Will Zed and Katy vote for caged hens? [With Poll]

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

No. Nor did the poster say that the cruelty say or imply that it was the same level of cruelty. This doesn’t effect his/her analogy – it’s still perfectly valid.

Nor would I dream of using the difference in level or cruelty as an excuse for continued animal cruelty.

It does affects the analogy. You can’t use a black and white issue for our society like slavery or rape and then say the same applies to a grey area like keeping chickens in cages.

They aren’t comparable on any level.

+1. The implication of an equivalent level of cruelty was obvious, and it was a stupid analogy.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

No. Nor did the poster say that the cruelty say or imply that it was the same level of cruelty. This doesn’t effect his/her analogy – it’s still perfectly valid.

Nor would I dream of using the difference in level or cruelty as an excuse for continued animal cruelty.

It does affects the analogy. You can’t use a black and white issue for our society like slavery or rape and then say the same applies to a grey area like keeping chickens in cages.

They aren’t comparable on any level.

And as I said previously, different people have different definitions of what constitutes animal cruelty.

If the Greens want to use community sentiment as a reason for this, then they should not use misleading statements like a 90% increase in the sale of free range eggs at some retailers.

Bollocks. The argument was laid out clear as day: there are instances of cruelty that clearly required government intervention because ‘the market will sort it out itself’ is the most utter epic fail of an idea that anyone has ever had.

If you don’t think that cage eggs involves animal cruelty, then you’re either uninformed or delusional.

As for the ra ra ra Greens ra ra ra … really, give it a rest. The entire RiotACT site is full of the ‘herp derp communist Greens are gonna roon us herp derp’ nonsense. That’s not an argument.

If you have evidence that the claim about rise in rates of people buying non-cage eggs from some retailers are false, then by all means present your case.

Community sentiment *is* clearly behind eliminating animal cruelty. The only people supporting caged egg production are nutjob libertarians and people who say things like ‘they’re only chickens, who cares’ (oddly enough, these are the same people who go into a lynch-mob frenzy in threads about cruelty to domestic animals).

Honestly, how vile a person would someone be to oppose moves to reduce animal cruelty based on free market ideology.

wow, that’s a big horse you’re on

I, for one, am surprised it took this long for Jim Jones to come out with the usual “I’m right and if you don’t agree with me you’re clearly an idiot” claptrap.

Jim Jones said :

Community sentiment *is* clearly behind eliminating animal cruelty.

Yep. You’re probably right. But the argument is about what constitutes “cruelty” – presumably the continued sales of a large proportion of cage eggs is evidence that either the greater public don’t think that the chickens are being treated cruelly, or they are ignorant to the conditions of the chickens.

Either way, there is clearly still debate over the issue.

Nifty said :

Good idea. Why don’t we turn the Jerrabomberra Hilton (the AMC) into the Alexander Maconochie Free Range Egg facility and transfer the prisoners to Parkwood? After all, they’re only human…

Sounds like a plan, by all accounts the chickens would have less disease and parasites than a good portion of residents at AMC.

Jim Jones (2.39pm, 28 Mar 12) said: “Maybe we should keep you in a little cage for awhile and see precisely on what level it is.”

Good idea. Why don’t we turn the Jerrabomberra Hilton (the AMC) into the Alexander Maconochie Free Range Egg facility and transfer the prisoners to Parkwood? After all, they’re only human…

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

No. Nor did the poster say that the cruelty say or imply that it was the same level of cruelty. This doesn’t effect his/her analogy – it’s still perfectly valid.

Nor would I dream of using the difference in level or cruelty as an excuse for continued animal cruelty.

It does affects the analogy. You can’t use a black and white issue for our society like slavery or rape and then say the same applies to a grey area like keeping chickens in cages.

They aren’t comparable on any level.

And as I said previously, different people have different definitions of what constitutes animal cruelty.

If the Greens want to use community sentiment as a reason for this, then they should not use misleading statements like a 90% increase in the sale of free range eggs at some retailers.

Bollocks. The argument was laid out clear as day: there are instances of cruelty that clearly required government intervention because ‘the market will sort it out itself’ is the most utter epic fail of an idea that anyone has ever had.

If you don’t think that cage eggs involves animal cruelty, then you’re either uninformed or delusional.

