7 ms·

Not that this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but are you actually drawing an equivalency between people who get paid to write code for a living and an

Not that this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but are you actually drawing an equivalency between people who get paid to write code for a living and an animal being slaughtered? I don't think the analogy works at all.

randomdata 14y ago
No. I'm saying people who do not understand technology could be lead to believe such things if people started reporting it. Nobody is going to take the time to realize that people actually enjoy writing software using programming languages. And I'm not suggesting animals enjoy being slaughtered, but if it is going to happen, do you not support doing it the most humane way possible?
- glesica 14y ago
  I support free information. If "best practices" in animal slaughter gross people out, then maybe we need better "best practices" or maybe we need to rethink our agriculture system. Just because something has been decided upon by a group of experts does not make it socially just or appropriate. The treatment of slaves was, I'm sure, generally done according to what, at that time, would have been considered "best practices", and people wanted cotton. But that doesn't mean that slavery should have been ignored and "left to the professionals".
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I am sure agriculture would love to work with the people concerned about current best practices to find new and better best practices. Agribusiness is always at the forefront of technology and is quick to adopt better ways. The problem is that the people who come with concern tend to not take time to understand the situation. I recall a recent incident with a celebrity suggesting dairy farmers should breed their calves to not have horns. Great idea in theory. The genes do exist in some living cattle, but it is quite rare. Anyone with even a basic understanding of biology can see how that isn't going to work out so well, but we cannot even seem to find that level of understanding out there.
    - glesica 14y ago
      They demonstrate this by lobbying to suppress freedom of speech? Weird. You haven't justified restricting free speech. I am willing (happy) to admit that some animal-rights people are uninformed blowhards. But that doesn't justify punching holes in the first amendment.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        According to the article, the law intends to prevent animal rights activists, who show some intent to harm the operation, from conducting their business on private property without permission. That is a lot closer, if anything, to being a trespassing matter, not one of free speech. I'm not sure that still justifies it, and I am not in favour of it myself, but I don't think we want to go down the road of misguided analogies like comparing copyright to theft. Surely people should have some say over what happens on their private property, and if they are being prevented from doing so for whatever reason, perhaps a law of some kind (not necessarily this one) is needed? Granted, I haven't read the actual wording of the law yet, or have any understanding who is behind it and what their motivation is, so perhaps the article is off base.
  - kefka 14y ago
    Unless you switch everyone to a meat substitute, killing will be required for eating meat. I've eaten: cow, chicken, pig, turkey, duck, frog, octopus, salmon, tuna, and I'm sure other meats too. All of them required to be killed, for processing. Don't get me wrong. I eat meat. I've also done slaughtering as well and know what goes on when you do kill. I also strongly prefer eating humanely treated animals, before and during slaughter.
    - techpeace 14y ago
      "humane slaughter"
      - kefka 14y ago
        Look at the way we treat prisoners who have been found guilty of a capital crime: lethal injection. That was because drowned, hung, shot, or electrocuted was considered inhumane. Even the first of 3 of the cocktail puts the prisoner to go unconscious. Now, treat the animals that we eat similar. Nitrogen gas suffocation is known to be the least traumatic death yet. Some executing prisons are going to that as well.
    - glesica 14y ago
