PETA and the Holocaust

[kookbreaker]

PETA: Where only women are treated like meat.

 

[BobK]

Gee, I always thought PETA stood for Prevention of Ethical Treatment of Animals.

I almost sent them a check. Good thing I found out in time.

 

[Cain]

PETA: Where only women are treated like meat.

As a vegan and egalitarian/feminist, I fully agree with that description. PETA frequently features models and actresses (Pamela Anderson is one) in their pleasantly offensive ads.

As for this whole Holocaust analogy, I see nothing wrong, in principle. Maybe I posted to that thread from five months ago, can't remember.

A fair comparison, but perhaps a political miscalculation. Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye). The same argument cannot be made over the Internet since it violates Godwin's Law.

Peter Singer had an article in yesterday's Guardian expressing how concern for animal welfare has become more widespread:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,958733,00.html

One indication of the acceptability of a cause is when its opponents try to blunt its appeal by saying that, "of course", they agree with some of the claims made by those whose further claims they wish to reject. In the spirit of Gladstone's chancellor, the 19th-century Sir William Harcourt's remark that "We are all socialists now", today everyone, from scientists who experiment on animals, to foxhunters like Roger Scruton, is an animal welfarist. Scruton even says, in his little book Animal Rights and Wrongs, that "a true morality of animal welfare" ought to begin from the premise that the way we now treat animals on factory farms is wrong. In America, Matthew Scully, a conservative Christian, a past literary editor of National Review and now speech writer to President Bush, has amazed his fellow conservatives by publishing Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy, an eloquent polemic against abuse of animals, culminating with a devastating description of factory farming. It has won praise from such icons of the American right as Pat Buchanan and Charles Colson. And, in November, the voters of Florida, not known as the most progressive of US states, gave the American animal movement its first ever victory in a referendum on factory farming when they voted to ban stalls that prevent sows from turning around.

 

[JAR]

This Matt Prescott sounds like a real loon.

Thanks for the laugh Supercharts.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
As for this whole Holocaust analogy, I see nothing wrong, in principle. Maybe I posted to that thread from five months ago, can't remember.

I'm sure that any Jewish people reading will be delighted with the comparison between the holocaust and the slaughter of poultry.

A fair comparison, but perhaps a political miscalculation. Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye). The same argument cannot be made over the Internet since it violates Godwin's Law.

I cannot emphasise enough the central role animal welfare plays in the meat industry. Abused and unhealthy livestock don't put on weight and rack up vet bills. At slaughter it is imperative that the animals are kept calm.

www.iowabeefcenter.org/pdfs/bch/04350.pdf

For narrow economic goals, stress must be kept at a minimum.

www.dpi.qld.gov.au/beef/3479.html

Pre slaughter stress - Stress of animals in the 2-3 day period prior to slaughter depletes reserves of muscle energy (glycogen) leading to high meat ultimate pH values (³ 5.70) resulting in dark, tough meat which is often dry. Rest and access to water prior to slaughter is required to replete these glycogen reserves in stressed animals. If a long recovery period is required, feed will also be needed. The factors associated with pre slaughter stress are:

Temperament - Can be avoided by selecting breeding stock on good temperament and educating/training of weaner cattle.

Rough or excessive handling - Avoid any situation resulting in rough handling on the property prior to consignment, in transit, or at the meatworks which can stress animals. Avoid the use of dogs on cattle not familiar with dogs.


Mixing of cattle - Avoid mixing cattle of different classes, sex or unfamiliar cattle during the turnoff/consignment process.

Climate - If possible, avoid turnoff/consignment of cattle during climatic extremes (heat waves, cold spells) or during rapid extreme changes in climatic conditions.

Holding time at meatworks - Avoid holding cattle at meatworks longer than necessary unless a rest period is required following extended transport periods.

Notions of "abuse" and "atrocities" carried out against livestock are a vegetarian myth. Animal welfare laws mean that anyone who treats livestock the way the third reich treated Untermenschen would be fined and probably jailed.

