It's an unfortunate association. Similarly being sexist can also considered a macho thing to do to some.
I much rather have the label "kind macho", than "cruel macho", and be conscientious and take responsibility for my actions and the impact they have in the world and on other individuals.
Imagine if Alex had posted an expose on the treatment of dogs in China, the blood diamond industry in Africa, the casualties of the wars in the middle east, the treatment of gays in a homophobic school...
Would any of you be questions: - The legitimacy of the video - Whether it mattered that it was an isolated case or daily practice - Whether dogs in China should be eaten if treated better, or gays in this country should still be discriminated against but not so much. - Whether it belonged in this blog or not
Why not?
Because you are not a part of any of those problems and you see those issues from an outside perspective. The blame is not in you, but in others.
THEY are terrible people for doing this, not you.
The problem with animal rights issues is that YOU are the problem, and people tend to become VERY defensive about it because they don't like to see themselves as cruel, unethical or even remotely associated with any of it.
The truth is, we have all consumed eggs from chickens who lived in the very conditions presented in this video. Whether by buying it directly, by having it in a restaurant, or eating it in a cake or doughnut.
But why is it so hard for people to look at the issue and go - wait a minute, this is pretty horrible, let me look into this further because I don't want to be a part of this anymore!
I've been there and done that. My decision didn't come lightly. I did a lot of research, contacted humane farms to try and find a solution that would be in keeping with my habits, but I found none that pleased me. In the end the conclusion was simple - that I was going to have to change my habits in order to keep them in line with my ethical values.
Once the coin drops, it's all very clear. It's kind of like taking the red pill on the Matrix. Suddenly you see everything for what it is, and you start reading more and more and become more and more convinced that what you doing is the right thing and that others should know about this, because there's so much stuff behind it!
Thank you Alex for planting a seed - I hope people take this opportunity to do their own research and hopefully come to the same conclusion that I have come to.
Whether the humane society, PETA, etc are good organisations or not, does not mean that the cause they fight for, and that the plight of these animals is any less real or important.
You don't need to support organisations, you need to vote with your actions by not consuming animal products and being aware of the source of the other things, especially those you consume on a daily basis.
Wow vegan propaganda vegan lobby animal rights extremists
You guys think we're terrorists and lying to get an agenda across to benefit ourselves?
Vegan activists are likely one of the most well studied activist groups there is. You are making claims of humane farming practices and suggesting that this video is an isolated case because it's posted by an animal rights group, when you actually have NO knowledge about any of this!
Have you gone out and studied it all for yourself? Do you know how your humanely raised animals are slaughtered? Do you know how many hours they are transported in a truck with no water and ventilation? Do you know about the body alterations they endure without anesthetic? Do you know how laws are passed to incriminate people who expose or even talk about these practices? Do you know how veterinary care is conducted, if at all? About how sick animals are treated?
And have you studied anything about philosophy, the history of social justice, ethics, morality, etc?
You make claims based on personal beliefs or little information much of which is fed to you by the industry that sells you the stuff - and you have the cheek to try and defend the cause?
There is a LOT more to this whole story than a short video can show you.
Call farms, visit them (they won't let you so go undercover), watch documentaries, get a job at a slaughterhouse during your summer break, read books on the subject to fill you in on the things you didn't see, read books on ethics, look up statistics surrounding animal agriculture, water polution, CO2 emissions, common practices inside farms (traditional and factory).
After all that, come back to me and you can have an educated argument about the subject.
Resources to get you started: PHD Melanie Joy on the Psychology of eating animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q
Working under-cover in a slaughter-house: http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/working-undercover-in-a-slaugh.html
USDA food recommendation vs Food subsidies: http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/usdas-new-myplate-icon-at-odds-with-federal
Books: Eating Animals The China Study Food Revolution Animals as Persons Animal Liberation Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows Rain without thunder
I am not violently imposing anything. I am stating facts. I am not stating what I like or dislike, I never said I don't like the taste of cream cheese. I am saying that cheese is produced in conditions that you would likely not agree with yourselves.
I feel that some of us needs to be the voice of the underdogs, be it for feminism, gay rights or black rights - we've been there as a society over and over and with each and every cause we're met with ridicule and oppression.
Read this and tell me that this is ethical: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/dairy_and_veal.asp
Ethics are already a part of your life in many ways. When you're angry at someone and you don't punch them or kill them. When a child breaks something and you're more understanding than you are with an adult. When you're horny and you choose not to have sex with the drunken girl. When you free the bird that's stuck inside your house or help the dog that was run over by a car.