      Fine, that's perfectly fine with me. But nothing you said suggests that recording slaughter practices should be some sort of special "first amendment black hole". If it grosses people out, then maybe we'll just end up with more vegetarians, oh well.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        I'm not sure it is quite that simple. The article seems to indicate that it isn't about hiding information per-say, but to keep the people, who come with the specific intent of destroying the farm, away. You will notice it is not just about videos. I think most farmers respect, and even often agree with, with normal animal rights activists, but they also have a real fear towards the "crazy PETA types", and with good reason. I think you'd find any industry trying to push for similar laws in the presence of similar activists, and we do have laws for similar cases that have come up. Its unfortunate that those who have a real concern for the well-being of animals, and actually want to work with farmers to see improvements, get wrapped up in the spectacle that others bring.
- carbocation 14y ago
  I apologize for making my point in the form of a rhetorical question. What I should have said is that, based on the construction of your comment, your comment draws an equivalency between programmers and these animals being slaughtered.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Not at all. I only drew an illustration of something people in this demographic understand to show how people react to biased reporting. If you want people, who have never stepped foot in an office and have never turned on a computer, to believe that programmers are treated horribly because they have to type "gobilty-gook" all day long, it would be a pretty easy sell. Likewise, you can easily make the optimum care we can give an animal given our current understanding look like the worst treatment possible to an outsider without domain-specific understanding. And I wasn't really referring to slaughter specifically, or even at all. There are a lot of care issues too, which are more interesting to me having a farming background and not an abattoir background.
    - pyre 14y ago
      | biased reporting Animal rights activists may be biased towards their cause, but it's not like farmers aren't biased towards their livelihood. If they were to admit that what they were doing was wrong, they would have to own up to everything they had done up to that point, in addition to changing professions.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        My livelihood comes from being a software developer, but have spent enough time in barns to understand how they function, so hopefully I can come as unbiased as possible. I'm curious to know more about what you think that is being done is wrong?
        pyre 14y ago
        I guess a better example of what I'm saying is that a plantation owner in the Confederate South wouldn't have been unbiased about slavery. You can't claim that bias only works in one direction (i.e. AR activists are biased, but farmers are not).
- yuvadam 14y ago
  Fuck, no. Why would you assume mass-slaughter of living beings is going to continue happening?
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Because demand for meat has only risen over time? Most people only seek quality care while the animal is alive, not a complete end to eating meat. I realize technology is on the horizon that could change things in the future, but we are talking about today.
    - pyre 14y ago
      | Most people only seek quality care while | the animal is alive This is impossible at current levels of demand, and the push to keep meat, which historically was only hyper-available to the rich, cheap so that people can all afford to have turducken[1] wrapped in bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken
      - randomdata 14y ago
        Care to elaborate? I assume you mean because owners are increasingly reliant on external labour to fulfill the demand, and, like with any business, labour does not always care about the level of quality in operation that the stakeholders, that have traditionally supplied the products, do?
        pyre 14y ago
        If you also want to talk about the quality of life of the animal, it gets more complicated. Even "free range"/"cage free"/etc animals live in stressful and crowded environments, just less stressful and crowded then other farms animals that are not <insert label here>.
        randomdata 14y ago

