Are animal activists insane??

[FourthBase]

To tell the truth, plants are sentient too.

You can't compare whatever minimal trace of sentience a plant might have to the undeniable and developed sentience of a cow, pig, sheep, goat, or even a bird or fish. I'm not even talking about science, just common sense.

None of this is scientific, but it is my opinion. Its my karma and I'll wear it but I have a grudging respect for people who can take that respect for life further than me.

I hear you. May you someday begrudge yourself the same, Joe.

I have even seen the old farmer crying after some cattle went off to the slaughterhouse, tho he would never admit that.

That's a sad image.

Anyway...yeah, PETA sucks.

[FourthBase]

Fourth Base - I don't know how to say this but....you have the most consistent moral stance I've come across here. It's not that I follow your personal philosphy - cause I don't, but as far as I can see I can't fault you as a hypocrite.

Thanks Horatio, I just try my best to figure shit out.

.....Wait a minute maybe I could start an argument with you that male circumcision is a form of torture and mutilation????????

Not me, I've experienced my own as a blessing.

[Joe Hillshoist]

FourthBase said:

You can't compare whatever minimal trace of sentience a plant might have to the undeniable and developed sentience of a cow, pig, sheep, goat, or even a bird or fish. I'm not even talking about science, just common sense.

I dunno about that, sometimes plants seem to have a remarkable sense of sentience. And birds to me seem far more sentient than fish or even sheep. It very different to ours, being an invertebrate species wiith a CNS. But I am sure its there, and powerful. Maybe I just had too many shrooms...

I noticed you missed insects in that list too, but what about them. I am not having a go at you, just trying to explain my own feelings on the issue. Is killing a mosquito murder? What about a tick, especially if you eat it after pulling it out (a homeopathic thing that is hard to stomach, I have only done it with dead grass ticks, once, I couldn't force myself to swallow a full grown paralysis tick ughh). What about leeches?

I don't kill leeches after pulling them off, and don't even begrudge them the feed they get off me. I take them down the paddock and let them go. I kill ticks tho, poisonous bastards that they are.

I don't eat anywhere as much meat as I did once, so maybe I am shambling toward something... but I don't see killing animals for food as murder. Although the disregard for life that many people take when eating meat in our society could well be called murderous.

You are right about old matey the farmer tho. A very sad image.

[philipacentaur]

To answer the initial question: No. Irrational, maybe -- but not insane.

FourthBase, I appreciate and respect your views. Though I personally eat meat, our future as a species depends on a shift in the way we think about other life forms and our shared relationship with the planet; that shift can only occur when people start thinking about where the things that keep them alive come from. Yeah, things look bleak right now, but I think awareness about the issue of diet and its relationship to the human condition is starting to gain momentum on several fronts. I would detail them, but I'm tired and this is all off-topic anyway, so I'm just going to ramble...

The word "murder" implies the senseless destruction of life -- human life, specifically. We've got a lot of that these days and that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax, as I'm sure you know. It would be hard to convince a majority of the people in this world that killing animals for food is without purpose, especially when they place so little value on the lives of their fellow humans -- I ain't talking about Rick Santorum and his expanding brood, either. Not to get stuck on semantics, but as a propaganda tool the "meat = murder" thing is just not effective and, in fact, has always proven counterproductive from my perspective. Guilt might (seem to) work for some people (see: "Western" religion), but in general I think it just tends to close people off to alternative ways of thinking about real issues. It never worked on me -- it just caused a backlash effect, but I'm more mature now than when I was a young shit who hated Morrissey, pushy activists and anything resembling "religion". I mean -- if we had a vegan on this thread (not even a militant one), they would certainly take issue with your claim that milk, eggs, etc. don't cause suffering for animals -- I might even have to agree with them when I really think about the facts.

I think a good start is to get people thinking about the portions they eat, and I'm not just talking about here in the USA -- most people hardly know what actual hunger feels like -- it's all impulses anymore. I get sick of the "Americans are all fat and lazy" claptrap, because it does nothing but shame people stuck in an endless cycle of abuse that's constantly primed from an external (corporate, greedy) source. That same source is ridiculing them in the media, and then turning around and using that guilt to sell them some chemical-laden crap, dieting scam or marketing scheme to make them feel like they're doing something good for themselves -- when they're actually not. People need to start demanding accountability from the business world and the political world (as if they were separate) if anything is going to change. I don't have any answers, but I have a lot of questions.