Are farms really kept from public view? Are abbatoirs covert?

Oh, and Hitler was a vegetarian.

 

[Cain]

I'm sure that any Jewish people reading will be delighted with the comparison between the holocaust and the slaughter of poultry.

*shrug* Hitler killed homosexuals, communists, Gypsies and other "degenerates" (11-12 million in all). I'm not sure why "Jewish people" are allowed a priveleged monopoly on pain and outrage for crimes against humanity. Either way, it's misguided.

I cannot emphasise enough the central role animal welfare plays in the meat industry. Abused and unhealthy livestock don't put on weight and rack up vet bills. At slaughter it is imperative that the animals are kept calm.

www.iowabeefcenter.org/pdfs/bch/04350.pdf

For narrow economic goals, stress must be kept at a minimum.

www.dpi.qld.gov.au/beef/3479.html

Even conceding these (uninformed) points, which I'm disinclined to do, they completely miss the argument made by animal rights proponents. Identical economic incentives were invoked by slave owners:

"We wouldn't want to over-crowd boats and spread disease because slaves are expensive."

"We wouldn't want to mistreat or abuse our slaves because then they won't be as productive."

Not that it's of critical importance, but those raising animals have strong incentives to inject hormones, mistreat, and even abuse their animals. People in the United States, for example, prefer white breast meat on turkeys come Thanksgiving time. All hopped up on hormones, some become so fat they can't even walk on their own two drumsticks. Chickens on factory farms are consigned to the tiniest cages and live in their own filth. Horrible conditions in these industries have consistently been exposed since the days of Upton Sinclair.

Notions of "abuse" and "atrocities" carried out against livestock are a vegetarian myth. Animal welfare laws mean that anyone who treats livestock the way the third reich treated Untermenschen would be fined and probably jailed.

The first sentence is nonsense, but, as mentioned earlier, it's non-essential nonsense. Society has progressed dramatically over the last 100 years that everyone accepts welfare laws against needless abuse and mistreatment. That is to say, animals possess limited rights that even their owners cannot wantonly violate.

Purposeless violence against animals has been condemned by society. Of course, most people (including even myself) do not totally object to scientific experimentatio, since it serves a useful purpose, but even then there are strict laws and codes regulating conduct. Unfortunately, most people hold the same view toward the consumption of animals-- as though eating animals is comparable to scientific research. It's not. Many people the world over have adopted healthy vegetarian/vegan diets so that eating animals to satisfy our appetites has become as unnecessary as abusing them to satisfy sadistic impulses.

Oh, and Hitler was a vegetarian. [/B]

Hitler had gastric problems; he was not a vegetarian for moral reasons (and, obviously, even if he chose not to eat animals for moral reasons it still wouldn't mean anything important).

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by cain:
*shrug* Hitler killed homosexuals, communists, Gypsies and other "degenerates" (11-12 million in all). I'm not sure why "Jewish people" are allowed a priveleged monopoly on pain and outrage for crimes against humanity. Either way, it's misguided.

"Holocaust" is an old testament term, AFAIK, and I know that there are Jewish people on these forums. I never claimed that "Jewish people" had a priveliged monopoly on suffering, nor have I heard any of them suggesting they had. On the contrary, it seems to me that Jewish people have completely repudiated victimhood status, unlike other groups and nationalities, including my own.

Even conceding these (uninformed) points, which I'm disinclined to do, they completely miss the argument made by animal rights proponents. Identical economic incentives were invoked by slave owners:

"We wouldn't want to over-crowd boats and spread disease because slaves are expensive."

"We wouldn't want to mistreat or abuse our slaves because then they won't be as productive."

Oh no, I was addressing a specific claim made by you i.e. "abuse and atrocities" inflicted on animals. I posted those links to show that "abuse and atrocities" have no place whatsoever in livestock production. The links were guidelines, not rebuttals. And you've made another very odious comparison. And I'd point out that animal welfare laws make it illegal to transport animals the way humans were on the slave ships.

