owns the entire universe, you know I'm not denying that. But you are selectively applying that to animals to make your argument that we should treat them how you want us to. Despite the fact that Jesus ate lamb.
> 
> If you walk up to a girl at a park and say God is our father in heaven I don't have a problem with that, you are right. But if instead you say God is our father in heaven and therefor her parents aren't her parents you are kind of twisting things. 
> 
> There are countless references to humans owning animals in the bible, surely you know that. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly! +rep

----------


## William Tell

> Maybe not purposely spinning it, but it just happens.


OK, how am I spinning it?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, which personal indulgences are we discussing?


No, I'm talking across the board. Not specific ones. It's like when you hear people doing stuff they know isn't really morally right but they say, oh, I think god will okay with it. I'm just saying that man is quickly replacing God's Word and foundation for moral code with man's Wordis all I'm saying. You know people do that. There's no deneying it. 






> NC, I don't care what the heck she eats or why but I have to admit, the Jesus angle is pretty tough to swallow. I can't find any indication in The Bible that supports her claim and if you're gonna drop a bombshell like that, you should have real proof.


Well. Heh. I'll say this and then I'll shut up about it. Me and lily have had some knockdown dragout arguments about the text of the Bible. She'll tell ya that herself.  

Bible study is freakin hard.  At least for me anyway. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.




> I also happen to think the farmer owned the pigs in the op and quoted scripture that supports my claim. That's not spin.


Ha. Yeah but only if you consider animals material things. If they're a meterial thing, then, yes, I'm right there with ya. I understand the nature of property rights. Property rights are the principal sopport for the rights to life and liberty themselves. And if anyone thinks I don't understand it, well, then I welcome that debate. 

So are they? Are they a material thing? And if so,  says who? What tenor do they say it in? prove that to me biblically and I'll be right there with ya.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> OK, how am I spinning it?


Ha. Okay. So lets do it this way.

Do you believe that you are of supreme importance, William? If so, then why?

----------


## William Tell

> Ha. Okay. So lets do it this way.
> 
> Do you believe that you are of supreme importance, William? If so, then why?


 I do not know what you are asking. But what did I spin?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I do not know what you are asking. But what did I spin?


Just answer my question, William. I'm gonna show you. 

Do you believe that you are of supreme importance? If so, then why?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Ha. Yeah but only if you consider animals material things. If they're a meterial thing, then, yes, I'm right there with ya. I understand the nature of property rights. Property rights are the principal sopport for the rights to life and liberty themselves. And if anyone thinks I don't understand it, well, then I welcome that debate. 
> 
> So are they? Are they a material thing? And if so,  says who? What tenor do they say it in? prove that to me biblically and I'll be right there with ya.


Well, God considered livestock a farmer's property. He put it in the Law. 

Exodus 22:1-4

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.	
"If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.

----------


## William Tell

> Just answer my question, William. I'm gonna show you. 
> 
> Do you believe that you are of supreme importance? If so, then why?


I don't know what you mean by supreme importance. But If you're asking if I think I'm a big deal the answer is no. 

But I'm a big enough deal to want to know how I'm spinning something by having honest debate.

----------


## lilymc

> Oh come now, lily. As the Creator, God owns the entire universe, you know I'm not denying that. But you are selectively applying that to animals to make your argument that we should treat them how you want us to. Despite the fact that Jesus ate lamb.
> 
> If you walk up to a girl at a park and say God is our father in heaven I don't have a problem with that, you are right. But if instead you say God is our father in heaven and therefor her parents aren't her parents you are kind of twisting things. 
> 
> There are countless references to humans owning animals in the bible, surely you know that. 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are these, poor translations? Verses added afterwards? Can you honestly go around telling people that they don't own animals according to God and believe yourself?
> ...


Yes, for starters, you are using bad translations. This is why it's so important to go look up the original language.

These are from the King James version (I'm not a KJV only person, however I do believe that many modern translations are bad, and some people think that is not an accident.)  On blueletterbible.org, you can look up the original Hebrew or Greek.

