1 2 3 4 5 6
Do you sympathize w/ peta?

You don't have to be a PETA sympathizer to be sickened, angered and dismayed by the treatment of animals in intensive production systems.
Let's see..cats are carnivores. If cats (hypothetically speaking) were used as a meat source for humans and these cats were never fed any meat proteins, then they wouldn't be a good meal at the dinner > table, no?

If these hypothetical cats were slaughtered at 40 days old, the slaughter age of the average confined broiler, they would barely have acquired the ability to eat meat.
I'm going to take a wild stab at what you might be trying to get at. If your hypothetical cats were fed mostly rice, but some meat, they would probably grow large enough to supply modest portions to a party of four.

The cats might be blind and anemic by slaughter age, have neurological disorders and their normally lean, muscled bodies would be soft and fatted, but health problems of food animals don't normally interfere with a diner's enjoyment of their flesh. Americans are used to eating diseased animals. God knows hogs and chickens suffer their share of infirmities (a good percentage of each are so diseased they are outright condemned at post-mortem inspection) and Americans still gobble them down to the tune of billions (chickens) and millions (swine) per year.

I doubt if anyone, anywhere feeds dairy cows meat products exclusively, but if they do, I hope she turns out to be one, wicked, aggressive cow who gets a few good kicks in before she is culled.
Wouldn't the post about cows not "meant" to eat other animals apply the same way?

I won't venture a guess what you think the question suggests.

What I meant by my response is that minimal consideration is given to fulfilling the natural behaviors, including diet, of intensively farmed animals. I don't think simply being alive when sent to slaughter is a good measure of an animal's overall health and well-being, do you?
It just sounded like a typical emotional (and illogical) post in the first place.

What's "emotional" or "illogical" about questioning the wisdom of feeding herbivores, ones destined for the table, animal body parts, especially when these parts have been declared unfit for human consumption?
What's "emotional" or "illogical" about pointing out that the majority of farm animals are subject to equally unsuitable treatment?

I get the idea you think any criticism of the status quo in animal production industries is "emotional" and "illogical". What a chump.
I don't think it has anything to do w/ "exploiting" wild animals.

What does "it" refer to in the above sentence?
When did "wild animals" sneak into the picture? Are you trying to dovetail BSE in cattle and CWD in wild ungulates?
For that matter, don't you think that "free range" animals are "exploited" the most?

Actually, I think both consumers and animals are apt to be "exploited" by products labelled as "free-range".
"Free-range" on packaging is meaningless in the US. Certification for "free-range" requires only that the animal have some access to open ground. IOW, a chicken can have four square inches of ground in a pen with a thousand other birds and still be sold as "free-range".
They are given the "freedom"

Nope, not necessarily.
to "roam"

Nope, not necessarily.
and have some "semblance" of a "normal" life

Nope, not necessarily.
and then they are killed for their meat?

What you describe are pastured animals. Between pastures and CAFOs, I don't think there's any question which is a satisfying environment for animals. You think it's better if food animals suffer the sum total of their lives?
BTW, are cows vegetarians?

No. The cow is among the most feared of all carnivores. They are commonly seen stalking elephants across the high steppes of Nepal. The cow is capable of leaping some 30 feet in the air so that it can behead the elephant prey, using its fearsome spiny teeth.

If you see a cow, run, for they are deadly.
If not, then why do they?

It's all a communist plot.
Steve.
don't think it has anything to do w/ "exploiting" wild animals. For that matter, don't you think that "free range" ... the "freedom" to "roam" and have some "semblance" of a "normal" life and then they are killed for their meat?

Why would "a" relatively normal life "for" an animal, followed "by" slaughter "be more" exploitive?
Compare and contrast: (1) An animal is kept in shitty conditions (literally?) and is killed for food; (2) An animal is kept in conditions where it can behave as it is designed to, and is killed for food. Of course the animal in case (2) is being exploited more, I mean it's ... ummm ... it's ... er hmmm, well ... - aha! it might fall into a rabbit hole and sustain abrasions to its kneecaps whilst freely roaming the pastures! Yes, that's it!
Steve.
Apparently you more emphasis on the suffering of animals meant to be eaten than on humans?
Actually, I think both consumers and animals are apt to be "exploited" by products labelled as "free-range". "Free-range" on packaging ... have four square inches of ground in a pen with a thousand other birds and still be sold as "free-range".

You and I agree on this point.
You think it's better if food animals suffer the sum total of their lives?

I'm more concerned w/ human beings.
Typical post from you. Apparently, once again, you don't have anything meaningful to add.
Why would "a" relatively normal life "for" an animal, followed "by" slaughter "be more" exploitive? Compare and contrast: (1) An ... it is designed to, and is killed for food. Of course the animal in case (2) is being exploited more,

Because you are only pretending to give that animal a semblance of "normal life" only to kill it in the end. I guess my problem is that I'm thinking logically instead of having a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
The liver smell will come back out of the dog, through one orifice or another. Count on it.

you'd think that, but i've always given mine freeze dried liver treats (i don't love them enough to stink up my house with the stench) and it's never made them stinky. considering that one is a Boxer, that's pretty impressive!

shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette