PETA and the Holocaust

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

As I've maintained, animals (including some humans) are not moral agents, so their own actions cannot be regarded as unethical. Now, animals can act in ways that cause suffering to humans and each other and this is morally significant. As I've said previously, Victor, if we could intervene in the affairs of animals in the wild to cause less suffering, then we should.

So you think we should, say, protect rabbits from foxes? We don't have to punish the fox, but protecting rabbits from it is a morally desirable goal in your opinion, correct?

But, at the moment, this is an unachieavable goal (and just because it's unachievable does not undermine the ethical point: reducing suffering to a minimum).

Why is it unachievable? Why don't we try breeding vegetarian foxes, and rabbits with built-in population controls (so they don't need predators to keep the population down)? Let's at least try to make the lion lie with the lamb, right?

Your position leads to prima-facie absurd conclusions, I think.

And stop using the word "hypocrisy" as though it's going out of style.

Sorry. It does look to me like you're not being hypocritical -- but then your beliefs (i.e. that we should intervene in the ecosphere on behalf of the prey, if we can) are bizarre to say the least.

 

[Tmy]

My cat is always killing birds and small animals. Am I a bad person for not putting a bell on his collar?

 

[BillyTK]

My cat is always killing birds and small animals. Am I a bad person for not putting a bell on his collar?

Yes! Murderer! (j/k)

My cats are always bringing in moths, bees and bluebottles, although the male once brought in a joint of ham...

 

[Tmy]

I would think its cruel to put a bell on him. Imagine havingthat ringing all the time!?!?

My cat catches all sorts of things. He caught a squirrel the other week! And he has a bionic leg (long story which will result in a rant about manipulating Animal Hospitals)

I think people forget that we are as much a part of the planet as the animals. Our behavior is nature.

Did you say the cat brought in a joint?!?!!? How do you teach that trick!

 

[Cain]

Oh Shane, the hits keep comin'.

Over your head, perhaps. Vague, I don't think so. I mean, what part of the statement "Animal Welfare is central to meat production do you find vague?

Over MY head -- you're a funny guy! No, I was actually referring to this nonsense: I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans.

Taken in the context of this nonsense:

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Which was a reply, if you try to remember (please try), to a statement on morality in the context of ethics. They're silly, arbitrary and, in the final analysis, completely devoid of content. I thought I was being polite by calling them vague (confused is perhaps more accurate, but oh well...).

Your evidence for this is? Do animals get to turn around in their pins? Do they need to? Do they fail to get fresh air? Would they "enjoy" it in any case?

Oh, I've seen the light. You're probably right. Animals are better confined to small pins and cages where they can hardly turn around. They love it! But wait, how can I know when an animal is "enjoy[ing]" itself. That's yet another absurd claim. Personal experience, and I'm sure the personal experiences of others, verifies this.

I made a pertinent point. I could also view videos of Uri Geller bending spoon using his psychic abilities, or alien corpses being dissected in Area 51. Just because something is on video doesn't make it factual.

Yes, a pertinent point. We should apply this rigorious skepticism to everything we see on television, hear on the radio, or read in print (fake stuff has seeped through before, right). We should especially promote this "distinct possibly" after NOT viewing the video in question.

They weren't, or at least they shouldn't have been, because it just doesn't make any sense. I'll refer back to my earleir links; Humane pre-slaughter handling and slughtering methods are absolutely vital from an economic sense. Smashing a pig's head head off a cinder block is a very innefficient way to slaughter it. It affects meat quality and is more than consuming than stunning or gassing with carbon monoxide. Pig's throats are slashed after initial stunning, to kill the animal and remove the blood. At this stage, the animal is no longer sentient.

One of the videos shows a farm worker slashing the throat of a pig and not bothering to use a stunner. This makes perfect economic sense: why bother stunning a lame sow? Oh, but the video that documents this event -- it's probably a fraud. You mentioned something about Uri Geller...

I'm not denying that slaughter methods aren't 100% foolproof, but then what is? That being said, the above is heresay, and doesn't come up to the requisite standard of proof. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, a detailed study giving a reliable approximation is a different thing altogether. Look at Jayson Blair.

So you would definitely approve of legislation forcing slaughterhouses and factory farms to install cameras at critical locations, correct?

You do realize that, um, factory farms and slaughterhouses do not want people sniffing around, yammering about rights and suffering. These are closed companies where investigative journalists have to go undercover and infilitrate.

Says who? How many times do I have to say it "IT MAKES PERFECT ECONOMIC SENSE TO TREAT LIVESTOCK WITH THE UTMOST CONCERN FOR THEIR WELFARE"

Say it "louder", it just might become true. Oh, and once again, slave owners had economic incentives to treat their property with the utmost concern.

Oh, but wait, that's completely different? How is it different? [Insert vague (confused) statements on the capacity to produce fine literature and develop internal combustion engines here]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor: see Peter Singer's letter in the NYBooks to the same argument http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2837

I've already addressed it twice and I'm not sure what else I can say that hasn't been said.

Why is it unachievable? Why don't we try breeding vegetarian foxes, and rabbits with built-in population controls (so they don't need predators to keep the population down)? Let's at least try to make the lion lie with the lamb, right?

How is that going to work, assuming it's possible, in complex ecosystems? We're talking about animals "in the wild," no? Singer, in the link provided above, writes:

The reason that animal liberationists do not try to interfere with predator-prey relationships is that they are not as arrogant or stupid as other humans who, over the centuries, have imagined that they know how to rearrange nature by introducing a few rabbits here, or letting some goats run wild there. The outcome of past cases of human interference has been disastrous for the nonhuman animals, and often for the humans as well.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
Over MY head -- you're a funny guy! No, I was actually referring to this nonsense: I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans.

