Woman gives pigs water, now faces 10 years in prison - Polidicks

[QUOTE=elowin;49272659]No. As soon as they get butchered, they're food.[/QUOTE] If you're raising an animal to be butchered for consumption, they have to be treated as food the entire way. They can't be fed substances that would harm someone who would consume the animal, that sort of thing. It's the reason why farmers, at least on the small scale level (and I would hope that large scale farms do this as well) try their best to reduce the stress an animal feels before it is to be butchered, as the various hormones released by the animal can, and will ruin the meat. So no, I'd argue their food the entire time which is why they must be treated with respect and given a good life.

[QUOTE=Robman8908;49261704]While 10 years seems a bit harsh, I can understand the concern... Activists don't exactly have the best reputation. It could've easily been a case of - if she can't save the pigs, then punish the ones that'll eat them.[/QUOTE] PETA already steals and murders pets because of their loony circular logic. Wouldn't put it past other animal rights activists to commit bioterrorism.

[QUOTE=shad0w440;49277638]Your not looking at things from his angle.[/QUOTE] I think you've got the right of it

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49263589]Hi, farmer here. Going to have to disagree with you on that, pigs are smart but they're not fucking sentient. At least not the ones they breed for slaughter, they're dumb as rocks. Granted I didn't grow up on a pig farm but I've been around them enough.[/QUOTE] Absolutely not, pigs are smarter than dogs actually. Not saying we shouldn't eat pigs but we should also eat dogs

[QUOTE=bdd458;49267199]not to mention, stressing animals out before they are slaughtered for meat can cause them to release hormones that will ruin the meat. It's the factor of her being an unfamiliar person, plus feeding them water that is a cause for concern.[/QUOTE] I've seen enough fucked up slaughter practices from various parts of the world to doubt this.

[QUOTE=elowin;49263414]You do realize pigs are sentient, right?[/QUOTE] Just about every mammal is sentient. What you should be harping around instead is sapience.

I saw the title and nearly gave up on humanity as a whole, but then I read how it was done and I saved myself from giving up on literally everything, Just don't stick your hands into places where they belong. Alright ?

[QUOTE=Viper_;49292915]I've seen enough fucked up slaughter practices from various parts of the world to doubt this.[/QUOTE] did you literally cut off the part where I addressed that? I got that information straight from my Psych professor - who runs a small farm with her family - they raise and butcher nearly all of their own animals (she won't butcher anything above a Turkey is size though, she doesn't have enough experience. So the Pigs for example go to the local butcher). [quote]It's the reason why farmers, [I]at least on the small scale level [/I]([I]and I would hope that large scale farms do this as well[/I]) try their best to reduce the stress an animal feels before it is to be butchered[/quote] [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/how-animal-welfare-leads-to-better-meat-a-lesson-from-spain/244127/[/url] [quote] It wasn't until later, as we watched the pigs inhale their meal, that Armando talked about the rationale behind his methods. He explained that research being conducted in Australia and New Zealand is showing that when stress is minimized in animals, the meat has a lower pH and is consistently more delicate than in animals that experience stress during transport, handling, and slaughter. In other words, when it comes to making a high-quality, rarefied product like jamon Ibérico, a little tenderness goes a long way. [/quote]

[QUOTE=wraithcat;49293839]Just about every mammal is sentient. What you should be harping around instead is sapience.[/QUOTE] What if you don't care as much about an animal's sapience? It doesn't really matter to me if they're smart or dumb, because I really don't think we should decide one's worthiness of a decent wellbeing based on their intelligence. What really matters more to me is if they can actually feel pain or not.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49262486]I don't think there's any poison that can be metabolized so quickly that it will taint the edible portions of the pigs but not almost immediately kill them. (Dead animals won't be introduced into the food supply) The contents of the stomachs of a lot of animals can make humans sick, that's why we don't eat it.[/QUOTE] A supposed extremist might not know this, this is not an excuse if the intent was still to poison humans. That's like pointing out that the gunman didn't know that the gun was on safety due to lack of gun knowledge and that makes the attempted murder okay. Obviously I'm not accusing her of this, just saying.

I know people who would do this. Some people, especially vegans and vegetarians, care so much about animals that they wouldn't think about the potential threat of giving livestock something to drink which could make their meat unsafe. I'm surprised people are immediately jumping to the conclusion that she had malicious intent when the much more likely reality is that she just didn't think of the potential dangers. The alternative is that she prepared a water bottle with chemicals hidden inside a substance that pigs would still drink, intercepted the livestock truck (so she also has insider knowledge on the shipping times and routes/has followed these trucks without raising suspicion), and then knowingly poisoned [U]living animals[/U] all for express purpose of revenge on meat eaters for killing animals. Not only that, she went to the trouble of planning this crime and then made no real attempt to commit it in a way that wouldn't also lead to it's discovery/her being charged. Apparently all of this is more believable than, 'woman who cares about animals gave pigs a drink of water on a hot day'. Also, as others have stated, surely the company will test the meat while preparing it and then before shipping it for sale? Like yeah, I get that you have to take this seriously to avoid people getting sick, but saying that this is the equivalent of 'walking around a supermarket spraying the food with whatever you like' is just ignorant.