As for the ra ra ra Greens ra ra ra … really, give it a rest. The entire RiotACT site is full of the ‘herp derp communist Greens are gonna roon us herp derp’ nonsense. That’s not an argument.

If you have evidence that the claim about rise in rates of people buying non-cage eggs from some retailers are false, then by all means present your case.

Community sentiment *is* clearly behind eliminating animal cruelty. The only people supporting caged egg production are nutjob libertarians and people who say things like ‘they’re only chickens, who cares’ (oddly enough, these are the same people who go into a lynch-mob frenzy in threads about cruelty to domestic animals).

Honestly, how vile a person would someone be to oppose moves to reduce animal cruelty based on free market ideology.

Jim Jones said :

No. Nor did the poster say that the cruelty say or imply that it was the same level of cruelty. This doesn’t effect his/her analogy – it’s still perfectly valid.

Nor would I dream of using the difference in level or cruelty as an excuse for continued animal cruelty.

It does affects the analogy. You can’t use a black and white issue for our society like slavery or rape and then say the same applies to a grey area like keeping chickens in cages.

They aren’t comparable on any level.

And as I said previously, different people have different definitions of what constitutes animal cruelty.

If the Greens want to use community sentiment as a reason for this, then they should not use misleading statements like a 90% increase in the sale of free range eggs at some retailers.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

Right now, there are societies which decide that it’s a good idea to have rape victims stoned to death on account of their self-confessed “adultery”.

Sometimes, a responsible government has to step in and stop people from doing things which are unacceptable, nevermind the commercial interests involved and their spurious calls for “negotiation”.

Once again, why the need to use extreme examples like slavery or stoning rape victims to death?

Keeping chickens in cages is not even close to being on the same level as those things.

Maybe we should keep you in a little cage for awhile and see precisely on what level it is.

Jim, do you think slavery and stoning rape victims to death is on the same level as keeping chickens in cages?

No. Nor did the poster say that the cruelty say or imply that it was the same level of cruelty. This doesn’t effect his/her analogy – it’s still perfectly valid.

Nor would I dream of using the difference in level or cruelty as an excuse for continued animal cruelty.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

Right now, there are societies which decide that it’s a good idea to have rape victims stoned to death on account of their self-confessed “adultery”.

Sometimes, a responsible government has to step in and stop people from doing things which are unacceptable, nevermind the commercial interests involved and their spurious calls for “negotiation”.

Once again, why the need to use extreme examples like slavery or stoning rape victims to death?

Keeping chickens in cages is not even close to being on the same level as those things.

Maybe we should keep you in a little cage for awhile and see precisely on what level it is.

Jim, do you think slavery and stoning rape victims to death is on the same level as keeping chickens in cages?

HenryBG said :

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

Right now, there are societies which decide that it’s a good idea to have rape victims stoned to death on account of their self-confessed “adultery”.

Sometimes, a responsible government has to step in and stop people from doing things which are unacceptable, nevermind the commercial interests involved and their spurious calls for “negotiation”.

Thankfully we don’t live in one of those societies. We live in a fairly moderate society where human AND animal welfare are generally considered to be important.

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

I reckon there would still be plenty of people (“consumers”) who would support and use them if allowed but sometimes the Government needs to step in and say its not allowed.

Its the same with cage eggs. Some people are ignorant and/or cruel and will continue to buy them if they are allowed. But I think the ACT needs to make a statement and at least stop them being produced here.

Spot on. The government is meant to lead us, not react to us. The time has come to draw a line under cruel egg farming, and move on to the next lot of cruel farming practices… in chicken meat, Pork, dairy, feed lots… There’s much to do, and appealing to the good in everyone isn’t enough.

Most people DO deplore cruel farming, and when it’s brought to their attention, they don’t support it. I wander through Coles in Qbn quite often, and it’s with increasing satisfaction that I see people at the Free Range end of the display. Cage Eggs are taking a smaller and smaller proportion of the display now, quite a lot less than half.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

Right now, there are societies which decide that it’s a good idea to have rape victims stoned to death on account of their self-confessed “adultery”.

Sometimes, a responsible government has to step in and stop people from doing things which are unacceptable, nevermind the commercial interests involved and their spurious calls for “negotiation”.

Once again, why the need to use extreme examples like slavery or stoning rape victims to death?

Keeping chickens in cages is not even close to being on the same level as those things.