Why must you be so defensive about eating a few "ingredients" which are completely unessential to your survival or well-being and which cause so much suffering, environmental destruction and health problems?
Instead of using cholesterol filled and cruelty causing cream cheese, try replacing it with dairy free Tofutti cream cheese. It's perfect for deserts as it actually had a slightly more sweet taste than the one made from cow's milk.
Wikipedia is reliable to the point it shows other points of view, not just those thought of by specific authors of a dictionary or encyclopedia.
You can get several philosophy books by well regarded authors who question the definition of personhood.
If you start to justify your actions based on those of wild animals you may as well start to rape, kill one another, poop in front of one another, walk around naked, etc. As you said yourself, we're superior and the result of that is having stronger morality.
I like to use my superiority for the good - I am superior to mentally disabled human beings as well as young human beings, that doesn't mean that I will abuse them, much the contrary, it means I will give them extra love and compassion.
The use of superiority for oppression is the very definition of tyranny, and the root cause of most atrocities historically committed by humans.
I am proud to act compassionately towards anyone regardless of their mental abilities. So long as they are capable of suffering and having a minimal sense of self and value for his or her own life, I will respect their wishes just as I'd would my own.
"Person" has a gray definition that is forever changing. A few hundred years ago a black human being was not considered a "person".
From Wikipedia: Various specific debates have focused and continue to focus on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, sovereign states, estates in probate, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life; and may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So in that case, murder CAN be applied to a non-human animal.
The malice part is not included in every definition of the word, and I don't agree that murder requires malice. A selfish reason is a reason but not necessarily malicious. Killing an animal in order to eat him or her is selfish at the point that you don't need to do it to survive, you do it because you enjoy the taste. It's your desire to seek pleasure against their desire to live.
Which brings me to your question about hunting. Which is better, to kidnap a girl and lock her up in a cellar for 3 years then killing her, or to just shoot her in the street? I'm sure you'll agree it's the latter but neither are exactly ideal are they?
That girl died for no justifiable reason either way and that's what makes it wrong.
As for population control, there are other ways to control populations that don't involve killing. You can add contraceptives to their feed, or apply injections or perform castrations. However, populations in nature generally control themselves, it's only when human interests are at stake that they are deemed "too populous". Wolves are often hunted because they start killing the cows that you eat.
If human population is out of control (it already is), is it a viable solution to hunt people? Why is that so with non-humans? Speciesism is the reason.
If the definition of murder is the unnecessary killing of an innocent individual, then yes, it very much is. ;-) But it's not just the killing part that's wrong, it really is the whole process of exploitation, incarceration, mutilation, inadequate transportation and ultimately inadequate slaughter. I am sure that the slaughter part is very painful, but at that point that animal has suffered a lot more than his or her last moments.
You obviously won't find any videos from the dairy industry showing you the atrocities they commit. And current laws (passed by meat industry lobbyists) makes it illegal or difficult for it to be reported by the media. It is illegal to film inside farms, and you can't get permission from the owners, so these are always undercover videos and thus illegal by nature. A few years ago Oprah was sued simply for saying she wouldn't eat a burger anymore. After that media organisations have become wary of reporting on animal abuse.
To make matters worse, this law here just passed in Utah a few days ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/aggag-bills-threaten-our-_b_1370091.html it makes it even more difficult to expose animal abuse.
If you or anyone want to learn more about the philosophies of animal rights, there's a great documentary called Vegucated which is available on iTunes. It's quite humorous at times and I highly recommend anyone watching it.
This talk by Melanie Joy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q is also an excellent explanation of the deep meanings of animal rights - WAY beyond "meat is murder"
And if you'd rather read a book, "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safram Foer is a great place to start.
I have studied a LOT about farming practices, and have personally contacted several farms, from organic to family farms and the facts I wrote about were true to them all.
As for calves being left to die, I've seen them, and it's one way that farm sanctuaries get to rescue them - they just pick them up from the field or the side of the road.
Just because something is too atrocious to be true doesn't automatically make it untrue. Much worse things happen.
As for the argument of being an omnivore, let me explain. Firstly, sharp teeth does not necessarily mean a biological obligation to consume animal flesh. Gorillas and pandas have canine teeth many times larger than ours and are strictly herbivorous. Sharp teeth like ours are better suited for tearing fruits and vegetables than they are at tearing through raw meat.
But that aside, we ARE omnivores. An omnivore is an animal who can survive on either plant or animal matter (mostly insects). The emphasis on EITHER. This is a great survival strategy as in winter months or during drought, it's easier to find animal matter than plant matter. But omnivores, unlike carnivores, are not biologically required to consume animals in order to be healthy.
