“I hope no-1 is fagetting our brave solders hu need the milk also it is about time Gnome Chomsy had a chayng of idenntitee so we can go on in suport of things we dont suport but do suport as long as thay r not on ur dorstep by whitch I do not meen cows of corse but the heroick Vulcan witch without enuf milk cud becum a musseam peice. Cows canot fly but by thickineng air neer the ground thair bovine gasses shud make a softr landing for planes witch is wot maters - not sum kids eyes wattering or the wide open spaces of flys witch can neway be used 4 target practiss an if u say difrent u r a terrurrist or vegun witch is the same.”

“Ah - Gnome - I think you may be letting your mask slip... You need to read more carefully and perhaps employ the powers of analysis of the noted intellectual whose name you've bastardised. Read my posting and you'll see I'm simply quoting Mr Avizienius and his colleague as they both are distancing themselves from perceptions that the RSPCA are supporting the proposal. As I'm sure you well know, the vast majority of people wouldn't want this farm anywhere in this country at this size - we do not have the open space that the US has so it can't be placed easily anywhere in England for all the reasons that have been repeated time and again - not animal welfare as that is not a planning consideration as you should know. Tell you what, why don't you just wait until the objections start flooding in responding to the new application when it's submitted and see then whether you find all the reasoning by myself and fellow campaigners is muddled... and then get some assistance to do the reading you'll need to do to find a viable rationale to argue the case for this proposal.
It's not a case of not in my back yard (and in actuality it isn't) - but not in this country.”

“Do you want it on your doorstep, Gnome?”

“Gnome,

The issue is that this sort of agro-industrial installation should not be allowed on anyone's 'doorstep'.

There is no planning precedent for this kind of development in the UK but experience in the USA has led to regulations that would require a separation distance of 8 miles from residential buildings for a CAFO of this size.

Additionally, Willes has a record as a known polluter and the CAFO will be built on a fragile geology that supplies water for Lincoln. The impact of the bovine effluent could be catastrophic.

No, not on anyone's doorstep, thank you.”

“Deborah, you clearly do not want the dairy near to you, but you are muddled on your reasoning. Mr Avizienius simply said that big farms are not necessarily bad for animal welfare. His statement that he is not overtly backing the Nocton plan does not mean he is specifically opposing it. He means it may not be the monster you imagine.

Do you object on animal welfare grounds, or because it is on your doorstep?”

“John, "animals are not sentient" is a rather 17th century attitude. As Linda points out, science has moved on a little since then. After all, if animals were not able to sense pain or distress why would the RSPCA exist?

You may be confusing anthropomorphism with sentience and I agree, projecting human values onto animal behaviour is not always helpful but that is not to deny our (human) sense of 'qualia' such as compassion, empathy, resonance etc.

Sentience itself, imho, is not a particularly helpful measure as it is impossible to conclusively determine scientifically whether humans are sentient. Indeed, the selective application of human sentience has underpinned some of our worst human rights abuses; slavery as, perhaps, the most obvious.

Perhaps you might consider other ways to support your scientific 'knowledge' such as ethical, moral or even aesthetic considerations.”

“John of Lincoln, perhaps you should do your research before making such strident comments like "For one thing we are sentient and they are not"

The information below is taken directly from Compassion in World Farming's website and is based on scientific investigation:
A sentient animal is one for whom feelings matter"
Professor John Webster, University of Bristol

Scientific research is constantly revealing new evidence of animals¿ intelligence and emotions. This interest is reflected in burgeoning numbers of journals, books and reports. Professor Marian Dawkins of the Oxford University has called the study of animal sentience "one of the most exciting and the most important in the whole of biology."

There is now evidence that many animals can learn new skills and some appear to show emotions similar to human empathy. They can also be reduced to a state resembling human depression by chronic stress or confinement in a cage. This new understanding of the sentience of animals has huge implications for the way we treat them and the policies and laws we adopt.

I rest my case!”

“Big may not necessarily be bad for the animals - but animal welfare is not a planning issue... the environment is, and 8100 cows in one place so close to all the villages surrounding Nocton Heath will be about 8000 too many. I'm becoming confused about the RSPCA's line on this ...Mr Avizienius' RSPCA colleague appeared much less impressed with the Nocton application in the Echo of 19th August and Mr A himself wrote to the Farmers Guardian who featured him in an article published on the 12th August saying: "...the way that the comments have been represented seems to insinuate that the RSPCA is backing the Nocton planning application. This is misleading and untrue."”

“"This is 'scientific reductionism' at its worst", no it isn't, it is about doing things based on knowledge. John Avizienius is stating what I alluded to a couple of days ago that you can't give human feelings and regards for conditions to animals as they are completely different. For one thing we are sentient and they are not which makes an enormous difference before we discuss anything more specific.”

“"But if you look beyond your first perceptions at the actualities of welfare and devise standards based on an understanding of the animals..."

And what if my first perceptions are based on an understanding of the animals...? Avizienius remarks demonstrate a non-empathic, disembodied experience of his fellow animals. He chooses to ignore the first perceptions of revulsion and distress as this cannot be measured in his 'scientific' paradigm.

Bit, of course, if you believe animals are production machines to be exploited I'm sure that they can be expertly 'managed'.

Believe me, I can fail to be inspired. This is 'scientific reductionism' at its worst.'”