Death or This God-awful threak?

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Is this another "if it isn't proven, it can't be true" argument? Not everything has to be proven to be accepted as true. Are you saying only humans are capable of trust?

not even, I'm just asking for a little bit of information out of interest. You made the statement, now show me that it's actually based on something more than a blatant and unsubstantiated claim.

And I am not saying that only humans are capable of trust. I am asking how do you know that pigs develop trust and bonds with farmers that is deliberately betrayed. It seems odd to me since it has been proven that pigs will eat other pigs. Pigs will also eat their young. Where does this land on the trust scale?

Once again, I'm just curious where you're getting your info from.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by gomestar

not even, I'm just asking for a little bit of information out of interest. You made the statement, now show me that it's actually based on something more than a blatant and unsubstantiated claim.

And I am not saying that only humans are capable of trust. I am asking how do you know that pigs develop trust and bonds with farmers that is deliberately betrayed. It seems odd to me since it has been proven that pigs will eat other pigs. Pigs will also eat their young. Where does this land on the trust scale?

Once again, I'm just curious where you're getting your info from.

bolded is irrelevant, has nothing to do with a pig's trust.

There are many ways where trust can be seen from an animal's behavior: allowing physical contact, displaying forms of affection, not getting defensive during approach, not displaying aggressiveness or fear. These are all fairly simple observations, which is why I asked if you've ever interacted with an animal.


Deliberately betrayed? How else would you describe willingly shooting an animal in the head for no necessary reason? It surely wasn't an accident. The farmers all cried after, like it said in the article. They knew what they were doing was wrong. Just another example of how people can be a part of actions that they know are wrong, yet still do them. They didn't cry after for no reason, sympathy or compassion for the innocent can almost be considered as engraved in the psyche of most.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

bolded is irrelevant, has nothing to do with a pig's trust.
ok, good idea, ignore something that will not in any way help your argument and only helps mine.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

There are many ways where trust can be seen from an animal's behavior: allowing physical contact, displaying forms of affection, not getting defensive during approach, not displaying aggressiveness or fear. These are all fairly simple observations, which is why I asked if you've ever interacted with an animal.
Have you ever tried to approach a pig to pick it up? What do they do? They do not want the physical contact, they run away. According to your very statement, pigs that run away when approached are not showing any signs of trust and thus they are not being betrayed to begin with.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Deliberately betrayed? How else would you describe willingly shooting an animal in the head for no necessary reason? It surely wasn't an accident. The farmers all cried after, like it said in the article. They knew what they were doing was wrong. Just another example of how people can be a part of actions that they know are wrong, yet still do them. They didn't cry after for no reason, sympathy or compassion for the innocent can almost be considered as engraved in the psyche of most.
For no necessary reason? The reason was to provide food. The article did not say anything about people crying because they knew it was wrong. Stop making stupid assumptions.



And once again, please offer proof to your statement that pigs form bonds with farmers and it is the ultimate betrayal to the pigs' trust when they are eventually put down.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Deliberately betrayed? How else would you describe willingly shooting an animal in the head for no necessary reason? It surely wasn't an accident. The farmers all cried after, like it said in the article. They knew what they were doing was wrong. Just another example of how people can be a part of actions that they know are wrong, yet still do them. They didn't cry after for no reason, sympathy or compassion for the innocent can almost be considered as engraved in the psyche of most.

1. you have yet to show that there is a bond of trust between the animals.
2. even if there was bond of trust of some nature( you have to give proof) the farmers raised the animal with the intent to kill it when it was time, the farmers probabaly never lied to the animals etc. they followed through on the original basis of the relationship. what you describe as betrayal is hardly one at all.

2 countries make peace and the ppapers are signed, the next day one of the country commits a surprise attack. that is betrayal. this is mor like like letting off a worker who knows at end of th project he is nto longer an employee.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by gomestar

ok, good idea, ignore something that will not in any way help your argument and only helps mine.


Have you ever tried to approach a pig to pick it up? What do they do? They do not want the physical contact, they run away. According to your very statement, pigs that run away when approached are not showing any signs of trust and thus they are not being betrayed to begin with.

It's being ignored because the occasional eating of their young (which is usually for good reason among many animals) or cannibalistic activity has nothing to do with a pig's trust toward humans.

There's a big difference between picking an animal up and other human contact, otherwise they do like contact in the same way a dog would.

Originally Posted by gomestar

For no necessary reason? The reason was to provide food. The article did not say anything about people crying because they knew it was wrong. Stop making stupid assumptions.



And once again, please offer proof to your statement that pigs form bonds with farmers and it is the ultimate betrayal to the pigs' trust when they are eventually put down.

The "food" was not necessary. It looks like they also mentioned this being part of a TV show?

For that article in particular, the image of the pig and the descriptions of feeding would display forms of trust, though there was no mention of any other of the pig's experience with humans on the farm.

"
He's a quick, funny man who wears his emotions right under the skin. Though the tears were no longer flowing, he was still wiping them away and was slightly choked in tone.

Still, as they stood several yards from the slaughter, half sheltered in the doorway to their goat barn, they flinched at the stark crack of the rifle, and then they cried."

Why else do you think this would be a result?

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Still, as they stood several yards from the slaughter, half sheltered in the doorway to their goat barn, they flinched at the stark crack of the rifle, and then they cried."[/b]

Why else do you think this would be a result?

They don't like loud noises?

 

[gomestar]

so you're just going to go around and make senseless statements whenever you feel like it.

The problem is you look stupid.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

They don't like loud noises?

my dog does the same to thunder. It must be because she knows thunder is out to get her and thus there is no trust between her and the thunder.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by gomestar

my dog does the same to thunder. It must be because she knows thunder is out to get her and thus there is no trust between her and the thunder.

Thunder is serious ****. Ask just about any house pet.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by gomestar

so you're just going to go around and make senseless statements whenever you feel like it.

Alright, well you can think that the loud noise made them cry and I'll think that it was because they were shooting their pet pigs in the brain.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Humans are designed for plant-based food consumption:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94656/The-...tomy-of-Eating

If the human GI tract is "designed," are you now making a teleological argument for veganism? Please say you are.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Alright, well you can think that the loud noise made them cry and I'll think that it was because they were shooting their pet pigs in the brain.

perhaps they shouldn't have raised it as a pet when it would eventually become food. I was pretty sad as a child when my goldfish died. Any emotional connection I could have claimed was pure imagination on my part, but it was important to me because I perceived it as my pet. I imagine this is the same thing here.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by gomestar

Any emotional connection I could have claimed was pure imagination on my part, but it was important to me because I perceived it as my pet. I imagine this is the same thing here.

It's not the same when emotional connection can be mutual.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

It's not the same when emotional connection can be mutual.
..

Originally Posted by gomestar

And once again, please offer proof to your statement that pigs form bonds with farmers and it is the ultimate betrayal to the pigs' trust when they are eventually put down.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by gomestar

..

You are being pretty vague. Are you now suggesting animals don't have emotions or can't form bonds with humans? Do you want proof in general or in this specific case? What would be an example of proof?