At the point that there's no biological necessity to consume any one food type, consuming them becomes a choice. I can choose to eat wheat or not, apples or not, crickets or not, dogs or not. Stopping to consume any of those does not mean sudden death or health problems so long as I have other things to eat.
So given the choice between causing suffering to a being equally sentient to me - or not causing suffering, I believe the most moral one is to choose the latter.
If choice is no longer an option, if I'm stuck on an island or lost in a jungle and eating an animal or egg becomes the difference between my life and death - I would likely choose to consume that. But in our society, with the technology that we have to plant almost everything all year long - I have no excuses not to act morally.
Go to any supermarket and right next to the cow's milk you will find almond, soy, hemp, coconut, flexseed, rice or oat "milks". So why would I pick the one that caused the most suffering over the one that caused the least when there's no nutritional benefit or necessity to consume either?
For those thinking about arguing that plants suffer too, please study biology and evolution. In order to experience pain and emotions one needs a brain and a central nervous system. Pain evolved as a way to signal a bad experience that we want to avoid in future. In order to avoid an experience we need to be mobile so we can move away from it. It would be stupid for any being who can't move to experience pain. Oysters and start-fish are animals and have limited movement - they also lack a central nervous system and like plants are incapable of feeling pain and emotions.
For those thinking about arguing that a plant-based diet is unhealthy. You're talking to a very healthy man whose blood-work comes out perfect every time. I'm clearly well and alive and so are millions of others like me. If animal protein was required for good health, I'd be in hospital, not typing this on my computer at home.
I'm happy to see their moment of happiness - sadly 99% of their lives are filled with sadness and pain.
1- Dairy cows are forcefully impregnated through a system officially called "r*pe rack" - a man inserts his hand down her *nus to push her uterus down and then inserts a syringe with sp*rm through her v*gina.
2- She's pregnant for 9 months, in confinement, and when she finally gives birth her calf is immediately taken away from her - she'll howl for days calling for her baby.
3- If the baby is a male, he'll be either sent to the veal industry where he'll be confined and fed a low iron diet so his meat is soft. Or he'll be shot de*d - or, most often, he's left to die.
4- If the baby is a female, she's grown to be a dairy cow herself and suffer the same fate as her mother.
5- A dairy cow produces 12x more milk than she would naturally with her baby. Giving milk is painful, ask any woman, being s*cked several hours a day 12x more than she does naturally is very painful.
6- Free living cows can live up to 25 years, but dairy cows only live about 6 years and in that time period she'll have 4 babies taken away from her. She is then sent to slaughter to be made into cheap meat.
Videos like this make us smile because we care, because we have empathy - but the sad part that happens 99% of the time is always hidden from the public.
I much rather have the label "kind macho", than "cruel macho", and be conscientious and take responsibility for my actions and the impact they have in the world and on other individuals.
Talk about objectification! :-P
Would any of you be questions:
- The legitimacy of the video
- Whether it mattered that it was an isolated case or daily practice
- Whether dogs in China should be eaten if treated better, or gays in this country should still be discriminated against but not so much.
- Whether it belonged in this blog or not
Why not?
Because you are not a part of any of those problems and you see those issues from an outside perspective. The blame is not in you, but in others.
THEY are terrible people for doing this, not you.
The problem with animal rights issues is that YOU are the problem, and people tend to become VERY defensive about it because they don't like to see themselves as cruel, unethical or even remotely associated with any of it.
The truth is, we have all consumed eggs from chickens who lived in the very conditions presented in this video. Whether by buying it directly, by having it in a restaurant, or eating it in a cake or doughnut.
But why is it so hard for people to look at the issue and go - wait a minute, this is pretty horrible, let me look into this further because I don't want to be a part of this anymore!
I've been there and done that. My decision didn't come lightly. I did a lot of research, contacted humane farms to try and find a solution that would be in keeping with my habits, but I found none that pleased me. In the end the conclusion was simple - that I was going to have to change my habits in order to keep them in line with my ethical values.
Once the coin drops, it's all very clear. It's kind of like taking the red pill on the Matrix. Suddenly you see everything for what it is, and you start reading more and more and become more and more convinced that what you doing is the right thing and that others should know about this, because there's so much stuff behind it!
Thank you Alex for planting a seed - I hope people take this opportunity to do their own research and hopefully come to the same conclusion that I have come to.
You don't need to support organisations, you need to vote with your actions by not consuming animal products and being aware of the source of the other things, especially those you consume on a daily basis.
vegan propaganda
vegan lobby
animal rights extremists
You guys think we're terrorists and lying to get an agenda across to benefit ourselves?