Taken in the context of this nonsense:

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Which was a reply, if you try to remember (please try), to a statement on morality in the context of ethics. They're silly, arbitrary and, in the final analysis, completely devoid of content. I thought I was being polite by calling them vague (confused is perhaps more accurate, but oh well...).

I don't see what's vague about it. Indeed it's a position you youself seem to be endorsing, since you haven't suggested that we impose our standards of ethics on the natural world, or that animals are to be held to the same ethical standards as we hold ourselves to.

Yes, a pertinent point. We should apply this rigorious skepticism to everything we see on television, hear on the radio, or read in print (fake stuff has seeped through before, right). We should especially promote this "distinct possibly" after NOT viewing the video in question.

A video doesn't come up to the requisite standard of evidence. What I would look for are studies undertaken by reputable agencies detailing "atrocities and abuses", or evidence of court proceedings against meat processors, or evidence that a large number of them have been convicted for "abuses and atrocities". Nor am I likely to view the video in question now, since the poster in question has engaged in ad-hom attacks, and clearly didn't even bother to examine his own evidence in detail (He claimed there weren't any dead animals in it!).

One of the videos shows a farm worker slashing the throat of a pig and not bothering to use a stunner. This makes perfect economic sense: why bother stunning a lame sow?

Because slaughtering a sentient animal like that yields poor quality meat. Besides, just because the sow was moving doesn't mean it hadn't been stunned or was still sentient. There's such a thing as delayed nerve response.

Just wondering, any word on the investigations into these suspected abuses?

So you would definitely approve of legislation forcing slaughterhouses and factory farms to install cameras at critical locations, correct?

No, because there isn't any evidence to suggest that present regulations are failing.

You do realize that, um, factory farms and slaughterhouses do not want people sniffing around, yammering about rights and suffering. These are closed companies where investigative journalists have to go undercover and infilitrate.

You do realise that, um, for safety and insurance reasons people in general aren't permitted to sniff around any industrial workplace? For safety reasons most industrial areas are tightly restricted in terms of movement of people. Again, if undercover and investigative journalists have infiltrated the meat industry and uncovered evidence of "atrocities and abuse" then you should be able to provide a wealth of links detailing the deluge of official investigations and convictions that followed.

 

[Cain]

I don't see what's vague about it. Indeed it's a position you youself seem to be endorsing, since you haven't suggested that we impose our standards of ethics on the natural world, or that animals are to be held to the same ethical standards as we hold ourselves to.

Shane, I asked for a criterion, a characteristic or ability of some kind, that's morally relevant and distinguishes us from non-human animals (in terms of rights). We could, for example, compare the reproductive rights of men and women. I say, and I'm not sure whether you agree or not, that women ought to have reproductive control in ways that men do not; specifically, the right to have an abortion. Why am I against allowing men to have an abortion? Well, for the plainly obvious reason that men cannot have one. The same argument applies to why I am against the idea of dogs voting. The same reasoning fashioned in a different context demonstrates why we cannot hold non-human animals morally accountable for their actions (and, by the way, we cannot hold many humans, especially children, morally accountable for their own actions).

Because slaughtering a sentient animal like that yields poor quality meat. Besides, just because the sow was moving doesn't mean it hadn't been stunned or was still sentient. There's such a thing as delayed nerve response.
Just wondering, any word on the investigations into these suspected abuses?

No, this is taken from the very first part of the undercover video -- the one you've never seen, remember? They were killing a sow, and could have chosen to use the stun gun (this took place at the farm, not in the slaughterhouse). Instead they just slit her throat.

No, because there isn't any evidence to suggest that present regulations are failing.

Omi-god, true believer syndrome. Earlier I went to the extent of manually typing in first hand accounts from one slaughterhouse. You said that of course accidents happen. You do realize that those accidents could be minimized if they weren't slaughtering 16,000 pigs a shift, right? But why should the for-profit system take into account the suffering of an animal? It's an externality not factored into the equation. To quote George Soros:

The fallacy of endowing the market mechanism with a moral quality goes deep.... What distinguishes markets is exactly that they are amoral—that is to say, moral considerations do not find expression in market prices.

You do realise that, um, for safety and insurance reasons people in general aren't permitted to sniff around any industrial workplace? For safety reasons most industrial areas are tightly restricted in terms of movement of people. Again, if undercover and investigative journalists have infiltrated the meat industry and uncovered evidence of "atrocities and abuse" then you should be able to provide a wealth of links detailing the deluge of official investigations and convictions that followed.

Are you kidding me? The factory farm mentioned earlier, according to the New York Times, has a 100 percent turnover rate. "Slaughtering swine," according to Charlie LeDuff, "is repetitive, brutish work.... Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, "they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'" The Times found that this company, Smithfield, "comb the streets of New York's immigrant communities... and word has reached mexico and beyond. The company even procures criminals. Several t the morning orientation were inmates on work release in green uniforms, bused in from the county prison."

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
Omi-god, true believer syndrome. Earlier I went to the extent of manually typing in first hand accounts from one slaughterhouse.

"First hand accounts" = "anecdotal evidence". Anecdotal evidence doesn't meet the requisite standard of proof, reports from official investigations, statistics od court proceedings etc does. If you're willing to accept an anecdotal account from someone who may have worked in a slaughterhouse as proof enough then I suggest it is you suffering from true believer syndrome, not me.

You do realize that those accidents could be minimized if they weren't slaughtering 16,000 pigs a shift, right?