randomdata 14y ago

No. I'm saying people who do not understand technology could be lead to believe such things if people started reporting it. Nobody is going to take the time to realize that people actually enjoy writing software using programming languages. And I'm not suggesting animals enjoy being slaughtered, but if it is going to happen, do you not support doing it the most humane way possible?

glesica 14y ago
I support free information. If "best practices" in animal slaughter gross people out, then maybe we need better "best practices" or maybe we need to rethink our agriculture system. Just because something has been decided upon by a group of experts does not make it socially just or appropriate. The treatment of slaves was, I'm sure, generally done according to what, at that time, would have been considered "best practices", and people wanted cotton. But that doesn't mean that slavery should have been ignored and "left to the professionals".
- randomdata 14y ago
  I am sure agriculture would love to work with the people concerned about current best practices to find new and better best practices. Agribusiness is always at the forefront of technology and is quick to adopt better ways. The problem is that the people who come with concern tend to not take time to understand the situation. I recall a recent incident with a celebrity suggesting dairy farmers should breed their calves to not have horns. Great idea in theory. The genes do exist in some living cattle, but it is quite rare. Anyone with even a basic understanding of biology can see how that isn't going to work out so well, but we cannot even seem to find that level of understanding out there.
  - glesica 14y ago
    They demonstrate this by lobbying to suppress freedom of speech? Weird. You haven't justified restricting free speech. I am willing (happy) to admit that some animal-rights people are uninformed blowhards. But that doesn't justify punching holes in the first amendment.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      According to the article, the law intends to prevent animal rights activists, who show some intent to harm the operation, from conducting their business on private property without permission. That is a lot closer, if anything, to being a trespassing matter, not one of free speech. I'm not sure that still justifies it, and I am not in favour of it myself, but I don't think we want to go down the road of misguided analogies like comparing copyright to theft. Surely people should have some say over what happens on their private property, and if they are being prevented from doing so for whatever reason, perhaps a law of some kind (not necessarily this one) is needed? Granted, I haven't read the actual wording of the law yet, or have any understanding who is behind it and what their motivation is, so perhaps the article is off base.
- kefka 14y ago
  Unless you switch everyone to a meat substitute, killing will be required for eating meat. I've eaten: cow, chicken, pig, turkey, duck, frog, octopus, salmon, tuna, and I'm sure other meats too. All of them required to be killed, for processing. Don't get me wrong. I eat meat. I've also done slaughtering as well and know what goes on when you do kill. I also strongly prefer eating humanely treated animals, before and during slaughter.
  - techpeace 14y ago
    "humane slaughter"
    - kefka 14y ago
      Look at the way we treat prisoners who have been found guilty of a capital crime: lethal injection. That was because drowned, hung, shot, or electrocuted was considered inhumane. Even the first of 3 of the cocktail puts the prisoner to go unconscious. Now, treat the animals that we eat similar. Nitrogen gas suffocation is known to be the least traumatic death yet. Some executing prisons are going to that as well.
  - glesica 14y ago
    Fine, that's perfectly fine with me. But nothing you said suggests that recording slaughter practices should be some sort of special "first amendment black hole". If it grosses people out, then maybe we'll just end up with more vegetarians, oh well.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      I'm not sure it is quite that simple. The article seems to indicate that it isn't about hiding information per-say, but to keep the people, who come with the specific intent of destroying the farm, away. You will notice it is not just about videos. I think most farmers respect, and even often agree with, with normal animal rights activists, but they also have a real fear towards the "crazy PETA types", and with good reason. I think you'd find any industry trying to push for similar laws in the presence of similar activists, and we do have laws for similar cases that have come up. Its unfortunate that those who have a real concern for the well-being of animals, and actually want to work with farmers to see improvements, get wrapped up in the spectacle that others bring.
carbocation 14y ago
I apologize for making my point in the form of a rhetorical question. What I should have said is that, based on the construction of your comment, your comment draws an equivalency between programmers and these animals being slaughtered.
- randomdata 14y ago
  Not at all. I only drew an illustration of something people in this demographic understand to show how people react to biased reporting. If you want people, who have never stepped foot in an office and have never turned on a computer, to believe that programmers are treated horribly because they have to type "gobilty-gook" all day long, it would be a pretty easy sell. Likewise, you can easily make the optimum care we can give an animal given our current understanding look like the worst treatment possible to an outsider without domain-specific understanding. And I wasn't really referring to slaughter specifically, or even at all. There are a lot of care issues too, which are more interesting to me having a farming background and not an abattoir background.
  - pyre 14y ago
    | biased reporting Animal rights activists may be biased towards their cause, but it's not like farmers aren't biased towards their livelihood. If they were to admit that what they were doing was wrong, they would have to own up to everything they had done up to that point, in addition to changing professions.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      My livelihood comes from being a software developer, but have spent enough time in barns to understand how they function, so hopefully I can come as unbiased as possible. I'm curious to know more about what you think that is being done is wrong?
      - pyre 14y ago
        I guess a better example of what I'm saying is that a plantation owner in the Confederate South wouldn't have been unbiased about slavery. You can't claim that bias only works in one direction (i.e. AR activists are biased, but farmers are not).
yuvadam 14y ago
Fuck, no. Why would you assume mass-slaughter of living beings is going to continue happening?
- randomdata 14y ago
  Because demand for meat has only risen over time? Most people only seek quality care while the animal is alive, not a complete end to eating meat. I realize technology is on the horizon that could change things in the future, but we are talking about today.
  - pyre 14y ago
    | Most people only seek quality care while | the animal is alive This is impossible at current levels of demand, and the push to keep meat, which historically was only hyper-available to the rich, cheap so that people can all afford to have turducken[1] wrapped in bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken
    - randomdata 14y ago
      Care to elaborate? I assume you mean because owners are increasingly reliant on external labour to fulfill the demand, and, like with any business, labour does not always care about the level of quality in operation that the stakeholders, that have traditionally supplied the products, do?
      - pyre 14y ago
        If you also want to talk about the quality of life of the animal, it gets more complicated. Even "free range"/"cage free"/etc animals live in stressful and crowded environments, just less stressful and crowded then other farms animals that are not <insert label here>.
        randomdata 14y ago