Vegan activists are likely one of the most well studied activist groups there is. You are making claims of humane farming practices and suggesting that this video is an isolated case because it's posted by an animal rights group, when you actually have NO knowledge about any of this!
Have you gone out and studied it all for yourself? Do you know how your humanely raised animals are slaughtered? Do you know how many hours they are transported in a truck with no water and ventilation? Do you know about the body alterations they endure without anesthetic? Do you know how laws are passed to incriminate people who expose or even talk about these practices? Do you know how veterinary care is conducted, if at all? About how sick animals are treated?
And have you studied anything about philosophy, the history of social justice, ethics, morality, etc?
You make claims based on personal beliefs or little information much of which is fed to you by the industry that sells you the stuff - and you have the cheek to try and defend the cause?
There is a LOT more to this whole story than a short video can show you.
Call farms, visit them (they won't let you so go undercover), watch documentaries, get a job at a slaughterhouse during your summer break, read books on the subject to fill you in on the things you didn't see, read books on ethics, look up statistics surrounding animal agriculture, water polution, CO2 emissions, common practices inside farms (traditional and factory).
After all that, come back to me and you can have an educated argument about the subject.
Resources to get you started:
PHD Melanie Joy on the Psychology of eating animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q
Working under-cover in a slaughter-house:
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/working-undercover-in-a-slaugh.html
USDA food recommendation vs Food subsidies:
http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/usdas-new-myplate-icon-at-odds-with-federal
Documentaries:
www.watchearthlings.com
www.getvegucated.com
www.forksoverknives.com
Books:
Eating Animals
The China Study
Food Revolution
Animals as Persons
Animal Liberation
Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows
Rain without thunder
I am not stating what I like or dislike, I never said I don't like the taste of cream cheese. I am saying that cheese is produced in conditions that you would likely not agree with yourselves.
I feel that some of us needs to be the voice of the underdogs, be it for feminism, gay rights or black rights - we've been there as a society over and over and with each and every cause we're met with ridicule and oppression.
Read this and tell me that this is ethical: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/dairy_and_veal.asp
Ethics are already a part of your life in many ways. When you're angry at someone and you don't punch them or kill them. When a child breaks something and you're more understanding than you are with an adult. When you're horny and you choose not to have sex with the drunken girl.
When you free the bird that's stuck inside your house or help the dog that was run over by a car.
Why must you be so defensive about eating a few "ingredients" which are completely unessential to your survival or well-being and which cause so much suffering, environmental destruction and health problems?
You can get several philosophy books by well regarded authors who question the definition of personhood.
If you start to justify your actions based on those of wild animals you may as well start to rape, kill one another, poop in front of one another, walk around naked, etc. As you said yourself, we're superior and the result of that is having stronger morality.
I like to use my superiority for the good - I am superior to mentally disabled human beings as well as young human beings, that doesn't mean that I will abuse them, much the contrary, it means I will give them extra love and compassion.
The use of superiority for oppression is the very definition of tyranny, and the root cause of most atrocities historically committed by humans.
I am proud to act compassionately towards anyone regardless of their mental abilities. So long as they are capable of suffering and having a minimal sense of self and value for his or her own life, I will respect their wishes just as I'd would my own.
From Wikipedia: Various specific debates have focused and continue to focus on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, sovereign states, estates in probate, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life; and may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So in that case, murder CAN be applied to a non-human animal.
The malice part is not included in every definition of the word, and I don't agree that murder requires malice. A selfish reason is a reason but not necessarily malicious. Killing an animal in order to eat him or her is selfish at the point that you don't need to do it to survive, you do it because you enjoy the taste. It's your desire to seek pleasure against their desire to live.
Which brings me to your question about hunting. Which is better, to kidnap a girl and lock her up in a cellar for 3 years then killing her, or to just shoot her in the street? I'm sure you'll agree it's the latter but neither are exactly ideal are they?
That girl died for no justifiable reason either way and that's what makes it wrong.
As for population control, there are other ways to control populations that don't involve killing. You can add contraceptives to their feed, or apply injections or perform castrations. However, populations in nature generally control themselves, it's only when human interests are at stake that they are deemed "too populous". Wolves are often hunted because they start killing the cows that you eat.
If human population is out of control (it already is), is it a viable solution to hunt people? Why is that so with non-humans? Speciesism is the reason.
Thanks for being understanding. :-)
If the definition of murder is the unnecessary killing of an innocent individual, then yes, it very much is. ;-) But it's not just the killing part that's wrong, it really is the whole process of exploitation, incarceration, mutilation, inadequate transportation and ultimately inadequate slaughter.