Not that it's of critical importance, but those raising animals have strong incentives to inject hormones, mistreat, and even abuse their animals. People in the United States, for example, prefer white breast meat on turkeys come Thanksgiving time. All hopped up on hormones, some become so fat they can't even walk on their own two drumsticks. Chickens on factory farms are consigned to the tiniest cages and live in their own filth. Horrible conditions in these industries have consistently been exposed since the days of Upton Sinclair.

Sorry, I've shown that there is a very strong incentive for producers not to mistreat or abuse animals. You've provided no evidence that they do.

Purposeless violence against animals has been condemned by society.

"Purposeless violence" has no place in livestock production, thankfully.

Society has progressed dramatically over the last 100 years that everyone accepts welfare laws against needless abuse and mistreatment. That is to say, animals possess limited rights that even their owners cannot wantonly violate.

The only animals that have rights are those in the possesion of humans. Animals in the wild enjoy no rights or the protection of welfare laws. Livestock have more rights than wild animals.

Unfortunately, most people hold the same view toward the consumption of animals-- as though eating animals is comparable to scientific research. It's not. Many people the world over have adopted healthy vegetarian/vegan diets so that eating animals to satisfy our appetites has become as unnecessary as abusing them to satisfy sadistic impulses.

Humans are adapted to an omniverous diet. I'm not claiming that a vegetarian diet cannot be balanced, but I just fail to see how meat eating is morally wrong.

Of course, most people (including even myself) do not totally object to scientific experimentatio, since it serves a useful purpose, but even then there are strict laws and codes regulating conduct.

As there are in the meat industry.

 

[BillyTK]

The only animals that have rights are those in the possesion of humans. Animals in the wild enjoy no rights or the protection of welfare laws. Livestock have more rights than wild animals.

<rant>But animals in captivity only have such rights to protect them from abuse by their human owners and some animals in the wild are granted certain protections from human harm. But simply granting these protections to animals in no way guarantees their protection--because compliance depends on the threat of force--and this in no way ameloriates the fact that these animals are bred solely to be exploited.</rant>

Btw, I'm not a member of the Animal Liberation Front, and I do believe some animal experimentation is necessary, if not desireable. I'm not attacking you personally for holding that view Shane, and I apologise in advance for any ill-feeling that the above causes; I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

Anyway, back to the main topic; is anyone else feeling shockvertising fatigue? Can you say Benetton?

 

[Crossbow]

Exhibit comparing Holocaust, animals decried.

My very left-wing local newspaper buried this in back of the news today but last night it was all over the local TV stations.

PETA put an exhibit near the Holocaust memorial in downtown Boston. It compared the killing of chickens and turkeys to the Nazi Holocaust.

...

I guess that just goes to show how ones passions can be blinding.

These guys have apparently forgotten that Hitler was a vegan as well.

Go figure!

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
<rant>But animals in captivity only have such rights to protect them from abuse by their human owners and some animals in the wild are granted certain protections from human harm. But simply granting these protections to animals in no way guarantees their protection--because compliance depends on the threat of force--and this in no way ameloriates the fact that these animals are bred solely to be exploited.</rant>

Yes, but what protections do animals in the wild get from harm doen by other animals? Zip. OTOH animals in human captivity get regular meals, secure accomodation and a peaceful death. Whether they are bred to be exploited or not is beside the point. They have it a lot better than animals in the wild.

I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

Are you denying that it is anything other than fact? Consider this; why are violent an loathsome human beings regularly referred to as "animals"? How come any inherently unfair and heartless state of affairs in the human world is said to be akin to "jungle law"? The natural world is a cruel, heartless place. If you don't believe me then visit a chicken coop after a visit from a fox (more hens are killed than could possibly be eaten by the fox) or walk through some woodland in winter, counting the carcasses of dead and frozen animals as you go.