No mention of the word owner here:

Deuteronomy 22:1
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto *thy brother.*
Nor here:

Job 1:3
His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

Yes, some of these use the word "have" but that doesn't mean that they are the true owner, it simply means that they have them in our temporary possession, that we are in charge of.  In other words, we have things but it is should be understood in a biblical context that even though we have them, God still is the true owner.


Matthew 18:12
How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

The only verse that you posted that actually says the word "own" is an analogy referring to Jesus, the true shepherd… the true owner. 

John 10:12
But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

I could post a bunch of verses saying that God is the owner of all. (I made a video on that which I posted earlier.)  When there are other verses that seem to contradict these verses… here is where we just apply some common sense. The Bible does not contradict itself.  So let's ask this question… If some verses say that God owns the earth and everything in it, including the animals… and other verses seem to say that humans own these animals. Which one  do you think we misunderstood… the former or the latter?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Well, God considered livestock a farmer's property. He put it in the Law. 
> 
> Exodus 22:1-4
> 
> "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.    
> "If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.


Ha, Nope. You don't understand that scripture, Suz. Sorry. You're inserting your own 'consideration.'

That scripture is about punishment. Why do you think someone would pay more restitution for 1 - taking an ox and 2- killing it on top of that? And why the comparison with the sheep? Why is it that the sheep is a lesser restitution?

No place in that scripture is it made God's law (again we get back to what is lawful versus what is legal here) that the animal was a material thing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't know what you mean by supreme importance. But If you're asking if I think I'm a big deal the answer is no. 
> 
>  But I'm a big enough deal to want to know how I'm spinning something by having honest debate.


 No, William, I'm trying to have honest debate with you here. 

 As was said before, You are of Divine origin and your spiritual nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. And _only_ with things material.

 There's a lot to that discussion. Either you are able to have it or you aren't. I promise you that I can have honest debate. I'm fully capable. I might not always be right. But I'm capable of it. It's not fair to insinuate that I'm trying to avoid it. Because I am not.

----------


## lilymc

> Well, God considered livestock a farmer's property. He put it in the Law. 
> 
> Exodus 22:1-4
> 
> "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. "If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. "But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.	
> "If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.



"*The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains*, The world, and those who dwell in it."  Psalm 24:1


"If I were hungry I would not tell you, *For the world is Mine, and all it contains.*" Psalm 50:12


"*For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.*" Psalm 50:10 


"I know every bird of the mountains, And *everything that moves in the field is Mine.*" - Psalm 50:11


"O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; *The earth is full of Your possessions.*"  Psalm 104:24


"*The sea is His*, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land."  Psalm 95:5


'The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, *for the land is Mine*; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me." Leviticus 25:23

I could go on, but I think that's enough for now.

----------


## William Tell

> Yes, for starters, you are using bad translations. This is why it's so important to go look up the original language.


 Well, I used the KJV the other day and you told me that its wrong and that when it says fish it means fish weed.



> No mention of the word owner here:
> Deuteronomy 22:1
> Thou shalt not see thy* brother's ox* or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto *thy brother.*


 So, if we talk about thy brother's house instead of ox, will you say that thy brother owns it?




> Nor here:
> Job 1:3
> *His substance* also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.


 And yet you are saying its not his substance.



> Yes, some of these use the word "have" but that doesn't mean that they are the true owner, it simply means that they have them in our temporary possession, that we are in charge of.  In other words, we have things but it is should be understood in a biblical context that even though we have them, God still is the true owner.


 I appreciate that you are trying to lead me to understand things through a biblical perspective. But the problem is everything you are saying here is just you reading a more "spiritual" understanding into a verse where it just isn't there. My ox is my ox, yes if I have an ox it was a gift from God and I should appreciate that. And yes, I belong to God myself. But that doesn't change the fact that humans own animals.





