Animal Cruelty *Disturbing Images*

[sgt.null]

God made us above the animals.

I win.

There is no God.

I win.

--A

leper, outcast, unclean...

I re-win.

[paulcoz]

Isaac Bashevis Singer:

Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought.

As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Does that make you a vegetable mass murderer then?

[paulcoz]

Sorry, couldn't resist:

Men already have the right to receive an abortion. The fact that they may not need to due to physical inability to be carrying a fetus is irrelevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs

[Zarathustra]

We are all bits of matter organized by energy. When we kill animals and ingest them, we're allowing the matter that made up a cow to now take part (literally) in a human being, "reincarnating" that matter in a higher form that can appreciate Mozart or quantum theory. It's beautiful. It's life. We're no different from the stars, dying, consuming each other, and producing new forms. It might be horrific to some who can't deal with reality the way it is, but our inability to accept "dark" truths don't make them go away.

It would get a lot darker if we didn't have this modern, mechanized, industrialized food supply. Humans have been known to eat each other, in extreme circumstances. Righteous indignation is a luxury of pampered people who don't produce their own food, and take for granted the 1000s of people who make their cheap, plentiful food choices available.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Isaac Bashevis Singer:

As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.

*sigh* So he (not you, the person you quoted) thinks we are all Nazis now?

Look! A wild ad hom appears! It uses Godwin! It isn't very effective.

Sorry, couldn't resist:

No worries. I wasn't even thinking about that when I wrote it. *laugh*

[Ananda]

We are all bits of matter organized by energy. When we kill animals and ingest them, we're allowing the matter that made up a cow to now take part (literally) in a human being, "reincarnating" that matter in a higher form that can appreciate Mozart or quantum theory. It's beautiful. It's life. We're no different from the stars, dying, consuming each other, and producing new forms. It might be horrific to some who can't deal with reality the way it is, but our inability to accept "dark" truths don't make them go away.

It would get a lot darker if we didn't have this modern, mechanized, industrialized food supply. Humans have been known to eat each other, in extreme circumstances. Righteous indignation is a luxury of pampered people who don't produce their own food, and take for granted the 1000s of people who make their cheap, plentiful food choices available.

That's just reductive banality and platitude, Z. This isn't a binary operation. It is not a choice of absolute cruelty or nothing at all. As you point out, we are matter that is able to contemplate itself. Therefore, we can do more than just robotically harvest at the most efficient industrial scale. There is something between.

[Zarathustra]

We are all bits of matter organized by energy. When we kill animals and ingest them, we're allowing the matter that made up a cow to now take part (literally) in a human being, "reincarnating" that matter in a higher form that can appreciate Mozart or quantum theory. It's beautiful. It's life. We're no different from the stars, dying, consuming each other, and producing new forms. It might be horrific to some who can't deal with reality the way it is, but our inability to accept "dark" truths don't make them go away.

It would get a lot darker if we didn't have this modern, mechanized, industrialized food supply. Humans have been known to eat each other, in extreme circumstances. Righteous indignation is a luxury of pampered people who don't produce their own food, and take for granted the 1000s of people who make their cheap, plentiful food choices available.

That's just reductive banality and platitude, Z. This isn't a binary operation. It is not a choice of absolute cruelty or nothing at all. As you point out, we are matter that is able to contemplate itself. Therefore, we can do more than just robotically harvest at the most efficient industrial scale. There is something between.

I'm not sure my meal has the capacity to appreciate the nuance. I think these arguments are more about assuaging the conscience of sensitive humans than actually making the lives better of the beasts we plan on killing and consuming. If you could explain the situation to them, I wonder if they would care?

"No, seriously Mr Chicken, I want you to live a full and happy life before I chop you up and turn you into a nugget. Don't you appreciate my concern?"

But since we can't have this conversation with them, I guess we're stuck projecting our feelings upon them.

[paulcoz]

*sigh* So he (not you, the person you quoted) thinks we are all Nazis now?

Look! A wild ad hom appears! It uses Godwin! It isn't very effective."

Isaac Bashevis Singer was Jewish and a vegetarian.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Bashevis_Singer :

In 1935, four years before the German invasion and the start of the Holocaust, Singer emigrated from Poland to the United States. He was fearful of the growing Nazi threat in neighbouring Germany.