 

[RandFanJr.]

RandFan here,

My son signed on for me. I have been a good boy and have gotten allot of work done so one or two posts won't hurt. This is one of those subjects I just can't pass up.

<rant>But animals in captivity only have such rights to protect them from abuse by their human owners and some animals in the wild are granted certain protections from human harm. But simply granting these protections to animals in no way guarantees their protection--because compliance depends on the threat of force--and this in no way ameloriates the fact that these animals are bred solely to be exploited.</rant>

Btw, I'm not a member of the Animal Liberation Front, and I do believe some animal experimentation is necessary, if not desireable. I'm not attacking you personally for holding that view Shane, and I apologise in advance for any ill-feeling that the above causes; I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

Hi Billy,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I often get into arguments on the forum that I eventually regret. I truly respect other people's opinion. I think I would have less argument if I would take the same tack that you have in your post.

Your post presupposes that there is something inherently wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation. I see nothing wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation.

I don't think the fact that animals in captivity are somehow how better of does justify an animals captivity but I do believe that it puts it into perspective.

I don't understand why animal rights activists are upset that animals are domesticated or that they are killed for human consumption. From an earlier thread on the subject. I was responding to some specific points so it is not quite relevant to your post. However I think it is a good response.

There is no rational reason or demonstrative evidence that if we conceded to the wishes of PETA that we would eliminate animal suffering or decrease it in any significant way. Statistically almost all animals in the wild are killed and eaten by predators or die from the elements.

Nearly all animals [in the wild] are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. Domesticated animals statistically live longer and better lives. That is a fact.

The only real "bad" is that humans have the nerve to domesticate and use animals. So we as a society enforce laws to mitigate animal suffering and your response is "less bad doesn't make it good". My answer, no one is trying to turn bad into good. We are just trying to balance the desires of many in society to reduce animal suffering with the desire of others to use animals for food, clothing, research and in some cases exploitation.

You can choose to equate animals with human bondage and human suffering but it doesn't wash. There will always be animals in the wild that cruelly exploit other animals for there own selfish desires. You have no plans to end this because it makes no sense. Nature requires a food chain. Coyotes must eat baby rabbits and Papa lions must snack on their cubs. Mamas kill babies, mamas kill papas and every animal does what ever it can to survive.

I cannot justify the actions of humans because of what animals do in the wild. I can note however that domesticated animals statistically have much longer life spans, less disease and rarely have to worry about predators.

If you are truly worried about the suffering of animals then you should see what you can do to protect baby ducks born in the wild. Most are eaten by wicked, evil predators.

I think that since humans are capable of empathy most of us find it disturbing that a thinking human could cause the suffering of another living thing. I also think that it is quite reasonable to expect humans to mitigate the suffering of animals that are in the care of humans.

But I find it logically inconsistent to decry the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild.

As I said earlier, if we could magically end all human involvement in the lives of animals tomorrow we would not reduce the suffering of animals. While this does not provide justifiation for the use of animals by man but it does give it some perspective.

 

[Kodiak]

I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

How's this then? Those cows wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the beef industry. Those chickens and turkeys wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the poultry industry.

Is a short, sedate, care-free life better than no life at all? Is decapitation or electrocution better than being torn to shreds by wolves or starving/freezing to death?

 

[Dancing David]

Is a short, sedate, care-free life better than no life at all? Is decapitation or electrocution better than being torn to shreds by wolves or starving/freezing to death?

This shows how little you know about indutrial framing, I could berate you but I sugesst you investigate a little, especialy the way chickens and pigs are raised (And cattle to lesser extent).

Yes from the pure darwinian sense the domesticated animals are benefiting for our use of them as food.

Just for laughs people, Would you eat a dog?

Peace

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just for laughs people, Would you eat a dog?

Peace

Sure... ( selected parts anyway.. )

Are you making fun of, or degenerating people who consider this a normal thing to do?


Well, I'm off to start a " Dog Appreciation" thread in ' Banter"...