What evidence is there that accidents aren't currently at a minimal level?

But why should the for-profit system take into account the suffering of an animal? It's an externality not factored into the equation. To quote George Soros:

The fallacy of endowing the market mechanism with a moral quality goes deep.... What distinguishes markets is exactly that they are amoral—that is to say, moral considerations do not find expression in market prices.

You are continuing to ignore the thrust of my argument. I've argued that for narrow economic reasons the welfare of the animal is central to efficient meat production, and provided supporting evidence for this. For this reason alone "abuse and atrocities" of animals have no place in meat production. Don't mix up "amorality" with "immorality"

Are you kidding me? The factory farm mentioned earlier, according to the New York Times, has a 100 percent turnover rate. "Slaughtering swine," according to Charlie LeDuff, "is repetitive, brutish work.... Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, "they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'" The Times found that this company, Smithfield, "comb the streets of New York's immigrant communities... and word has reached mexico and beyond. The company even procures criminals. Several t the morning orientation were inmates on work release in green uniforms, bused in from the county prison."

All factory work is repetitive, not just slaughtering animals. To call the work "brutish" is a subjective judgement. It's clinical, efficient and fast, and leaves no room for anyone to indulge their sadistic tendencies. The figure of a staff turnover of 5,000 means nothing on it's own. Is the work seasonal, as it is on most farms? If so then a highturnover is to be expected. How does this rate of turnover compare with other industries? The article mentions "people" claiming that the farms slaughters people, rather than animals? Who are these people, and did they even work on the farm, or are they just repeating anecdotal evidnec they heard? So what if they hire immigrant workers, or prisoners for that matter. Are they doing anything illegal here? If so then what action was taken against the company?

And why should I believe anything the New York Times prints?

 

[BillyTK]

Did you say the cat brought in a joint?!?!!? How do you teach that trick!

Yup. A joint of ham--admittedly not much bigger than his little head, but big enough. We didn't actually teach him, in fact the problem was unteaching him so he'd stop pinching people's dinners! He's since returned to his usual prey of bugs, straws and paintbrushes.

 

[Cain]

"First hand accounts" = "anecdotal evidence". Anecdotal evidence doesn't meet the requisite standard of proof, reports from official investigations, statistics od court proceedings etc does. If you're willing to accept an anecdotal account from someone who may have worked in a slaughterhouse as proof enough then I suggest it is you suffering from true believer syndrome, not me.

It would be quite easy to systematically document evidence by placing cameras at important stages in the slaughtering process- but you're opposed to that of course. You do realize, um, these sort of "first hand accounts" are the impetus for such legislation, right?

From an article on PETA's site:

According to the USDA, more than 100,000 cattle per year, mostly dairy cows, arrive at slaughterhouses unable to walk off the backs of the transport trucks. According to the National Pork Board, more than 400,000 pigs each year arrive for slaughter unable to walk off the trucks. More than 100,000 pigs arrive dead from the harsh traveling conditions.

But hey, those are probably the "minimal" numbers (which the afflicted animals must find very reassuring).

What evidence is there that accidents aren't currently at a minimal level?

What do you mean by "minimal level"? They could slow down the line, which increases the chances the animals are stunned. But why would a for-profit institution want to slow down the process of slaughter? To make sure the animals do not suffer? That's an externality not accounted for by the consumer (remember, market expressions do not arise).

You are continuing to ignore the thrust of my argument. I've argued that for narrow economic reasons the welfare of the animal is central to efficient meat production, and provided supporting evidence for this.

Yep, you put up two links. I'm impressed, no really. We all know, for example, that Colorado State's research would not be influenced by the Colorado Cattlemen Association: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/SoilCrop/extension/Soils/cnmp/partners.html

For this reason alone "abuse and atrocities" of animals have no place in meat production. Don't mix up "amorality" with "immorality"

Markets are amoral systems, but they're not completely inflexible. Again, we could say the same for the slave-owner trying to get ahead of his competition. He may not be too keen to the idea of buying people, but it's necessary to keep up (and relating to another point, we know that abuses and atrocities against slaves fully documented )

If so then a highturnover is to be expected. How does this rate of turnover compare with other industries?

Compare with:

For safety reasons most industrial areas are tightly restricted in terms of movement of people.

And why should I believe anything the New York Times prints?

Wow, this is incredible. An almost impentrable shield of irrationality, one part market fundamentalism reinforced by severe moral retardation. I'm impressed. Unless you really find LeDuff's reporting to be sooo unbelievable, there's a presumption of honesty (until proven otherwise). Of course, you won't bother investigating (in keeping with general intellectual laziness). And even if his account is correct, so what, they're just animals.

Which leads me to note:

you didn't even pretend to offer a moral distinction between human and non-human animals this time. I found that to be, um, worth noting.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Caiun:
It would be quite easy to systematically document evidence by placing cameras at important stages in the slaughtering process- but you're opposed to that of course. You do realize, um, these sort of "first hand accounts" are the impetus for such legislation, right?

Evidence? Impetus for legislation comes from government and private sponsered studies and expert advice, not anecdotal evidence.

But hey, those are probably the "minimal" numbers (which the afflicted animals must find very reassuring).

Link?

What do you mean by "minimal level"? They could slow down the line, which increases the chances the animals are stunned. But why would a for-profit institution want to slow down the process of slaughter? To make sure the animals do not suffer? That's an externality not accounted for by the consumer (remember, market expressions do not arise

But the animals don't (in nearly all cases) suffer, there just isn't time. And you can slow the process down all you wan't but still couldn't guarantee it would be 100% foolproof.