> Matthew 18:12
> How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
> 
> The only verse that you posted that actually says the word "own" is an analogy referring to Jesus, the true shepherd the true owner. 
> 
> 
> John 10:12
> But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep  are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and  the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.


 Well my argument isn't based on the word own. It's on the concept of ownership. You just posted where the KJV talked about an ox belonging to someone but then danced around it.





> I could post a bunch of verses saying that God is the owner of all. (I made a video on that which I posted earlier.)


That is not a point of contention. I already said God ultimately owns all things. You are just cherry picking to make a biblical case for veganism that can't be backed up by actual verses about what Jesus ate.




> When there are other verses that seem to contradict these verses here is where we just apply some common sense. The Bible does not contradict itself.  So let's ask this question If some verses say that God owns the earth and everything in it, including the animals and other verses seem to say that humans own these animals. Which one  do you think we misunderstood the former or the latter?


 I don't think they contradict at all. Its pretty simple. God owns all things, God owns trees, mountains, cats, and Dixie Cups. He can give them to whoever he pleases.

----------


## William Tell

> No, William, I'm trying to have honest debate with you here. Which you clearly aren't ready for. And I say that as respectfully as I can. 
> 
> As was said before, You are of Divine origin and your spiritual nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. And _only_ with things material.
> 
> There's a lot to that discussion. Either you are able to have it or you aren't. I promiuse yu that I can have honest debate. I'm fully capable. I might not always be right. But I'm capable of it.


OK. go wherever you want with this but I missed where Lily was making it about the material vs spiritual. Seems to me you want to have a different discussion. Which I am open to.

I don't see why you are questioning my honesty though, I've no reason to question yours.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> OK. go wherever you want with this but I missed where Lily was making it about the material vs spiritual. Seems to me you want to have a different discussion. Which I am open to.
> 
> I don't see why you are questioning my honesty though, I've no reason to question yours.


Well, what the heck, I'm not Lily. She's doing her own debating. 

Anyway, I edited that post you quoted, because I  came off rude to you. I don't want to do that.

You just insinuated that I was avoiding honest debate. I simply told you that, no...I'm not.  But, gosh, Williiam, now you're projecing even further saying that I'm doubting your honesty. I'm not. I accept that you firmly believe what you believe. 

Anyway. Yeah, I'm gonna hit you guys from a way different angle than lily is. lol. I'm gonna challenge your fundamental application of libertatianism. I 'd like to know why some friends think they're libertarian. I'd like to know what foundation for moral code they base they're views from.

The reason for that, though, is because I got the impression that some people here were trying to paint lily into some kind of liberal. Which she isn't. 

But I'm tired of this tonight. I'm going to bed. I'll see ya later.

----------


## lilymc

> I don't think they contradict at all. Its pretty simple. God owns all things, God owns trees, mountains, cats, and Dixie Cups. He can give them to whoever he pleases.


Yes, God gives (entrusts to us) things… Whether that's money, children, or any other blessings.  But God is still the owner.  I mean I know that sounds hard to accept, but even our own money is not really ours.  So why are you trying to make an exception for animals? 

God put us in charge of the animals, but that is different than saying "You are the owner to do whatever you want with them."    We know that is not the case because there are scriptures that talk about how we should treat animals.   I can post those too, if you want.  If animals were truly our possessions and ours alone, then we wouldn't be accountable to anyone for them, we would be able to do whatever we want with them.

----------


## William Tell

> Well, what the heack, I'm not Lily. she's doing her own debating.


Right but you were talking about my debate with her.




> Anyway, I edited that post you quoted, because  came off rude to you.


 No worries, we're good, carry on.




> You just insinuated that I was avoiding honest debate. I simply told you than, no...I'm not.  But, gosh, Williiam, now you're projecing even further saying that I'm doubting your hinesty. I'm not. I accept that you firmly believe what you believe. 
> 
> Anyway. Yeah, I'm gonna hit you guys from a way different angl than lily is. lol. I'm gonna challenge your fundamental application of libertatianism.