Maybe we should keep you in a little cage for awhile and see precisely on what level it is.

HenryBG said :

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

Right now, there are societies which decide that it’s a good idea to have rape victims stoned to death on account of their self-confessed “adultery”.

Sometimes, a responsible government has to step in and stop people from doing things which are unacceptable, nevermind the commercial interests involved and their spurious calls for “negotiation”.

Once again, why the need to use extreme examples like slavery or stoning rape victims to death?

Keeping chickens in cages is not even close to being on the same level as those things.

nicnacvb said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

Right now, there are societies which decide that it’s a good idea to have rape victims stoned to death on account of their self-confessed “adultery”.

Sometimes, a responsible government has to step in and stop people from doing things which are unacceptable, nevermind the commercial interests involved and their spurious calls for “negotiation”.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

Good lord. Animal protection is nanny statism now?

In which case we might as well add:

– car safety regulations (including seatbelt laws, speed limits, etc.)
– food safety regulations
– drug policy (including prohibitions on minors purchasing cigarettes and alcohol)
– all health initiatives
– etc ad nauseum

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

A while ago society decided that steel jaw traps caused an unacceptable and unnecessary amount of suffereng to animals and so they were outlawed.

I reckon there would still be plenty of people (“consumers”) who would support and use them if allowed but sometimes the Government needs to step in and say its not allowed.

Its the same with cage eggs. Some people are ignorant and/or cruel and will continue to buy them if they are allowed. But I think the ACT needs to make a statement and at least stop them being produced here.

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

+1

Chop71 said :

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

Good lord. Animal protection is nanny statism now?

Diggety said :

A recent study by the University of Sydney:

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=11&newsstoryid=8876&utm_source=console&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=cws

Research sponsored by…. The Australian Egg Corporation.

I have but one thing to add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IJBbtkBMMs

Haha, perfect.

I’m willing to bet Parkwood will be closed in the next couple of years, but not on ethical grounds; more likely, despite what they’ll say in the media – it will be because they want to expand MacGregor out further, and the stench from the farm is not going to help sell land out that way (moths or no moths)… I’m guessing this is the start of the “debate” that will end with Parkwood’s closure. Why have a farm here that sends eggs up to Sydney for packaging anyhow?

There is absolutely no reason for us to treat animals inhumanely, even when they (or their ‘products’) are destined for the dinner table…

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

No, that was just a trick use of statistics (lies, damned lies, and statistics) in the release.

They spoke of a 90 per cent increase in the sale of free range eggs. Without having absolute numbers, this could mean (for example) that whereas prior to the shelf labelling requirement, 1 per cent of all eggs sold were free range, and post requirement, it was 1.9 per cent. Which could be explained by randomness just as easily as any policy change.

Relative percentage increases are meaningless, they need to show the actual percentages of sales in absolute terms.

Why not let the consumer decide? (ACT really is the nanny state)

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Primal said :

I’d be curious to see what the actual figures are for sales of cage v free range egg production. You could hardly be surprised at a lack of support for such a change if (for the sake of example) 80% of Canberra is still buying cage-laid and stating through its purchases that it doesn’t give a stuff about chook welfare.

Cigarette packet style graphic imagery on egg cartons!

Having worked in a battery hen factory, I can assure you that those images would put the majority of people off eating cage eggs forever. It did me

A recent study by the University of Sydney:

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=11&newsstoryid=8876&utm_source=console&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=cws

the govt offerred parkwood a million dollars years ago to convert to free range and they wouldn’t do it. The time for negotiation is gone. Just ban cage eggs already.

Battery hens will be something cruel and incomprehensible we try to explain to our grandchildren in the same was as slavery.

Everything is so black and white to the greens. Why isn’t there a third question asking readers whether they support the ACT government in their current approach to negotiate with Parkwood Eggs to convert the business into a free range operation. Negotiations always work better than bullying, something the Greens just don’t understand. The Greens are just so gung ho and never think about the consequences.

The Greens – always on to the big issues. After being forced to admit (against their personal views) that vandalising egg farms was naughty, suddenly we have this bold public policy initiative.

Here’s a tip. Egg farmers and processors in Queanbeyan and surrounds really hope that you get your way. It won’t make a scrap of difference to the eggs we get in Canberra, but you get to feel all warm and virtuous, and they will pick up the slack.