[QUOTE=Skerion;49295345]What if you don't care as much about an animal's sapience? It doesn't really matter to me if they're smart or dumb, because I really don't think we should decide one's worthiness of a decent wellbeing based on their intelligence. What really matters more to me is if they can actually feel pain or not.[/QUOTE] It's entirely the other way around for me, I don't care if they feel pain as long as we give them a quick death. Like dolphins for example, dolphins are smart enough to comprehend death and feel anguish/grief when another dolphin they were close to dies. It just doesn't sit right with me to eat an animal that smart.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;49295823] Apparently all of this is more believable than, 'woman who cares about animals gave pigs a drink of water on a hot day'. Also, as others have stated, surely the company will test the meat while preparing it and then before shipping it for sale? Like yeah, I get that you have to take this seriously to avoid people getting sick, but saying that this is the equivalent of 'walking around a supermarket spraying the food with whatever you like' is just ignorant.[/QUOTE] It isn't ignorant. We've got to take the proper measures to ensure that food supplies remain contaminant free. The truck driver not reporting the incident would be worse, as it's a form of negligence. Suppose there was something in the water and people got sick as a result? Which is more morally objectionable? I think few here find her actions intentionally malicious, much in the same way that kids pointing laser pointers at airplanes is probably seemingly innocuous from their point of view. Ignorance of the law does not excuse people from the consequences of the law however. From the sounds of it this woman is involved with an organization that has had previous run-ins with this particular company, and she was instructed to stop. She didn't comply. If the protesters are convinced that these animals are not being treated ethically (which very well may be the case), they ought to petition for changes in the regulations regarding the treatment of animals in transport directly instead of encouraging behavior that may put innocents at risk.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;49296890]It isn't ignorant. We've got to take the proper measures to ensure that food supplies remain contaminant free. The truck driver not reporting the incident would be worse, as it's a form of negligence. Suppose there was something in the water and people got sick as a result? Which is more morally objectionable? I think few here find her actions intentionally malicious, much in the same way that kids pointing laser pointers at airplanes is probably seemingly innocuous from their point of view. Ignorance of the law does not excuse people from the consequences of the law however. From the sounds of it this woman is involved with an organization that has had previous run-ins with this particular company, and she was instructed to stop. She didn't comply. If the protesters are convinced that these animals are not being treated ethically (which very well may be the case), they ought to petition for changes in the regulations regarding the treatment of animals in transport directly instead of encouraging behavior that may put innocents at risk.[/QUOTE] If someone was spraying food in a supermarket, the only reason they'd do that was to contaminate the food. It's considerably different from not seeing an animal as food, and wanting to ease their suffering. I'm not saying that what she did was right, and the truck driver should have reported it. I'm just saying that it's a bit disconcerting seeing people saying that as soon as a living animal enters a truck for transport to a slaughterhouse, it's already food. The implication is that we shouldn't care about how we treat these animals before we kill them, because they're going to die anyway. On the subject of petitions, if you've ever had an animal rights activist as a friend on facebook, you'll [B]really[/B] know just how much time and effort they put into signing them. So many petitions, and they rarely, [I]rarely[/I] do anything. I feel sympathy for both parties really. Truck drivers are just trying to earn a living, and activists often interfere with their work, but at the same time, the activists often have good reasons for wanting things to change, and doing things by the book doesn't always work. I think they just wanted to comfort the pigs in this situation, although the manner in which they did it wasn't okay.

I think it's pretty disappointing how a lot of the animal activists's aggressive and conceited attitude that they tend to have as well as stuff like PETA killing random animals and the terrorism on laboratories seem to have further provoked a lot people to not taking these animal-rights-esque stuff very seriously. I mean, they likely didn't take that kind of thing seriously in the first place anyway, but PETA and a bunch of others definitely seem to have contributed a lot of damage to the reputation of the whole idea behind animal welfare.

[QUOTE=elowin;49263414]You do realize pigs are sentient, right?[/QUOTE] all sentience means is that it can react to it's environment, that it can perceive things. Jellyfish are sentient, they can perceive when a fish is in their tentacles in order to eat it. Venus fucking fly traps are sentient. What you mean is sapient.

Who cares if they're sentient or sapient? Pigs are damn tasty and thus are food.