 Oh, well I didn't mean to say you were avoiding honest debate I just wanted an answer to my question. Carry on with the meat of the subject.

----------


## William Tell

> Yes, God gives (entrusts to us) things… Whether that's money, children, or any other blessings.  But God is still the owner.  I mean I know that sounds hard to accept, but even our own money is not really ours.  So why are you trying to make an exception for animals?


 I am not making any exceptions. I believe you're pet or farm animal is exactly as much your property as your money is. For all intents and purposes your money is yours, yes you should use it in ways that please God. But that's between you and Him. 




> God put us in charge of the animals, but that is different than saying "You are the owner to do whatever you want with them."    We know that is not the case because there are scriptures that talk about how we should treat animals.   I can post those too, if you want.  If animals were truly our possessions and ours alone, then we wouldn't be accountable to anyone for them, we would be able to do whatever we want with them.


 Such as the scriptures telling us which animals to eat, and not to eat them with the blood, and how Israel should offer them as burnt offerings?There are scriptures that talk about what to do with money as well. We are accountable to God for all things. By your argument we should stop using words like ownership at all since God owns all things.

----------


## William Tell

Well I'm not running but I need some sleep. If you guys say anything else I'll respond tomorrow if I can. Good night, pals.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Ha, Nope. You don't understand that scripture, Suz. Sorry. You're inserting your own 'consideration.'


I don't understand your interpretation but I think the scripture is fairly self explanatory.




> That scripture is about punishment. Why do you think someone would pay more restitution for 1 - taking an ox and 2- killing it on top of that? And why the comparison with the sheep? Why is it that the sheep is a lesser restitution?



And why do you think God would demand restitution be paid at all? Because it's stealing and stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. If the original farmer didn't own the livestock, why call it theft? You can't steal steal something from me that I don't own.




> No place in that scripture is it made God's law (again we get back to what is lawful versus what is legal here) that the animal was a material thing.


The rules God play by and the one's we were GIVEN BY GOD to play by are totally different and in that scripture, God treated the animal like a material thing.

----------


## Suzanimal

> "*The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains*, The world, and those who dwell in it."  Psalm 24:1
> 
> 
> "If I were hungry I would not tell you, *For the world is Mine, and all it contains.*" Psalm 50:12
> 
> 
> "*For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.*" Psalm 50:10 
> 
> 
> ...





> I am not making any exceptions. I believe you're pet or farm animal is exactly as much your property as your money is. For all intents and purposes your money is yours, yes you should use it in ways that please God. But that's between you and Him. 
> 
>  Such as the scriptures telling us which animals to eat, and not to eat them with the blood, and how Israel should offer them as burnt offerings?There are scriptures that talk about what to do with money as well. We are accountable to God for all things. By your argument we should stop using words like ownership at all since God owns all things.


I think William Tell covered that. I don't have anything to add.

----------


## Suzanimal

I would really like to see your source on Vegan Jesus and I pray it's not some of the garbage PETA put out. They ran a vegan Jesus campaign years ago that was complete and utter nonsense and it seems quite a few vegan activists took the information and posted it all over the internet as fact.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-jesu...as-peta-claims




> Was Jesus a Vegetarian?
> 
> Last week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a new ad campaign that features an image of the Shroud of Turin and the slogan "Make a Lasting Impression—Go Vegetarian." PETA explained in a statement that it "chose Jesus as its new 'poster boy' because he is widely believed to have been a member of the Essenes, a Jewish religious sect that followed a vegetarian diet and rejected animal sacrifices."
> 
> Jesus a weed-eater? It's not a new claim, but a new spin on an old one. Vegetarianism's true believers have long held that the Garden of Eden was a meatless paradise ("And God said, Behold, I have given you ... the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat," Genesis 1:29). They've also claimed that the New Testament supports Jesus' vegetarianism, although that requires you to believe that Jesus' frequent encouragement of fishermen was symbolic, "fish" being mere symbols of "disciples," and that he cast the sinners out of the temple because he wanted to rescue the Passover lamb.
> 
> No mainstream theologian buys the vegetarians' argument because the Gospels are fairly straightforward about the Messiah's tastes in food. "Jesus said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish. ... And he took it, and did eat before them" (Luke 24:41-43). The story of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, not to mention that Passover lamb, argues against vegetarianism, too.
> 
> But with this new campaign PETA foils the scholars by ignoring the biblical evidence—and the Bible altogether—preferring sources from the fringe field of "vegetarian theology," who depend on coincidence, historical speculation, and creative exegesis of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts to make their case that 1) Jesus was an Essene; and 2) that the Essenes practiced vegetarianism.
> ...