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye).

What about the deaths of rodents under the blades of agricultural combines?

If you are concerned about animal deaths and suffering, then you should eat only range-raised meat, preferably from large animals -- that's the best in terms of minimizing the number of deaths required to sustain you, as low-tech agriculture is infeasible. Cows don't squash rodents the way agricultural machinery does. Better one cow than ten field mice, no?.. After all, a life's a life, and a mouse has as much right to live as a cow does...

 

[voidx]

Chickens on factory farms are consigned to the tiniest cages and live in their own filth.

The second part of this statement is patently false. I know people that have been to and worked in Chicken factory farms. Its a very efficient process. Yes, the chickens live in small cages, not even really large enough to turn around in, but whatever. They do not live in their own filth. You know why? Because factory farms make a fortune from selling Chicken feces as fertilizer. Go to a factory farm. This is what you'll see. Chicks are raised on seperate farms, they are bought and come into the egg factory. In the egg factory chickens are stored in cages and have a time span for laying eggs before they are sent off to be processed for meat. The cages are open on the bottom, or chicken-wire on the bottom. Their waste passes through the bottoms of the cage down onto something I believe is like a trough or whatever. This waste is systematically collected and packaged and sent off to fertilizer plants. Its all done with machinery, the only times the chickens are handled is when they first come and get put in the cage, and when their cycle is down, and they are removed from the cage and thrown in a truck to be taken to the meat processing plant. Maybe some small town country bumpkin keeps his chickens living in piles of their own waste, but chicken factory farms, which you referred to, do not.

Humans domesticate animals specifically to exploit them. Some for food, other to help with work. Human society would not be at its level of progress with out domestication of animals, which in turn lead to the first levels of organized food production. Why do we need organized food production? To make food for all of us non food producers. By not actually being a farmer and contributing to producing food you are perpetuating this system. Shane posted a link describing why its beneficial not to harm animals before slaughter. You refuted that, but gave no evidence or link to counter it. I want to see evidence of livestock abuse from a credible source please. And I also want to see evidence that the standards for raising livestock encourage abuse of the animals. I also want to be shown evidence or explanation on what the exact benefit is of abusing a livestock animal. These are 2 of the claims being made.

 

[BillyTK]

Yes, but what protections do animals in the wild get from harm doen by other animals? Zip. OTOH animals in human captivity get regular meals, secure accomodation and a peaceful death. Whether they are bred to be exploited or not is beside the point. They have it a lot better than animals in the wild.

So do people on death row. But that's a spurious equivalency. The red haze has gone from my eyes and I might be able to make my point a little clearer. The treatment of animals by humans doesn't justify their fate, because their fate is solely the result of human's desire for their meat, not any desire for their wellbeing. It's certainly preferable to treat animals as humanely (deliberate pun) as possible but this doesn't justify their deaths. Any attempt to dress it our desire for their flesh as anything else is equivalent to the fluffy-headed thinking of some of the animal rights crowd.

Are you denying that it is anything other than fact? Consider this; why are violent an loathsome human beings regularly referred to as "animals"? How come any inherently unfair and heartless state of affairs in the human world is said to be akin to "jungle law"? The natural world is a cruel, heartless place. If you don't believe me then visit a chicken coop after a visit from a fox (more hens are killed than could possibly be eaten by the fox) or walk through some woodland in winter, counting the carcasses of dead and frozen animals as you go.

The use of "animals" and "jungle law" is a matter of semantics resulting from 19th century ideas of the natural world as the opposition of human civilisation. Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?

Btw I've seen the result of foxes in chicken runs, but this doesn't prove the rule; chicken runs are artificial and it's the number of chickens in a confined space which causes the fox to engage in this kind of behaviour.

Edited to expand first para third sentence

 

[BillyTK]

RandFan here,

My son signed on for me. I have been a good boy and have gotten allot of work done so one or two posts won't hurt. This is one of those subjects I just can't pass up.