I am sure that the slaughter part is very painful, but at that point that animal has suffered a lot more than his or her last moments.
You obviously won't find any videos from the dairy industry showing you the atrocities they commit. And current laws (passed by meat industry lobbyists) makes it illegal or difficult for it to be reported by the media. It is illegal to film inside farms, and you can't get permission from the owners, so these are always undercover videos and thus illegal by nature. A few years ago Oprah was sued simply for saying she wouldn't eat a burger anymore. After that media organisations have become wary of reporting on animal abuse.
To make matters worse, this law here just passed in Utah a few days ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/aggag-bills-threaten-our-_b_1370091.html it makes it even more difficult to expose animal abuse.
If you or anyone want to learn more about the philosophies of animal rights, there's a great documentary called Vegucated which is available on iTunes. It's quite humorous at times and I highly recommend anyone watching it.
This talk by Melanie Joy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q is also an excellent explanation of the deep meanings of animal rights - WAY beyond "meat is murder"
And if you'd rather read a book, "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safram Foer is a great place to start.
As for calves being left to die, I've seen them, and it's one way that farm sanctuaries get to rescue them - they just pick them up from the field or the side of the road.
Just because something is too atrocious to be true doesn't automatically make it untrue. Much worse things happen.
As for the argument of being an omnivore, let me explain.
Firstly, sharp teeth does not necessarily mean a biological obligation to consume animal flesh. Gorillas and pandas have canine teeth many times larger than ours and are strictly herbivorous. Sharp teeth like ours are better suited for tearing fruits and vegetables than they are at tearing through raw meat.
But that aside, we ARE omnivores. An omnivore is an animal who can survive on either plant or animal matter (mostly insects). The emphasis on EITHER. This is a great survival strategy as in winter months or during drought, it's easier to find animal matter than plant matter. But omnivores, unlike carnivores, are not biologically required to consume animals in order to be healthy.
At the point that there's no biological necessity to consume any one food type, consuming them becomes a choice. I can choose to eat wheat or not, apples or not, crickets or not, dogs or not. Stopping to consume any of those does not mean sudden death or health problems so long as I have other things to eat.
So given the choice between causing suffering to a being equally sentient to me - or not causing suffering, I believe the most moral one is to choose the latter.
If choice is no longer an option, if I'm stuck on an island or lost in a jungle and eating an animal or egg becomes the difference between my life and death - I would likely choose to consume that. But in our society, with the technology that we have to plant almost everything all year long - I have no excuses not to act morally.
Go to any supermarket and right next to the cow's milk you will find almond, soy, hemp, coconut, flexseed, rice or oat "milks". So why would I pick the one that caused the most suffering over the one that caused the least when there's no nutritional benefit or necessity to consume either?
For those thinking about arguing that plants suffer too, please study biology and evolution. In order to experience pain and emotions one needs a brain and a central nervous system.
Pain evolved as a way to signal a bad experience that we want to avoid in future. In order to avoid an experience we need to be mobile so we can move away from it. It would be stupid for any being who can't move to experience pain. Oysters and start-fish are animals and have limited movement - they also lack a central nervous system and like plants are incapable of feeling pain and emotions.
For those thinking about arguing that a plant-based diet is unhealthy. You're talking to a very healthy man whose blood-work comes out perfect every time. I'm clearly well and alive and so are millions of others like me.
If animal protein was required for good health, I'd be in hospital, not typing this on my computer at home.
1- Dairy cows are forcefully impregnated through a system officially called "r*pe rack" - a man inserts his hand down her *nus to push her uterus down and then inserts a syringe with sp*rm through her v*gina.
2- She's pregnant for 9 months, in confinement, and when she finally gives birth her calf is immediately taken away from her - she'll howl for days calling for her baby.
3- If the baby is a male, he'll be either sent to the veal industry where he'll be confined and fed a low iron diet so his meat is soft. Or he'll be shot de*d - or, most often, he's left to die.
4- If the baby is a female, she's grown to be a dairy cow herself and suffer the same fate as her mother.
5- A dairy cow produces 12x more milk than she would naturally with her baby. Giving milk is painful, ask any woman, being s*cked several hours a day 12x more than she does naturally is very painful.
6- Free living cows can live up to 25 years, but dairy cows only live about 6 years and in that time period she'll have 4 babies taken away from her. She is then sent to slaughter to be made into cheap meat.
Videos like this make us smile because we care, because we have empathy - but the sad part that happens 99% of the time is always hidden from the public.