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...an.single.html

----------


## ARealConservative

> Except for you, you're a dick. She didn't say not one thing about tinkering with your stuff. And now you got her dead in the argument. lolol. That's a little strong, isn't it? heh. Ya wackobird.


$#@! off $#@!bag

I beleive in property rights - you morons believe in who knows what

----------


## tod evans

Without going all theologian I don't see harvesting meat as being any different than harvesting plants.

I happen to enjoy eating both.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I would really like to see your source on Vegan Jesus and I pray it's not some of the garbage PETA put out. They ran a vegan Jesus campaign years ago that was complete and utter nonsense and it seems quite a few vegan activists took the information and posted it all over the internet as fact.


Does saying, "Jesus was a vegan/vegetarian." mean that he was all his life?

I would argue no.  Anybody ever tried going meatless?  I have. Made it about 90 days lol

I've read compelling proposals that Jesus' "lost years" were spent in India, where vegetarianism is quite common.

When he made it back to the Holy Lands maybe he was in a vegetarian phase...?  I've got no problem thinking the Essenes were veg-heads. I've read stuff saying it was the Essenes that hatched the plan to fake Jesus' death, so it would make sense that Jesus was a member of the sect.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Does saying, "Jesus was a vegan/vegetarian." mean that he was all his life?
> 
> I would argue no.  Anybody ever tried going meatless?  I have. Made it about 90 days lol
> 
> I've read compelling proposals that Jesus' "lost years" were spent in India, where vegetarianism is quite common.
> 
> *When he made it back to the Holy Lands maybe he was in a vegetarian phase...?*  I've got no problem thinking the Essenes were veg-heads. I've read stuff saying it was the Essenes that hatched the plan to fake Jesus' death, so it would make sense that Jesus was a member of the sect.


If so, it didn't stick. He seemed to have gotten over that phase by The Last Supper and after he was resurrected.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> If so, it didn't stick. He seemed to have gotten over that phase by The Last Supper and after he was resurrected.


maybe he fell off the wagon lol

----------


## Lamp

> I've read compelling proposals that Jesus' "lost years" were spent in India, where vegetarianism is quite common.


That sounds like a bunch of nonsensical hippy crap propagated by white converts and BJP/RSS $#@!bags as a reason to Hinduise the local Catholic populations dietary habits. Don't believe that.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> That sounds like a bunch of nonsensical hippy crap propagated by white converts and BJP/RSS $#@!bags as a reason to Hinduise the local Catholic population. Don't believe that.


Don't make me open up a can of whoop-ass, young 'un.

----------


## Lamp

> Don't make me open up a can of whoop-ass, young 'un.


I don't think you got what I meant

----------


## Lamp

How would Jesus have walked all the way to the subcontinent and learned vegetarianism?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> How would Jesus have walked all the way to the subcontinent and learned vegetarianism?


same way everybody else did




read this:

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lived-I...holger+kersten

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Aw man, you gonna mess around and catch a lightning bolt talking like that. You know she's talking about the spiritual relationship of God and Man, right? Geez.


Yeah, well, I vacillate back and forth between belief, belief in a higher power, and "it's all a bunch of flying spaghetti monster nonsense".

