Oregon bill seeks to criminalize breeding/raising livestock for meat

[Tilhana]

It is on my opinion and based on the information you provided, You have an IDIOT for a Governor.
Vote it OUT!!!

Not my governor - I don't live in CO! Although my state also has an idiot for a governor. Whatever, I'm moving out of state anyway. So done with the local politics here.

 

[IdyllwildAcres]

it is a ballot initiative, not a bill and they have not even started gathering signatures. If it does get on the ballot, and gets voted on then it will be challenged in court.

A whole lot of nothing here imo

 

[IdyllwildAcres]

it is forbidden and a sin to eat pork (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, or Christian).

Lol, what a joke. "god" does not care, it was written by the rich who did not want the peasants eating their pork.

I am a vegetarian and it is a healthy diet for me.

 

[Acre4Me]

Pigs are tortured in these slaughter houses from what I’ve seen, and it’s truly heartbreaking.

So, as a business, a slaughterhouse wants to move the animals through with a quick kill not torture.

I don’t believe we are supposed to eat pork

Only your opinion, of course. But you are veering onto the same path as the vegans with the bill the OP started the thread with. Many people enjoy pork and pork is not unhealthy. It is thought that much of the reason it is considered “unclean” is because long ago pigs were kept outdoors so they needed to wallow in mud and “filth” to keep cool and protect their skin. In addition, there were health issues that could come from the meat due to the open and dirty environment that the pigs lived in. Today, most pigs are kept in very clean spaces indoors, removing pretty much all of the “unclean/unhealthy” issues.

Jesus ate fish.

And other foods too. The scriptures are not a food journal, so we only read only about the food that was pertinent to the story.

But some of these animal rights activists, who have never even been on a farm, just anthropomorphize

Thanks to Disney and all other cartoonists for creating stories using animals acting like humans. The public has been fed a steady diet of this thinking (animals are just like humans emotionally) so it is no surprise that they anthropomorphize.

 

[Sierra G]

Pig meat looks too much like human meat, and I've seen what pigs eat and I just don't want to be on the back end of that particular carbon cycle.

Am I the only one who finds it disturbing someone knows what human meat looks like?

 

[Sierra G]

Lol, what a joke. "god" does not care, it was written by the rich who did not want the peasants eating their pork.

I don't like to disagree, except when people are wrong. Most of the food restrictions in the various religious texts have more to do with food safety than economic considerations. Shellfish, for example, was prohibited because it couldn't be properly preserved or transported fast enough to avoid spoilage and food poisoning. The problem with pork was probably related to parasites like the ones that cause trichinosis. Since they didn't know how to cook it well enough to avoid the problem they avoided the problem by prohibiting pork altogether. Bear and walrus would probably be unclean too if they had been native to those regions (or hadn't already been eaten into extinction).

 

[turkey girl 0964]

.

 

[IdyllwildAcres]

I don't like to disagree, except when people are wrong.

Me either

 

[arwoon]

"it is forbidden and a sin to eat pork (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, or Christian"

I would just like to clarify that Christians are not forbidden to eat pork, the Levitical law (in which that is stated) was for the Jews of the old testament and yes, for there health was part of it. (Someone mentioned what gross things pigs eat). God wanted his people to be holy because it was there job to preserve his word. Many many Jews still follow this law, but it is not "forbidden" to eat pork for Christians, Nor is it a sin.

(I just wanted to clarify, do NOT want to offend anyone)

also, I hope that this doesn't become a law, it probably won't, but I can see how it could become disastrous.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Very informative - I suspected that the italics/brackets was indicating deletions but it took me a few confused minutes comparing it to the article I originally linked to to figure it out. Good to hear clarification with someone who has experience reading and writing legalese.

I take your point that it's so early in the process as not to indicate any likelihood of getting on the ballot or being necessarily representative of any decent-sized voting block. I guess I also was mistaken when I referred to it as a "bill" - that was the language used when the link was shared with me and I didn't make the distinction between a bill and a ballot measure, so thank you for pointing that out.
...

It has been my experience that the news media, whatever you might think of a particular source, is VERY VERY bad at reporting on the law. Even setting aside the bias of the various sources, the choice of language on all sides of the political spectrum suggests that either their writers don't know what they are talking about, or they deliberately leave out important context and more exacting language in the belief their viewership/readership won't understand it.

I find it particularly frustrating when the Supreme Court is reported on, as I find the HOW the Court reached its decision to be more important, in the long run, than WHAT decision they actually reached in many cases.

tl;dr I understood why you reported as you did - its how it was reported to you (and essentially everyone else).