Yep, you put up two links. I'm impressed, no really. We all know, for example, that Colorado State's research would not be influenced by the Colorado Cattlemen Association: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Soil...p/partners.html

The Colorado Cattlemen cannot influence or change scientific fact or the metabolic processes influencing meat quality. What they have is "a narrow economic interest in animal welfare".

Markets are amoral systems, but they're not completely inflexible. Again, we could say the same for the slave-owner trying to get ahead of his competition. He may not be too keen to the idea of buying people, but it's necessary to keep up (and relating to another point, we know that abuses and atrocities against slaves fully documented

What relevance has this got to meat?

Wow, this is incredible. An almost impentrable shield of irrationality, one part market fundamentalism reinforced by severe moral retardation. I'm impressed. Unless you really find LeDuff's reporting to be sooo unbelievable, there's a presumption of honesty (until proven otherwise). Of course, you won't bother investigating (in keeping with general intellectual laziness). And even if his account is correct, so what, they're just animals.

Inpenetrable shield of irrationality? Blow it out your rear orifice! What I'm doing is exercising critical thinking, and to an even greater degree than normal given the justified doubts about the NYT's editorial rigour. This involves no presumption of honesty or dishonesty, nor is there any obligation on my part to investigate your link to establish the evidence to support your claim. And you accuse me of intellectual laziness!

 

[Cain]

Truly laughable. Especailly the last paragraph.

What I'm doing is exercising critical thinking, and to an even greater degree than normal given the justified doubts about the NYT's editorial rigour. This involves no presumption of honesty or dishonesty, nor is there any obligation on my part to investigate your link to establish the evidence to support your claim. And you accuse me of intellectual laziness!

So an investigative reporter summarizes his findings at slaughterhouse. How am I suppose to support those claims? You just close your eyes, plug your ears, chant "na na na na", and that's exercising critical thinking skills? Puh-lease.

You do realize that the under-cover video tape from China showing cats and dogs flayed alive is considered "anecdotal evidence," don't you? The process is also economically efficient.

Here's the link on a prior quote: http://www.goveg.com/ns-welfare.html

I'm still not sure why anyone would refuse to allow legislation that requires cameras inside slaughterhouses and factory farms because it would produce all the necessary information on the process.

Oh, but please, continue to rely on that flimsy a priori argument from economic reasoning. Persist in refusing to even acknowledge the moral distinctions. Continue to rely on the one link you provided (which I doubt you even bothered to read). And finally,never forget to ask fatuous questions, such as "What relevance has this got to meat?" Ignoring context and speaking in non-sequiturs -- it works!

All good fun.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain;

So an investigative reporter summarizes his findings at slaughterhouse. How am I suppose to support those claims? You just close your eyes, plug your ears, chant "na na na na", and that's exercising critical thinking skills? Puh-lease.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing to suggest that these are "his findings". Indeed his use of the phrase "people say" along with the serious questions now being posed about NYT editorial policy lead me to question the accuracy of his reporting without further corroborating evidence.

You do realize that the under-cover video tape from China showing cats and dogs flayed alive is considered "anecdotal evidence," don't you? The process is also economically efficient.

Yes it is anecdotal evidence, and what leads you to conclude the process is economically efficient?

I'm still not sure why anyone would refuse to allow legislation that requires cameras inside slaughterhouses and factory farms because it would produce all the necessary information on the process.

Because it adds costs and there's nothing to suggest the present system of regulation and inspection is failing.

Oh, but please, continue to rely on that flimsy a priori argument from economic reasoning.

I'm relying on scientifically established fact.

Persist in refusing to even acknowledge the moral distinctions.

Where? In fact I've pointed out the serious moral distinction between slavery and meat.

Continue to rely on the one link you provided (which I doubt you even bothered to read).

Hubris.

Here's the link on a prior quote: http://www.goveg.com/ns-welfare.html

Let's take a look then.

The fourth reason for adopting a vegan diet is a recognition that eating animal products supports cruelty to animals.

Good thing production of animal products doesn't involve cruelty to animals.

We share the planet with an array of amazing beings, and if we would prefer not to contribute to their extreme suffering, we should not eat them.

But then as Victor pointed out production of non-animal derived foods also involves cruelty to animals. Best not to eat anything, so.

Twenty years ago, scientists, the ones who were telling us we could smoke low tar cigarettes, were still telling us that other animals don’t feel pain in the same way that humans do. Now, no reputable scientist believes that. Everyone now understands that cattle, pigs, chickens, fish—all farmed animals—feel not only pain but joy, sorrow, fear, distress, and an array of other emotions as well, just as we do. They share these and other capacities with us.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the refeence to the study that established this, and whaddya now, they don't give any.

As just a few examples, among many: Scientists at the University of Guelph have learned that pigs and chickens will choose to turn on the heat in a cold barn if given the chance and to turn it off again when they are too warm, and University of Bristol researchers have observed that chickens will complete a difficult maze to reach a nest instead of laying their eggs on the barn floor. Perhaps you read the recent New York Times article about the ability of sheep to recognize the faces of 50 or more other sheep or humans from photographs, even if they haven’t seen the other sheep or humans in two years? In Pennsylvania, a farm welfare researcher has shown that sows like to play video games, and that they play the games better than some primates. And a researcher in Saskatchewan is studying the complex social lives of cattle, finding that they interact in ways very similar to the ways we interact. These scientists join sanctuary owners and many small farmers in recognizing that animals are individuals, with feelings just like our own.

Ditto. At this stage I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of this.

 

[Cain]

There's nothing to suggest that these are "his findings". Indeed his use of the phrase "people say" along with the serious questions now being posed about NYT editorial policy lead me to question the accuracy of his reporting without further corroborating evidence.