I tend to swing to the latter position when I'm told to surrender everything, throw up my hands and let God control it all, when I'm told to obey all earthly authority, even corrupt and tyrannical authority, when I'm told that there is no way to "own" anything, when I'm told by bible "scholars" that what I'm clearly reading does not mean what I am quite positive it clearly means what it says (so called "constitutional scholars" do the same thing) or when I see faith, which is supposed to bring peace and harmony and light, instead brings, strife, animosity, anger and dissension, whether within a family or between nations.

This is antithetical to individual liberty.

I tend to the central position when I look up at the universe on dark night at sea. 'Nuff said.

And I tend to the former position when friends, family, brothers and sisters seek prayer and support for the tribulations in their life.

In spite of my own doubts and questions, I had no problem, for instance, in praying, sincerely and with all the faith I could muster, for the well being of Phill's father.

Not quite sure where that lands me then: lukewarm, to be spat out, as Christ noted? Confused? Or just taking a rational outlook?

Whatever, it is what it is.

I say you own livestock, to do with what you see fit. I say humanity, like almost all other "apex" predators and highly "advanced" species on this planet, eat meat or are omnivores and that there is no moral or physical or medical dilemma to consider.

Now, somebody toss me a BLT please.

----------


## donnay

> Yeah, well, I vacillate back and forth between belief, belief in a higher power, and "it's all a bunch of flying spaghetti monster nonsense".
> 
> *I tend to swing to the latter position when I'm told to surrender everything, throw up my hands and let God control it all, when I'm told to obey all earthly authority, even corrupt and tyrannical authority, when I'm told that there is no way to "own" anything, when I'm told by bible "scholars" that what I'm clearly reading does not mean what I am quite positive it clearly means what it says (so called "constitutional scholars" do the same thing) or when I see faith, which is supposed to bring peace and harmony and light, instead brings, strife, animosity, anger and dissension, whether within a family or between nations.*


If God controlled everything what would be the purpose of Him giving us free will?  If God forced us to do what he wanted then we would all be zombies.  However, Satan's deception is quite strong in these times.  Satan knows when he is kicked out of Heaven his time to rein on earth is very short, because Jesus said:

Matthew 24:22
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.  

[Five months, the time of the Locust-- it is an agriculture term - Locusts come out *May thru September* not necessarily in that order but pointing out 5 months]

Revelation 9:5
And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

Our time in this earth age is relatively short.  It's all a test and if you study for it, it is pretty easy to pass.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, *rightly dividing the word of truth*.

John 8:32  (KJV)
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Without going all theologian I don't see harvesting meat as being any different than harvesting plants.
> 
> I happen to enjoy eating both.


This has always been my line of thinking. Speaking only for myself, we didn't have stores where I grew up. The same family lived on the same land for generations. Hundreds of years. Still do. We had/have close to 200 acres of forest, river, and mountains. And that's not counting the millions of surrounding acres that belonged to other families through the generations. Unless people have lived that way, I imagine they don't really know what it means to live off the land. We did, for sure.  I always get a chuckle when I see yanks living in their suburban little house try to school me on that type of thing. 

I can relate to what you say here, though.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> $#@! off $#@!bag
> 
> I beleive in property rights - you morons believe in who knows what


Ha. You're probably barking up the wrong tree there, sparky.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yeah, well, I vacillate back and forth between belief, belief in a higher power, and "it's all a bunch of flying spaghetti monster nonsense".
> 
> I tend to swing to the latter position when I'm told to surrender everything, throw up my hands and let God control it all, when I'm told to obey all earthly authority, even corrupt and tyrannical authority, when I'm told that there is no way to "own" anything, when I'm told by bible "scholars" that what I'm clearly reading does not mean what I am quite positive it clearly means what it says (so called "constitutional scholars" do the same thing) or when I see faith, which is supposed to bring peace and harmony and light, instead brings, strife, animosity, anger and dissension, whether within a family or between nations.
> 
> This is antithetical to individual liberty.
> 
> I tend to the central position when I look up at the universe on dark night at sea. 'Nuff said.
> 
> And I tend to the former position when friends, family, brothers and sisters seek prayer and support for the tribulations in their life.
> ...