[kristinerosemary]

yes, animal rights activists are insane.

the past hundred years of the humane
movement, which started getting publicity
in england for people to stop beating
their horses, and the outgrowth into
animal liberation or animal rights,
is one long sorry tale of a failure of
education. the exploitation of non
human species is so intricately enmeshed
in every subtle detail, facet and aspect
of human existence that to take a
consistently ethical stand across the
board is virtually impossible.

wildlife management is especially
fraught with endless paradoxes
and conundrums. this profession
operates largely outside the knowledge
of the public with the general exception
of publicity about charismatic megafauna
like polar bears.

the young of the big predators,
including wolves, bears, lynx and cougars,
are ideal poster children
for fund raising efforts
that are essentially
aimed at habitat preservation and protection.

but it's difficult to inspire donations with
the scientific approach of conserving steppe,
desert, tundra,
glacial or forest plant communities,
predator-prey relationships
and other conservation biology tech.

not many people are aware of the
importance for wildlife survival
of, say, sedges. or bunchgrass.

where animal activists often go astray
is to take the glamour species
out of the context of their habitats
and treat them as isolated individuals.

there's not enough information in the article linked
to suggest the motives and science background or
credentials of the 'activists' who want the polar
bear killed, but the possibility remains that they
could be provocateurs doing media theatre to
discredit the movement
by making it look even more crazy
than it usually does.

in the interests of fair disclosure,
my bias is in favor of peaceful co-existence
with all life forms
whenever possible.

at this stage of world history,
i'm not so sure anyone still has 'rights.'

seems to be just conversation
to assume they still exist.

[Joe Hillshoist]

kristinerosemary hats a great point about the not so visible or obvious aspects of life that are threatened. Plants are going extinct at a phenomonal rate, possibly insects too.

Not to mention other critters of all shapes and sizes.

[Horatio Hellpop]

Hey Joe

Where you going with that coathanger in your hand?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Coathanger?

[philipacentaur]

I don't get it either. Abortion joke? Going dowsing?

[FourthBase]

I dunno about that, sometimes plants seem to have a remarkable sense of sentience. And birds to me seem far more sentient than fish or even sheep. It very different to ours, being an invertebrate species wiith a CNS. But I am sure its there, and powerful. Maybe I just had too many shrooms...

I noticed you missed insects in that list too, but what about them. I am not having a go at you, just trying to explain my own feelings on the issue. Is killing a mosquito murder? What about a tick, especially if you eat it after pulling it out (a homeopathic thing that is hard to stomach, I have only done it with dead grass ticks, once, I couldn't force myself to swallow a full grown paralysis tick ughh). What about leeches?

I don't kill leeches after pulling them off, and don't even begrudge them the feed they get off me. I take them down the paddock and let them go. I kill ticks tho, poisonous bastards that they are.

Murdering a mosquito is justifiable insecticide. Same with ticks. Exterminating rodents from your house might be seen that way too, if you're mindful of their disease-spreading history and can't manage a non-violent way of ridding them. I think you're being a little too kind with leeches, personally.



If I'm in the woods and a mountain lion approaches me, I have no problem killing it, because it has no problem killing me. If an animal is a predator, and you're the prospective prey, there's no obligation to let the animal eat you. And there's no shame in killing it to defend yourself. Bears, alligators, etc. If y'all were eating gator-burgers and cockroach salads, I wouldn't really care as much. But you're killing and eating harmless mammals for the most part.

Can we please dispense with the talk about plants and insects for now, though? Meat-eaters bringing up lower life forms with questionable sentience reminds me of gay marriage opponents who bring up incest and bestiality. Plants and insects are hardly relevant to cows and pigs.

The word "murder" implies the senseless destruction of life -- human life, specifically. We've got a lot of that these days and that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax, as I'm sure you know. It would be hard to convince a majority of the people in this world that killing animals for food is without purpose, especially when they place so little value on the lives of their fellow humans -- I ain't talking about Rick Santorum and his expanding brood, either.

Because meat isn't necessary for humans to survive or even thrive, then the slaughterhouses might as well be this: Millions of cows and pigs being lined up, shot in the head, and then immediately thrown in a big mass grave. Would there be any sense in that? Not in my opinion.

