No farmer gives a f..k about his animals

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher DeleteThis @zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42583b4c$0$28629$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> "Jim Webster" <Jim DeleteThis @zerospam.mok.net> wrote in message
> news:d393es$crl$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >>
> > humans are the ones who live in urban filth and then complain about how
> > their food is produced
>
> OY!
>
> Are you saying I live in filth???
>
> Who's been talkin'?
>
> Mary

I didn't think you stayed in one place long enough :-))

Step off the train at Euston, breathe in and then listen to a Londoner
telling you about how polluting agriculture is

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

"Jim Webster" <Jim.TakeThisOut@zerospam.mok.net> wrote in message
news:d39e6a$gi1$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> > humans are the ones who live in urban filth and then complain about how
>> > their food is produced
>>
>> OY!
>>
>> Are you saying I live in filth???
>>
>> Who's been talkin'?
>>
>> Mary
>
> I didn't think you stayed in one place long enough :-))

Forty odd years in this house.
>
> Step off the train at Euston,

No thanks.

> breathe in

NONONO!

> and then listen to a Londoner
> telling you about how polluting agriculture is

I'll stay in Leeds, you know how I regard the s**th ...

Mary
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

Napalm Heart wrote:

> "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:d38epo$prj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>>"Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in message
>
> news:4257b868$0$14781$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>>"Gene" <Gene.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>"Napalm Heart" <*nospam*@iserv.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy.TakeThisOut@ph.con> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>>>>>>experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>>>>>>They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>>>>>>reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since they are a financial asset to farmers, livestock are
>
> well-taken
>
>>>>>care of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ayup. Long is the time I've seen farmers looking for cattle who
>
> got
>
>>>>out during a snowstrom, risking life to save some animal and
>
> this is a
>
>>>>*common* occurance.
>>>>
>>>> Then, there's the staying up all night, working a new born
>
> calf, ewe
>
>>>>or whatever in addition to working a 12 hour (Or longer) day.
>>>>
>>>> Uh-huh, they sure don't care at all...Suuurrreeeeeee
>>>
>>>LOL.
>>>
>>>You are being mean! People who don't like animals and do not live
>
> closely
>
>>>to them can never understand this concept of "care" and won't even
>
> know what
>
>>>you are writing about. :-))
>>
>>'Cattle commonly are turned out onto the open range in spring or
>
> summer,
>
>>basically to fend for themselves, and then rounded up after the
>
> growing
>
>>season. In some areas they are left on the range year-round.
>
> Generally
>
>>sheep are more closely watched, often herded, although shepherds
>
> usually
>
>>must each watch over hundreds or even thousands of sheep.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> The subject of the OP was that "No farmer gives a f..k about his
> animals". This is an absolute.

It's also a blatant troll by the most unethical shitbag
in any of these groups, David Harrison, better known as
Fuckwit. He forged my name to the post. Check the
headers.

Fuckwit knows that I believe farmers care about their
animals. What you don't know about Fuckwit is, he
thinks animals' "getting to experience life" is some
kind of ethical plus. I've shown dozens of times why
that's false. I think most farmers want their animals
to develop in reasonably good conditions, but NO farmer
thinks the animals' "getting to experience life" is a
morally or ethically important thing. They do not
raise livestock in order for the animals to "get to
experience life"; they raise them as part of their
(farmers') livelihood, and they do NOT have the weird
pseudo-philosophical attachment to them Fuckwit thinks
they ought to have.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:39:14 +0100, "pearl" <tea.RemoveThis@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>"Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in message news:4257b868$0$14781$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Gene" <Gene.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > "Napalm Heart" <*nospam*@iserv.net> wrote:
>> > >"Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy.RemoveThis@ph.con> wrote in message
>>
>> > >> No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>> > >> experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>> > >> They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>> > >> reason.
>> > >
>> > >Since they are a financial asset to farmers, livestock are well-taken
>> > >care of.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ayup. Long is the time I've seen farmers looking for cattle who got
>> > out during a snowstrom, risking life to save some animal and this is a
>> > *common* occurance.
>> >
>> > Then, there's the staying up all night, working a new born calf, ewe
>> > or whatever in addition to working a 12 hour (Or longer) day.
>> >
>> > Uh-huh, they sure don't care at all...Suuurrreeeeeee
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> You are being mean! People who don't like animals and do not live closely
>> to them can never understand this concept of "care" and won't even know what
>> you are writing about. :-))
>
>'Cattle commonly are turned out onto the open range in spring or summer,
>basically to fend for themselves,