Hi Billy,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I often get into arguments on the forum that I eventually regret. I truly respect other people's opinion. I think I would have less argument if I would take the same tack that you have in your post.

Thanks!

Your post presupposes that there is something inherently wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation. I see nothing wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation.

There is a moral argument against domesticating animals but I'm not confident enough to make it. As I explained to Shane in my subsequent post, I'm not objecting to the consumption of animals by humans (I'm a vegetarian, but I'm quite ambivalent about the whole thing), it's the argument that, because animals in captivity get better treatment than their wilderness counterparts, that this somehow justifies their fates.

I don't think the fact that animals in captivity are somehow how better of does justify an animals captivity but I do believe that it puts it into perspective.

But if they're in captivity, how much better off are they? Horses and cows do get a bit of a free ride and should be made to pay taxes or somesuch ; sows are often kept pinned in cages so that their piglets can feed at anytime and to prevent the mother from rolling over and squashing them. Cattle show signs of distress even before entering the slaughterhouse; chickens and hens in confined spaces produce neurotic pecking behaviours; chicken and turkey meat is so white because they have their throats slit and blood after being rendered brain dead by electrocution; the stunning process is not always successful. Did I mention that I once worked in a turkey slaughterhouse?

I don't understand why animal rights activists are upset that animals are domesticated or that they are killed for human consumption. From an earlier thread on the subject. I was responding to some specific points so it is not quite relevant to your post. However I think it is a good response.

I think that since humans are capable of empathy most of us find it disturbing that a thinking human could cause the suffering of another living thing. I also think that it is quite reasonable to expect humans to mitigate the suffering of animals that are in the care of humans.

But I find it logically inconsistent to decry the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild.

As I said earlier, if we could magically end all human involvement in the lives of animals tomorrow we would not reduce the suffering of animals. While this does not provide justifiation for the use of animals by man but it does give it some perspective.

I can't and won't speak for the animal rights lot; whenever I can exercise a choice which doesn't involve animal suffering, I exercise that choice, but in a straight contest between my survival and an animal's survival, I'm sorry but the fluffy bunny gets it. Conditions in the wild are cruel--to us, imposing our values on it as we watch the cute baby get munched by the big bad carnivore on the Discovery Channel, but carefully forget that without that big bad carnivore the cute baby and pals would over-run their habitat with the environmental problems that would cause--but let's stop trying to dress up our treatment of animals as somehow more compassionate.

Edited to add
But there's no inconsistency in decrying the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild, because predation in the wild is not the result of human activity; the treatment of domesticated animals is. The real inconsistency is to condemn outright all animal exploitation but still take medicines, use cosmetics, eat processed food &c &c and as hypocritical to justify eating meat because, well, the cow had a good life.

 

[voidx]

I'll agree with BillyTX here to a degree. We raise these animals to slaughter and eat them, simple as that. I have no problem with that at all. It is a very efficient process of controlled growth and processing to provide us with the meat we want and need.

throats slit and blood after being rendered brain dead by electrocution

This is the process of killing the animals and then processing their meat. Billy, in your experience, did you electrocute and beat the turkeys as they were being grown? Some people don't have the stomach for the killing of an animal, in any fashion, and that's fine, but its a good thing for us that some people do, or else there'd be a lot less food available to us.

 

[BillyTK]

This is the process of killing the animals and then processing their meat. Billy, in your experience, did you electrocute and beat the turkeys as they were being grown? Some people don't have the stomach for the killing of an animal, in any fashion, and that's fine, but its a good thing for us that some people do, or else there'd be a lot less food available to us.

No, they weren't beaten or electrocuted whilst they were being grown, I have to say the turkeys probably got better treatment than the farmer's own family. Turkeys are notoriously difficult to raise, and tend to get frightened by the slightest thing, which results in them grouping together and suffocating those in the middle, which, though a "natural" behaviour, is made worse by being kept in a confined space.