Well, hell, AF. What you're talking about is thread worthy in itself. I've been there myself. Still am sometimes. 

I will say this, though. Speaking only fo myself, I'll never recognize any kind of tyrannical authority. I don't reject government. I just want less of it. We're different in that way because I know that you really are an anti-federalist. That's why I never really try to debate you on anything. We can agree to disagree when it comes to that. And, hell, I don't begrudge you in any way.  We'd likely make good neighbors. 

But these so called authorities we have today are not moral authorities. They've just given power to themselves. These are legalities.Anti-moral authorities.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I think the scripture is fairly self explanatory.


Yeah, if one is a 16th century scribe glorifying the authority of a worldly King in the only way he can relate to the biblical linguistics he's trying to decipher. Or the way he was told to do it in exchange for a piece of the King's silver. lol.

For all we know, it could have meant beans and wagons 5 linguistics earlier before the scribe got a hold of it. Either way, I agree with the notion that restitution should match the severity of the crime. After all, it's a little harder to steal something large as opposed to something smaller. A feller would have to really think about it.

----------


## lilymc

> I am not making any exceptions. I believe you're pet or farm animal is exactly as much your property as your money is. For all intents and purposes your money is yours, yes you should use it in ways that please God. But that's between you and Him. 
> 
>  Such as the scriptures telling us which animals to eat, and not to eat them with the blood, and how Israel should offer them as burnt offerings?There are scriptures that talk about what to do with money as well. We are accountable to God for all things. By your argument we should stop using words like ownership at all since God owns all things.



No, I think you misunderstood me.  I've never said we should stop using words like ownership. I have just been saying that even though we have things, that we consider and refer to as our possessions that we own, God is the true owner.   That is biblical.  As I said before, I'm surprised you're even arguing that.

Since we are going to be held accountable for what we do with what God has entrusted to us, I don't believe this is something that should be taken lightly.

Jesus taught us to pray, "Your will be done, *on earth as it is in heaven.*"   In heaven there is no cruelty and violence and oppression and death.  So that's something to consider, because even though I don't believe anyone here knowingly supports animal abuse… the animal industries _are_ abusive, and in many cases completely disregard life that God created, because for them it's all about profit and making money.    

To sort of bring this back to the original topic… Pigs are very intelligent, one of the most intelligent animals of all.  And they have personalities and feelings just like dogs do.  Since we don't _need_ to eat meat in order to survive, it really just comes down to putting our tastebuds first.  I'm not saying anything to the non-Christians here,  because they are living by a different standard.  But to my fellow Christians, I'm just putting this here for you to consider… Are our taste buds more important than God's original design (no meat eating, peace and harmony among all living beings), God's command to be merciful, and our professed desire for God's will, _on earth as it is in heaven_?  Please answer with a yes or no. 


"Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."
Luke 6:36

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."
Matthew 5:7

"Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering"
Colossians 3:12

"For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
James 2:13

----------


## tod evans



----------


## Anti Federalist

> We'd likely make good neighbors.


I'd be the best neighbor you ever had...ready to lend a hand if asked, completely mind my own business otherwise, I'd never call the cops on you, and I keep my property and home clean and tidy.

----------


## Danke

> I'd be the best neighbor you ever had...ready to lend a hand if asked, completely mind my own business otherwise, I'd never call the cops on you, and I keep my property and home clean and tidy.


But the noise from those debauchery sailor parties you throw would probably get to him.

----------


## Danke

> 



I sent this to lilymc.

----------


## lilymc

I really don't want to rain on anyone's parade. (Honestly. I hate to be a party pooper) But listen to the sounds in the background. It actually sounds like a horror movie.  Pain, fear and torture.   

Fast forward to about *0:55*,  to get to the screaming.  And this is actually considered a "humane" way of killing pigs.

----------


## tod evans

No 'screaming'.......