Yes, that's very rational of you That whole "people say" line -- what was he thinking? So what if I present the undercover work of Joby Warrick of the _Washington Post_? Larry Gallagher?

Yes it is anecdotal evidence, and what leads you to conclude the process is economically efficient?

The suffering of animals is an externality not factored into market pricing. Why should they bother properly sedating the animals?

Here's yet another example: Quote from "Lancaster Farming" (October 27, 1990)-- "Death losses during transport are too high-- amounting to more than $8 million per year. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why we load as many hogs on a truck as we do. It's cheaper... Even with a zero death rate that might be associated with providing more space on the truck, the hogs we save would not be enough to pay for the increased transportation costs of hauling fewer hogs on a load."

Where? In fact I've pointed out the serious moral distinction between slavery and meat.

What? Where? And we're not pointing out moral distinctions between "meat" and slavery. We're pointing out moral distinctions between humans and non-human animals. It's not difficult to distinguish between a corpse and a cat.

Good thing production of animal products doesn't involve cruelty to animals.

Calves confined to a 2x5 crate and given a pure liquid diet? Slaughtered within a couple months time? Or we can just quote Mr. Warrick (that is, if the Post is respectable paper) at a plant and quotes a worker who says "the line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive."

Earlier I cited the 16,000 pigs slaughtered on a shift, and the workers who say many go unstunned.

To this you asked, fatuously, if that was the "minimal number". No, it's not the minimal number. The minimal number could be zero if we stopped consuming pigs altogether. It makes zero economic sense to the stop the line to prevent one from suffering. Or to slow down the line to reduce the incidence of one going by without being properly stunned.

But then as Victor pointed out production of non-animal derived foods also involves cruelty to animals. Best not to eat anything, so.

I've addressed this canard no fewer than three times.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the refeence to the study that established this, and whaddya now, they don't give any.

Yeah-- they're made up. The studies don't exist. Content yourself with the blue pill. Although, if you were genuinely interested, I'm sure it wouldn't take much time to find that articles on the Internet, or to e-mail the author. No, better to assume that anything that could possibly contradict your view is just wrong. If a source is given, commit the genetic fallacy. No matter how many do suffer in the slaughterhouse or transport, invoke the "minimal number" non-reply. Cry "subjectivity" at descriptions of the plant. Summon misguided economic arguments, long disproven since the days of child labor and slavery (owners have an economic interest in maintain their health standards, right?). Discount any and all investigative reporting as "anecdotal" (are there any scientific studies documenting the abuses in Saddam's regime? Nah, they're based on subjective accounts, and not too rigorously documented. And if the New York Times reports it, well, then it didn't happen).

 

[voidx]

Reading these debates is like watching an ping-pong match in the dark. Their all over the goddamned place.

Reel your scope down to one area. We start discussing American standards and then, wheeeee, we're off to China talking about the flaying of cats and dogs. Realized their not in the same country, with the same standards, and that also our lack of eating meat here, does not mean any change in conditions over there. And enough with the damned slavery. You can try and argue it all you like, and hey, maybe deep down there you can find something, but let's realize that we have 2 arguements going here. One is the intellectual level at which animals feel emotions if at all, and whether they should be recognized for that (realize that if you're arguing this line in this thread it must pertain strictly to livestock animals, whales and dolphins and the like are out), also realize that even if they are shown to have said emotions, it doesn't across the board mean we should discontinue their consumption as a food source IMO. Two is the arguement over what constitutes cruelty to animals and over whether standards properly reduce cruelty levels or not in factory farms.

Here's another issue. Ok fine, you're against eating animals, you've stated many cases of abuse. I have wanted to get a large scale picture of how pervasive this is in the industry and I sympathize. It wouldn't be easy, and I've gone looking myself to large extent to find surveys and articles painting the current condition of the livestock industry. Now realize that arguing to discontinue the consumption of meat is a) impractical, b) economical risky and unlikely (due to the switch over that would have to occur), and c) pushes your lifestyle choices onto me who enjoys the taste of meat. What I'm getting at, and this follows for both sides certainly, but decide what you're arguing about, and stick to it. If we're discussing North American issues of livestock quality, then leave China out of it. I'm not dismissing China, but you can't use it to argue against North American practices, their different for one, and we have less control over what we can make China do compared to here. If its the cruelty to livestock animals within the process of factory farms then I agree that more observation of these process' would be a good thing, if we're doing nothing wrong, we have nothing to hide. But acknowledge why perhaps the meat industry might be against it. Financial conisderations for one. And also, the weak stomach of the general public for even normal least-cruel, ethical slaughter practices they no longer, or have never had to see before in their cushy lives. A well run factory farm which takes best care of the livestock it has while being profitable and adhering to all the proper standards, might still look like a house of horrors to some suburban mom who has never had to comprehend or see where her chicken and beef comes from. Remember that their often multiple results for any action taken, and you must consider them all before running off and suggesting said action.