Not to get stuck on semantics, but as a propaganda tool the "meat = murder" thing is just not effective and, in fact, has always proven counterproductive from my perspective. Guilt might (seem to) work for some people (see: "Western" religion), but in general I think it just tends to close people off to alternative ways of thinking about real issues. It never worked on me -- it just caused a backlash effect, but I'm more mature now than when I was a young shit who hated Morrissey, pushy activists and anything resembling "religion". I mean -- if we had a vegan on this thread (not even a militant one), they would certainly take issue with your claim that milk, eggs, etc. don't cause suffering for animals -- I might even have to agree with them when I really think about the facts.

Besides the factory conditions, which are not inherent to the product, milk and eggs and honey etc don't cause any measurable suffering. In fact, maybe I have this wrong, but doesn't it hurt a cow not to be milked?

I think you're right about "meat is murder" as a slogan. Most people are deaf to it. If anything, it seems to push them into a defensive "gloating" posture. But it's not factually incorrect, in my opinion.

My new favorite story is the guy who was arrested for "sexual contact" with a dead deer. Can't give a deer a handjob...but you can kill it and eat it and wear its skin. Am I the only one who finds that perverse?

[marykmusic]

We have kitty cats to take care of our rodents.

I also figure that if a fish wants to be caught, it's okay for me to eat it.

Meanwhile, here's a little story:

Each Friday night after work, Bubba would fire up his outdoor grill and
cook a venison steak. But, all of Bubba's neighbors were Catholic....And
since it was Lent, they were forbidden from eating meat on Friday.
The delicious aroma from the grilled venison steaks was causing such a
problem for the Catholic faithful that they finally talked to their
priest.

The Priest came to visit Bubba, and suggested that he become a Catholic.
After several classes and much study, Bubba attended Mass, and as the
priest sprinkled holy water over him, he said, "You were born a Baptist,
and raised a Baptist, but now you are a Catholic."

Bubba's neighbors were greatly relieved, until Friday night arrived, and
the wonderful aroma of grilled venison filled the neighborhood. The
Priest was called immediately by the neighbors, and, as he rushed into
Bubba's yard, clutching a rosary and prepared to scold him, he stopped
and watched in amazement.

There stood Bubba, clutching a small bottle of holy water which he
carefully sprinkled over the grilling meat and chanted: You wuz born a
deer, you wuz raised a deer, but now you is a fish.

--MaryK

[philipacentaur]

The Dairy Cow

Because meat isn't necessary for humans to survive or even thrive, then the slaughterhouses might as well be this: Millions of cows and pigs being lined up, shot in the head, and then immediately thrown in a big mass grave. Would there be any sense in that? Not in my opinion.

It's not absolutely necessary, but old habits die hard in some cultures -- and eating meat is quite an old habit for a large percentage of the human population. My point was that they're not thrown into a mass grave; their bodies are used for many purposes, not the least of which is their flesh being converted into food to nourish humans. I understand where you're coming from -- it's just not senseless -- there's a point to it, ugly though it may be. If they were killed for no reason and buried or left as carrion for scavengers, then yeah, it would be murder.

[FourthBase]

That's a more brutal picture of milk factories than I expected...but still, there are ways to procure milk that cause no harm. So milk, in and of itself, is not inherently the product of abuse.

I saw something on TV the other day about an African tribe that bloodlets its cows and drinks the blood without killing them. Not sure how I feel about that...it's gross, but it doesn't seem to affect the cows much.

But about there being a point to the slaughterhouses...Would human genocide have a point (albeit an unthinkably ugly one) if its victims were then converted into food and clothing?

[professorpan]

PETA have a facility where they put down dogs rather than have them 'enslaved' by human owners

That is not true. Some PETA members were caught euthanizing dogs, which gave PETA quite a black eye. But they do not endorse the practice, nor do they have a killing facility.

Also, it's not PETA that suggested the polar bear be killed, but another organization.

I used to support PETA up to a point, until they started having utterly insane campaigns like trying to get Fishkill, NY to change its name. They lost me many years ago.

I'm a pescovegetarian (I eat fish and seafood). I believe in *some* animal testing -- there's no arguing with the fact that animal tests have contributed immensely to modern medicine. Some testing, however, is simply abhorrent.

I think we can all agree that the way we treat animals speaks to the level of our humanity.

[philipacentaur]

But about there being a point to the slaughterhouses...Would human genocide have a point (albeit an unthinkably ugly one) if its victims were then converted into food and clothing?

I see what you're saying, but -- uh -- I'm not even going to touch that. I think the sheer scale of factory farming is obscene and ultimately "evil" in the grand scheme of things, but I guess we just have different priorities.