----------


## tod evans

Ya' know it's all fine-n-dandy to choose to not eat meat, but it's also fine-n-dandy to eat meat...

It's okay to justify veganism or carnivorism or even omnivorism by quoting scripture...

It's even okay to document how big-ag processes meat..

But a sense of fair play insists that other views be respected and given equal creedence..

Small town butchers and local farmers seldom follow feedlot techniques, labels like 'grassfed' or 'organic' 'humane' etc.... are all marketing ploys targeting city folk.

And from my perspective the concrete dwellers deserve what they get, they're the ones who choose to separate themselves from their food.

----------


## tod evans

Just to be a wise-ass........

----------


## Natural Citizen

lol. Tod. Ya dumb ass. I'm outta ammo, sorry.

That's why I like you, though, you're the most respectful wise-ass on the board. Well, maybe AF'll give ya a run for it. 

I do want to say, though, that I know lil doesn't want to be disrespectful to people's views. And she doesnt want the government to force people to do anything either. Admittedly, I'm biased, but I do know that. Sometimes I think I have her right where she agrees with me from a purely survivalist lifestyle. Those of us who grew up in the sticks and the mountains separated from modern civilization for generations know what that means. She's never gonna give up on the topic, though. I guarantee it. lol.

----------


## tod evans

> lol. Tod. Ya dumb ass. I'm outta ammo, sorry.
> 
> That's why I like you, though, you're the most respectful wise-ass on the board. Well, maybe AF'll give ya a run for it. 
> 
> I do want to say, though, that I know lil doesn't want to be disrespectful to people's views. And she doesnt want the government to force people to do anything either. Admittedly, I'm biased, but I do know that. Sometimes I think I have her right where she agrees with me from a purely survivalist lifestyle. Those of us who grew up in the sticks and the mountains separated from modern civilization for generations know what that means. She's never gonna give up on the topic, though. I guarantee it. lol.


I wouldn't expect her to...

Any more than I'll give up eating animals...

Thing is I can get along with lily but the OP in this thread is a complete ass....

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I wouldn't expect her to...
> 
> Any more than I'll give up eating animals...
> 
> Thing is I can get along with lily but the OP in this thread is a complete ass....


Yeah, I know. I didn't like him either. Or her. Don't know which.

----------


## Danke

> Just to be a wise-ass........

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But the noise from those debauchery sailor parties you throw would probably get to him.


What happens on the boat, stays on the boat.

----------


## tod evans

*ROMAINE CALM Plants can HEAR and use their ‘sense’ to seek out flowing water, scientists discover*

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/360125...ists-discover/

PLANTS listen out for the sound of dripping water when they’re thirsty, scientists have discovered.

They can sense water in a flowing pipe – or even a buzzing insect – by detecting the vibrations the water makes, experts claim.

There has long been a question mark over how plants tend to toward water sources.

Evolutionary biologist Monica Gagliano and her colleagues decided to get the bottom of it.

They placed pea seedlings into Y-shaped pots to test their hypothesis that plants might be able to sense liquid.

One arm of each pot was placed in either a tray of water or a coiled plastic tube through which water flowed.

The other arm was placed in a tray of soil.

All roots grew toward the arm which had fluid – regardless of whether it was hidden by the plastic or free-flowing.

“They just knew the water was there, even if the only thing to detect was the sound of it flowing inside the pipe,” Gagliano said.

“Because water is essential to life, organisms have evolved a wide range of strategies to cope with water limitations, including actively searching for their preferred moisture levels to avoid dehydration.

“Plants use moisture gradients to direct their roots through the soil once a water source is detected, but how they first detect the source is unknown.

“We found that roots were able to locate a water source by sensing the vibrations generated by water moving inside pipes, even in the absence of substrate moisture.”

Vegetarians often turn to plant-based diets because they fear killing sentient beings.

But another recent plant study might make them think twice.

*It turns out that they can tell when you’re eating them.*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It turns out that they can tell when you’re eating them.


Buying stock in Soylent Co.

----------