Now I agree, there have been cases of animal cruelty, and the definition of just what should be considered humane enough conditions for livestock varies depending on how you talk too. I think so long as the animals are kept healthy, and slaughtered humanely (and admit, Shane is right here, no process will ever be 100% failproof all the time), then they don't necessarily need to run around in an open field all day and what have you. That is my opinion of course. I agree that this should be looked at more, that a closer eye should be paid to ensure standards are providing the best environment for the livestock as they are grown, and then processed. I've found evidence on the US Humane Society that level-head people are fighting this fight. For example looking at redefining forced molting procedures as it is potentially stressful to poultry, and also causes more health concerns into the processed meat. This is a practical solution, and I would like to see more work done like this with good science to back it up. The problem I'm having in all the reading I've been doing on PETA even on the USHS, is that they all have an under-current of pushing a vegetarian diet, or promoting the use of local, range fed livestock, which hasn't been shown in my reading so far that it could meet current meat production needs, so it may or may not be a proper alternative. Many of these sites just plain call for the end of consuming livestock meat period. IMO this is not only a naive idea, but economically unfeasiable currently, impractical at best, calls for switching to a food supply which might not be prepared for the sudden increased demand due to fall off of meat consumption, and just isn't going to happen because of people like me who enjoy eating meat. Argue for better standards, yes, I agree whole-heartedly, but don't go preaching to give up meat, its pushing your lifestyle on someone else, and it's just not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Cain]

Re: We're discussing America, not China; find an argument and stick to it.

Topics and subtopics tend to splinter in a thread containing over 100 posts. China's behavior toward animals arose in at least three separate contexts (1: an example of feeding the world's population; 2: anecdotal evidence 3: economic incentives). The last two only mattered for purposes with SC. The last point is the most important, made using different examples, because it captures a fundamental difficulty in process versus product in the market system. As a rationally self-interested (i.e. self-maximizer) actor in the free-market, it makes no sense to consider the circumstances, or process, by which my food (or anything else) is delivered to the market. There might be cruelty involved, it might be slave labor, it might be ecologically unsound, doesn't matter.

Suppose products A and B are identical in all regards except two: 1) A is cheaper 2) A was made using forced labor.

Markets compel us to choose A over B and never really ask questions. The suffering of animals is an externality not captured in price (George Soros documents the general fallacy).

Re: two separate arguments:
One is the intellectual level at which animals feel emotions if at all, and whether they should be recognized for that (realize that if you're arguing this line in this thread it must pertain strictly to livestock animals, whales and dolphins and the like are out), also realize that even if they are shown to have said emotions, it doesn't across the board mean we should discontinue their consumption as a food source IMO. Two is the arguement over what constitutes cruelty to animals and over whether standards properly reduce cruelty levels or not in factory farms.

To the first part I'd ask a very simple question: what characteristics do non-human animals lack that allow us to endlessly consume them? Even though most people in first world countries eat animals, they still oppose needless suffering. Unfortunately, the connection between consumption and needless suffering has not been made. This reminds me of the pro-life activists who permit abortions in the case of rape and incest, as if to say these future people will lack a "soul". I've defined cruelty as "unnecessary suffering," so the second part of this question builds slightly on the first. And, as mentioned on at least the second thread, "atrocity" or "abuse" to describe either human or non-human animals is loaded because it assumes their moral significance. If a person thinks of animals no differently than rocks, then there's not much to discuss about practices on factory farms (or hunting, or the psychotic young boys who torture their pets).

Now realize that arguing to discontinue the consumption of meat is a) impractical, b) economical risky and unlikely (due to the switch over that would have to occur), and c) pushes your lifestyle choices onto me who enjoys the taste of meat.

I hardly believe that one day a vegan dictator will come to power and prohibit the use of all animals for dietary consumption. The idea that we might wake up one morning and see a headline in the paper that says, "Animals have rights! Meat banned" is unlikely. So, yes, it would be impractical to suddenly discontinue the consumption of meat, but that defies the slow, incremental process and history of all liberation movements. The last point has always annoyed me -- you're enforcing your beliefs on me. No, if animals are morally significant creatures, then you're taking actions against them, and I'm merely preventing abuse and protecting rights. We could apply the same argument to the abortion debate. A pro-choice person who says that pro-lifers enforce their beliefs on her is quite right in one sense, but only granting certain assumptions. If the pro-life case is correct, that the fetus possesses some kind of immaterial soul that we should observe, then it's silly to argue that she's "being forced" to do something. A morally significant being -- the human inside her -- has had his rights trampled.

A well run factory farm which takes best care of the livestock it has while being profitable and adhering to all the proper standards, might still look like a house of horrors to some suburban mom who has never had to comprehend or see where her chicken and beef comes from. Remember that their often multiple results for any action taken, and you must consider them all before running off and suggesting said action.

I'm not sure why anyone would have problems with this -- that is, a more informed consumer. The _NYT_ reported the recent case about salmon grown on factory farms.

Eighty percent of the salmon sold in the United States were raised on farms.

While all salmon in the store may look similar, the Department of Agriculture says farmed salmon contains almost twice the total fat, more than twice the saturated fat and fewer beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than wild salmon.

Last month, consumers learned about another difference, when the class-action lawsuit in Washington called attention to the little-known fact that farmed salmon are not naturally salmon pink or red, and that if they were not fed artificial colors they would range from gray or khaki to pale yellow or pale pink. Wild salmon turn pink from the krill and shrimp they eat. (Farmed salmon eat a fishmeal diet.)

I'm sure someone could say, "Oh, well you never had a problem before! This is just an irrational knee-jerk reaction." I think that's a case of market paternalism, ironically enough. Just keep eating; what you don't know won't hurt you. Again, moral considerations are absent.

Re: PETA's vegetarian agenda

I've never really liked PETA, and I'm not a member. But after seeing how they get under people's skin, I might just join.

Here are PETA's draconian demands for KFC:

• Replace electrical stunning and throat slicing with gas killing. Experts agree that gas killing causes less suffering for birds than KFC's present method of snapping chickens into metal shackles and slicing their throats open, often while they are still conscious.