Well I guess you did an excellent job of proving his point.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy.TakeThisOut@ph.con> wrote:

>Farm1 wrote:
>
>> "Gene" <Gene.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>"Napalm Heart" <*nospam*@iserv.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy.TakeThisOut@ph.con> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>>No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>>>>>experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>>>>>They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>>>>>reason.
>>>>
>>>>Since they are a financial asset to farmers, livestock are well-taken
>>>>care of.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ayup. Long is the time I've seen farmers looking for cattle who got
>>>out during a snowstrom, risking life to save some animal and this is a
>>>*common* occurance.
>>>
>>> Then, there's the staying up all night, working a new born calf, ewe
>>>or whatever in addition to working a 12 hour (Or longer) day.
>>>
>>> Uh-huh, they sure don't care at all...Suuurrreeeeeee
>>
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> You are being mean! People who don't like animals and do not live closely
>> to them can never understand this concept of "care" and won't even know what
>> you are writing about.
>
>The idea of farmers caring for their animals isn't hard
>to grasp. I have no doubt they do. They do NOT,
>however, breed and raise livestock because they think
>the animals "benefit" by coming into existence.

Some farm animals benefit from farming none the less,
much as you hate it Goob.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:01:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy.RemoveThis@ph.con> wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy.RemoveThis@ph.con> wrote in message
>> news:q0hd51ddvbjinrr7j5ul0np1aq52i8ij3d@4ax.com...
>>
>>>"getting to experience life". That includes the ones who
>>>give the very best care to their animals.
>>>
>>>No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>>>experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>>>They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>>>reason.
>>
>>
>> Wrong slick.
>>
>> I raise animals for the dinner table so I know how they were raised.
>>
>> PS learned all about foie gras from the PETA website. They probably didn't
>> intend that to happen did they.
>
>The post to which you replied is a forgery by Fuckwit
>David Harrison.
>
>No farmers raise livestock because they think it's a
>good thing for livestock animals to "get to experience
>life". They raise livestock animals either for money,
>or to consume the animals themselves.

Out of consideration for the animals, what they do or don't
gain from the situation should be considered. You just don't
care enough about the animals to be able to understand basic
consideration. You not only can't understand or appreciate it,
but you're opposed to anyone else doing it.

>They don't place
>any value on the animals' "getting to experience life".

That depends on the individual, and it's hilarious in a
pathetic way that you seem to think you know how "they"
all feel about things Gonad, especially considering you've
never been around farming.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:03:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy.RemoveThis@ph.con> wrote:

>Gene wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:35:48 -0400, "Napalm Heart" <*nospam*@iserv.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy.RemoveThis@ph.con> wrote in message
>>>news:q0hd51ddvbjinrr7j5ul0np1aq52i8ij3d@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>"getting to experience life". That includes the ones who
>>>>give the very best care to their animals.
>>>>
>>>>No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>>>>experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>>>>They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>>>>reason.
>>>
>>>Since they are a financial asset to farmers, livestock are well-taken
>>>care of.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ayup. Long is the time I've seen farmers looking for cattle who got
>> out during a snowstrom, risking life to save some animal and this is a
>> *common* occurance.
>
>Not in dispute. But they don't raise animals in the
>first place out of some sense that the animals'
>"getting to experience life" is a good thing.

Whether it is or not isn't dependant on why they are raised.

>Fuckwit
>claims that's part of why they do it,

I doubt it. Post a quote.

>and he's wrong.