BTW, one wonders if the Greens know the origin of the phrase ‘pecking order’ (now called bullying, which they are emphatically against). Or, perhaps, the origin of the contamination at Silo that put people in hospital (hint: f*** r***** e***).

As is customary for my comments on their latest toddler outburst …

Idiots.

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Yes, keeping chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery.

I’m sure African-Americans will appreciate your comparison.

That’s right – the phrase “likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery” CLEARLY means the same thing as “chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery”.

Well done for breaking the unbreakable code behind which my true meaning was hiding.

OK,
maybe I’m mistaken in what you trying to say? Can you clarify what you actually meant by the term “likewise”?

You’re trying to justify an unethical stance via an appeal to popularity. This is not a logical argument.

Unethical to you, perhaps not to others or the community at large.

I dislike the way The Greens have tried to use community sentiment as a reason for this. If community sentiment is so strong on this issue then surely no one is buying caged eggs?
They make reference to some retailers reporting increases of 90% but that statement is meaningless without the overall figures.

I think this should be more of a national issue rather than a local one and if changes are to be made it should be on a national level.
I’ve got no problem with the second part of the bill. If they want to make some submissions to improve conditions on a national level then fine. But putting the ACT at a competitive disadvantage over this issue without any national move is stupid.

BTW I buy barn and free-range eggs because I think they’re usually of better quality.

Free range, for the most part, doesn’t mean lush paddocks of green grass where big fat hens are free to roam at their leisure. In reality free-range simply means they get access to open air spaces, probably not full-time and most likely confined in barns at night.

Eggs are tasty though.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Yes, keeping chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery.

I’m sure African-Americans will appreciate your comparison.

That’s right – the phrase “likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery” CLEARLY means the same thing as “chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery”.

Well done for breaking the unbreakable code behind which my true meaning was hiding.

OK,
maybe I’m mistaken in what you trying to say? Can you clarify what you actually meant by the term “likewise”?

You’re trying to justify an unethical stance via an appeal to popularity. This is not a logical argument.

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Yes, keeping chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery.

I’m sure African-Americans will appreciate your comparison.

That’s right – the phrase “likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery” CLEARLY means the same thing as “chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery”.

Well done for breaking the unbreakable code behind which my true meaning was hiding.

OK,
maybe I’m mistaken in what you trying to say? Can you clarify what you actually meant by the term “likewise”?

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Yes, keeping chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery.

I’m sure African-Americans will appreciate your comparison.

That’s right – the phrase “likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery” CLEARLY means the same thing as “chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery”.

Well done for breaking the unbreakable code behind which my true meaning was hiding.

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Yes, keeping chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery.

I’m sure African-Americans will appreciate your comparison.

+1. Nice work, HenryBG. You’ve outdone yourself yet again.

“The time has come for the old parties to catch up with community sentiment and support phasing out battery cage egg production,” Greens animal welfare spokesperson, Caroline Le Couteur said today.”

BS. The fact that a very large number of eggs sold are non-free range eggs suggests that a very large proportion of the community doesn’t care where their eggs come from. I’m willing to bet that the majority of egg sales are non-free range.

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Yes, keeping chickens in cages is EXACTLY the same as slavery.

I’m sure African-Americans will appreciate your comparison.

I suspect this will get through with the second point being amended or removed by the majors.

chewy14 said :

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

Likewise, let’s rescind the ban on slavery and let people make their own choices about whether or not to buy cheap bad-Karma cotton.

Primal said :

I’d be curious to see what the actual figures are for sales of cage v free range egg production. You could hardly be surprised at a lack of support for such a change if (for the sake of example) 80% of Canberra is still buying cage-laid and stating through its purchases that it doesn’t give a stuff about chook welfare.

Cigarette packet style graphic imagery on egg cartons!

If there is so much demand for free range eggs then what do we need the ban for?

Everyone has already chosen to buy them, right?

I’d be curious to see what the actual figures are for sales of cage v free range egg production. You could hardly be surprised at a lack of support for such a change if (for the sake of example) 80% of Canberra is still buying cage-laid and stating through its purchases that it doesn’t give a stuff about chook welfare.

This *should* be pretty straightforward.

Anyway, do we know if the Rozzers have caught up with those insane terrorists?