• Install cameras in slaughterhouses to enforce humane standards. Cameras should be installed at key points for animal handling, including unloading areas, the point of entry into the "stun" bath, the point of entry into the scalding tank and places where chickens have their throats slit.

• Switch to humane mechanized chicken gathering. Studies have shown that when using manual methods, there are four times as many broken legs, more than eight times as much bruising and increased stress.

• Use genetic selection for leaner and less agressive birds. Breed leaner, healthier birds instead of breeding the biggest, fattest birds possible.

• Stop forcing rapid growth and using drugs for non-therapeutic purpose. This results in more metabolic disorders, painful chronic lameness and an increased mortality rate.

• Give chickens broiler and breeding chickens more living space. Presently, bird fatality and injury rates are enormous, based in part on the fact that the birds simply do not have enough space to survive. Experts agree that increased living space would decrease these problems.

• Include sheltered areas and perches in chicken houses. This would enhance the birds' living space, reducing their stress and aggression, and allow them to engage in some of their natural behaviors.

• Allow birds the opportunity to fulfill their natural desire for activity. For example, provide the birds with whole green cabbages suspended in the air to peck at and eat. The cabbages stimulate healthy activity, dispel boredom, strengthen leg muscles, and provide nutrients without adding to the weight problems of these birds. Providing bales of hay for the birds to peck at and climb would give similar results.

http://www.kfccruelty.com/animals.html The five subsections go into greater detail.

 

[voidx]

Ahh there is some hope for PETA yet...sort of:

http://www.kfccruelty.com/cemsgestationreport.html

This is from Cain's link and I find it to be well documented and full of logical suggestions for in this case pig gestation stalls. But guess what. If I had not been actively looking through and examining Cain's link because of this thread I'd never have gotten far enough into this site to read the article. Why? Because its plastered with cartoons of Colonel sanders holding up and knifing plucked chickens, blood all over the place, and oh..."Hey kids, sign up to be a Veggie today! GoVeg.com!!!". This really has been the gyst of my arguement, and why I think the holocaust comparison is not only in bad taste, but just plain ineffective. Having a website called KFCCruelty in the first place will not attract people trying to objectively find out more about livestock welfare. Just as comparing factory chicken conditions to the holocaust is also ineffective. Yah it has shock value, and it gets peoples attention, but guess what, they dismiss it as just that, shock value media. The only people that follow through and find out more and read are the people that were already looking in the first place.

They also show pics such as this (graphic):
http://www.kfccruelty.com/images/h8.jpg
But don't directly state what it is we're seeing. They alude in other parts of the site that chickens don't get stunned well enough in the stunbaths, and then their throats are cut, and they are sometimes still dying when boiled (which removes the feathers). However this picture doesn't necessarily show any of that. I watched some of their videos, and on this point in particular, even their video's are inconclusive. Sure that pic looks horrible to you and I, but its probably somewhat typical of all slaughter scenes. Don't forget that the blood has to be drained or it can damage the meat. Lots of places site examples of cows and pigs strung up, blood running from slit throats. Well that's a normal part of the process of draining the animal of blood. Now if its still alive when they do this, ok you have an arguement there, but I'm not seeing solid evidence of that being the norm. Again I agree standards need to be looked at, and this article on the PETA sight was actually well researched. Its just a shame that their Vegetarian diet and shockvalue agenda's get in the way.

Markets compel us to choose A over B and never really ask questions. The suffering of animals is an externality not captured in price (George Soros documents the general fallacy).

Stated many times and fine, seems logical. What can we do about it? Go Vegan? Consumers do have a choice, and its clear their starting to on some levels to exercise that use of choice to demand there be as little suffering of livestock animals as possible. Their suffering (which appears to be defined differently by everyone) may not be captured in price, but its starting to be captured in consumer awareness.

what characteristics do non-human animals lack that allow us to endlessly consume them?

Pardon my french, but who cares? They taste good and we can. "What right do we have to consume them" again is a different arguement to me. I see how one somewhat leads into the other, but only slightly. We do consume them, fact, so given that what standards are needed to provide them the healthiest, least cruel, type conditions?

If a person thinks of animals no differently than rocks, then there's not much to discuss about practices on factory farms

You always make it out to be black or white. If you think of livestock as no more than rocks, etc. So if I don't believe in their morale significance, or at least in that its on a level equal with humans, which I don't, I just think of animals as rocks? I think of them as animals, livestock, that feel stress' and physical pain, and can suffer behaviourial problems, which should be addressed as it affects their health as a food supply, and would be less cruel. My reading has started to convince me of that fact. I don't believe their on the same mental or morale capacity as humans, and there are many of this board that know far more on both sides of this arguement than me. But again, that's still pointless. We still consume them, so at the end of the day defining non-human charateristics and morale significance doesn't change that, or the fact that the consumption causes problems for the health of the animals based upon factory farming process' and demand, if we're to believe PETA and other sites. So I say deal with the problem at hand.

So, yes, it would be impractical to suddenly discontinue the consumption of meat, but that defies the slow, incremental process and history of all liberation movements.

Agreed, which is why I find it annoying that PETA gets the attention it does because it first and foremost in peoples mind pushes this message of discontinued consumption of meat. Once again I'm not particularly against the movement, but I think its shooting itself in the foot, especially with ad campaigns like this one.

The last point has always annoyed me -- you're enforcing your beliefs on me.

Good, you have a point there. And now you must get an idea how any normal person who enjoys consuming meat must feel when trying to read through many of these animal/livestock liberation sites. Give up your habit of meat, its you're fault this abuse continues, go vegan, and oh in small print at the bottom, here's links to actual level headed studies done on the subject. Its damned annoying.