More likely you're lying.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher.DeleteThis@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42590683$0$28625$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net...
>

> The worst smell is from traffic but you get horrid diesel exhausts on
farms
> too :-(
>
> Mary

what do you think silage effluent is for :-))

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher DeleteThis @zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:425906d1$0$28625$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> <gene DeleteThis @pad39a.com> wrote in message
> news:1113088660.389741.96660@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I grew up with Judy. She was the friendliest cow who would follow us
> > around. We fed her well and she was happy to come home from roaming the
> > pasture each morning and evening to be milked. We would have been
> > negligant to let her get through the fence and get hit by some speeding
> > city dweller that didn't have the sense to watch out for farm animals.
>
> I must say that it seemed a very sensible and novel solution to what can
be
> a common problem.
>
> Mary

yep, I've seen Herwicks, and even Mules wearing them up here in Cumbria. I
suspect most sheep farmers will have seen this sort of measure taken at some
time in their farming career

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

On 10 Apr 2005 07:55:22 -0700, gene.TakeThisOut@pad39a.com wrote:

>True. Especially speeding city slickers in a 2 ton car. They go out in
>the country and get behind some caring farmer puttering along in his
>old pickup truck at 30 mph and they're chomping at the bit to pass and
>zoom until they hit some unsuspecting animal. If they really care about
>animals, they need to get rid of their cars or get some sense.


No, the ranchers need to build better fences.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:20:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy DeleteThis @ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>Farm1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Gene" <Gene DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Napalm Heart" <*nospam*@iserv.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy DeleteThis @ph.con> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>>>>>>experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>>>>>>They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>>>>>>reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since they are a financial asset to farmers, livestock are well-taken
>>>>>care of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ayup. Long is the time I've seen farmers looking for cattle who got
>>>>out during a snowstrom, risking life to save some animal and this is a
>>>>*common* occurance.
>>>>
>>>>Then, there's the staying up all night, working a new born calf, ewe
>>>>or whatever in addition to working a 12 hour (Or longer) day.
>>>>
>>>> Uh-huh, they sure don't care at all...Suuurrreeeeeee
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL.
>>>
>>>You are being mean! People who don't like animals and do not live closely
>>>to them can never understand this concept of "care" and won't even know what
>>>you are writing about.
>>
>>The idea of farmers caring for their animals isn't hard
>>to grasp. I have no doubt they do. They do NOT,
>>however, breed and raise livestock because they think
>>the animals "benefit" by coming into existence.
>
>
> Some farm animals benefit from farming

NO farm animals "benefit" from farming, Fuckwit. You
are wrong. Every farmer whom you lure into this tells
you you're wrong.

Coming into existence - "getting to experience life",
in your shitty prose - is not a benefit to farm animals.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:21:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy DeleteThis @ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, who usually posts using 'dh@.'
>>or 'dh_ld@nomail.com', wrote the troll post and forged
>>my named to it. He's an idiot and a liar.

Reposting your forgery doesn't help you, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals 

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:01:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy RemoveThis @ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael wrote:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza >" <<dumbguy RemoveThis @ph.con> wrote in message
>>>news:q0hd51ddvbjinrr7j5ul0np1aq52i8ij3d@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"getting to experience life". That includes the ones who
>>>>give the very best care to their animals.
>>>>
>>>>No farmers consider that the animals' "getting to
>>>>experience life" is worth even a moment's consideration.
>>>>They raise animals to make money, and that's the only
>>>>reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong slick.
>>>
>>>I raise animals for the dinner table so I know how they were raised.
>>>
>>>PS learned all about foie gras from the PETA website. They probably didn't
>>>intend that to happen did they.
>>
>>The post to which you replied is a forgery by Fuckwit
>>David Harrison.
>>
>>No farmers raise livestock because they think it's a
>>good thing for livestock animals to "get to experience
>>life". They raise livestock animals either for money,
>>or to consume the animals themselves.
>
>
> Out of consideration for the animals, what they do or don't
> gain from the situation should be considered.

They do not "gain" ANYTHING from coming into existence,
Fuckwit. This is established beyond rational doubt.


>>They don't place
>>any value on the animals' "getting to experience life".
>
>
> That depends on the individual,

No, it doesn't depend on the individual, Fuckwit. No
farmer, anywhere, causes livestock to exist out of a
(misguided) belief that existence is a "benefit" to the
animals. Farmers cause livestock to exist for the
FARMERS' benefit. They don't pretend otherwise, even
though you desperately want to imagine it.
 >> Stay informed about: No farmer gives a f..k about his animals