No, if animals are morally significant creatures, then you're taking actions against them, and I'm merely preventing abuse and protecting rights.

If they are. In the meantime its ok to try and guilt me on my eating habits, while keeping the high ground yourself. Not a good way to convince most people of anything.

I've never really liked PETA, and I'm not a member. But after seeing how they get under people's skin, I might just join.

I will give PETA credit for one thing. They seem to say thev've had no luck getting regulations passed on a whole on the factory farm level. So instead they've switched their campaigns to the companies relying on those factory farms. MacDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's. And used their tactics on them instead, trying to get them to force their suppliers to adhere to stricter standards. And its worked in a few cases. Too bad nobody knows about it because you'd have to go to one of the following sites to find the press releases:
http://www.kfccruelty.com
http://www.mccruelty.com
http://www.murderking.com
http://www.wickedwendys.com
Go check out the look of these sites and tell me if you'd take them seriously enough to actually get far enough to read an objective article.

 

[Cain]

Voidx-

If this comes down to PETA's tactics, then fine, I agree. My very first post said something about "political miscalculation."

As for disturbing videos, images etc., people can do their own research and make up their minds. Frankly, it's never interested me, and played no role in my initial move toward vegetarianism. My nearly non-existent activism for animal rights has been confined to isolated private discussions and Internet forums.

Pardon my french, but who cares? They taste good and we can. "What right do we have to consume them" again is a different arguement to me. I see how one somewhat leads into the other, but only slightly. We do consume them, fact, so given that what standards are needed to provide them the healthiest, least cruel, type conditions?

A normative conclusion does not follow from a historical fact. Substitute "animals" with "people" and it leads to an unacceptable moral conclusion. The "least cruel" conditions, if we're serious, would be to swear off consuming animals altogether.

You always make it out to be black or white. If you think of livestock as no more than rocks, etc. So if I don't believe in their morale significance, or at least in that its on a level equal with humans, which I don't, I just think of animals as rocks? I think of them as animals, livestock, that feel stress' and physical pain, and can suffer behaviourial problems, which should be addressed as it affects their health as a food supply, and would be less cruel.

First, I feel you misrepresented my position. I said, "If you think..." Second, as I've stated nearly a dozen times, MOST people clearly do not feel that way, and believe in laws against animal cruelty. Not everyone, however, says cruelty is wrong because of the pain and suffering inflicted against the animals themselves. Kant, for example, believed that it bludgeoned our moral senses and could culminate in violence against fellow humans. Finally, I've defined cruelty (take issue with this definition if you wish) as *unnecessary* pain and suffering. We simply do not need to consume them any longer. If someone considers them morally significant, as I believe anyone who takes into account their pain and suffering does, then we need to weigh our interests against their's. A (psychotic) young boy might become over-joyed at the chance to dismember a cat, but we as a society rightfully condemn such sadism. It lacks a good reason. Suppose instead the boy forcibly restrains the cat and slits her throat so that later he can enjoy a nice meal. Well, we say, that caused unnecessary pain and distress. Okay suppose instead another child humanely kills a cat while she's sleeping and wants to cook it for lunch. Do his interests in a good meal now outweigh the cat's regard for its one and only life?

 

[voidx]

Substitute "animals" with "people" and it leads to an unacceptable moral conclusion.

But we're not eating "people", we're eating "animals". What makes it possible for you to substitute?

The "least cruel" conditions, if we're serious, would be to swear off consuming animals altogether.

I disagree. Say we give them as natural and healthy an environment as possible. They are killed as humanely and painlessly as possible. Then we consume them. Would you consider that process cruel? Would it be more cruel than dying of natural causes? If not, then to me arguing for better standards for livestock could potentially meet your "least cruel" conditions. I just don't buy into the fact that any form of animal consumption and the process' involved is by default more cruel than a wild existence.

First, I feel you misrepresented my position.

Fair enough, but I felt my own was being mis-represented a tad also.

Finally, I've defined cruelty (take issue with this definition if you wish) as *unnecessary* pain and suffering. We simply do not need to consume them any longer.

So if we can find a farming method that removes any unnessary pain and suffering in the process, then there's no harm in people consuming them that wish to do so is there. If the animal lives a healthy life, and then is killed humanely and painlessly and then processed for meat, I don't see the problem.

Also enough with the child references. As far as I know there are no chicken factory farms employing children to run around and slit chicken throats, IMO that's playing to peoples emotions. Also so is using cats. Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture. Other cultures have no such inhibitions because historically there were area's that indeed did raise dogs and cats for meat because of a lack of larger forms of livestock like pigs and cows. I see the point you're making, that we can choose other alternative ways to eat, that a cat/cow/chicken, doesn't have to lose its life to satisfy our desire for a tasty and nutrious meal. Its only because of our own intellectual capacity that its potential morale agency comes into play at all, so I guess you have two choices. Decide that it does have said agency and decide not to eat it. Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals, just like all other omnivore's on the planet and eat it. As long as standards are in place to ensure that processing and rearing is healthy and humane, I see no problems with that.

 

[BillyTK]

Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals,

You appear to contradicting yourself here; as you've noted, we don't eat dogs and cats as a matter of learned behaviour, therefore the animals we do eat is a matter of learned behaviour, not instinct. Learned behaviour can impact on instinctive behaviour, but it can't stop it.

For instance, my cats hunt because it's instinctive behaviour, even though I feed them on a regular basis and they've learnt to expect food at particular times of the day. On the otherhand, I don't eat meat as a matter of personal choice, but I don't feel compelled by innate forces to hunt down any animal I see.