As a member of a group whose very existence was threatened by people who claimed privileges for themselves that they refused to extend to others due to a belief in their supremacy, was he not entitled to make the comparison? When he implicitly compared slaughterhouses to death camps ('for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka') were the two incomparable? Might makes right...

If animals are inferior because they are not ACTUALLY equal to healthy, adult human beings, then we have no non-arbitrary reason not to view some human beings as inferior. Hence:

Action T4:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

In addition to 'euthanasia' various other rationales for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, Darwinism, racial hygiene, and cost effectiveness.

Healthy and afflicted human beings - 'you can't compare the two!' *sigh*

[Ananda]

We are all bits of matter organized by energy. When we kill animals and ingest them, we're allowing the matter that made up a cow to now take part (literally) in a human being, "reincarnating" that matter in a higher form that can appreciate Mozart or quantum theory. It's beautiful. It's life. We're no different from the stars, dying, consuming each other, and producing new forms. It might be horrific to some who can't deal with reality the way it is, but our inability to accept "dark" truths don't make them go away.

It would get a lot darker if we didn't have this modern, mechanized, industrialized food supply. Humans have been known to eat each other, in extreme circumstances. Righteous indignation is a luxury of pampered people who don't produce their own food, and take for granted the 1000s of people who make their cheap, plentiful food choices available.

That's just reductive banality and platitude, Z. This isn't a binary operation. It is not a choice of absolute cruelty or nothing at all. As you point out, we are matter that is able to contemplate itself. Therefore, we can do more than just robotically harvest at the most efficient industrial scale. There is something between.

I'm not sure my meal has the capacity to appreciate the nuance. I think these arguments are more about assuaging the conscience of sensitive humans than actually making the lives better of the beasts we plan on killing and consuming. If you could explain the situation to them, I wonder if they would care?

"No, seriously Mr Chicken, I want you to live a full and happy life before I chop you up and turn you into a nugget. Don't you appreciate my concern?"

But since we can't have this conversation with them, I guess we're stuck projecting our feelings upon them.

Again, Z, that's just insipid. It's not binary as you are making it. I am not taking a black/white stance on this issue, but you seem to be in addition to an attitude of condescension. I doubt you looked at any of the videos or know much about the process. Extreme cruelty is business as usual for some large businesses. It doesn't have to be like that. No one has to understand the vocalisations of another animals to understand that they are being tortured and are in extreme duress since they, like us, share being the same type of animated matter. Try learning a little about the issue this time instead of making snide comments about the righteous indignation of a pampered people who can't accept 'dark truths' as you call them. You can still eat meat, but it can be done more humanely. Plenty of people, including posters here, do just that by supporting the producers who have higher ethical standards.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Isaac Bashevis Singer was Jewish and a vegetarian.

As a member of a group whose very existence was threatened by people who claimed privileges for themselves that they refused to extend to others due to a belief in their supremacy, was he not entitled to make the comparison?

No, he is not entitled to compare other people to Nazis regardless of who he was or what he had to endure.

[paulcoz]

No, he is not entitled to compare other people to Nazis regardless of who he
was or what he had to endure.

Not even when those people defend systematised violence on an industrial scale with claims of supremacy?

[Orlion]

No, he is not entitled to compare other people to Nazis regardless of who he
was or what he had to endure.

Not even when those people defend systematised violence on an industrial scale with claims of supremacy?

Way too simplistic. Waaaaaay too simplistic a comparison... did I mention that it is way too simplistic a comparison? We get so caught up in the idea that Nazis=evil that we forget that they weren't just an organization that systematically killed people... we forget that they were socialist, that the structure for a concentration camp was used before by the British, that the world KNEW about the concentration camps (just not the 14 Death camps that came later).

So, we get to the point when "claims of supremacy" made by Nazis is somehow equal to "claims of supremacy" made my Humanity in general with the Animal kingdom. Which is not the case.

So, let's strip away all this sophism for a moment, the idea of supremacy and Nazi equivalence and souls and God-imbued qualities. Let's look at nature in her, well, natural state. What do we see? We see animals eating other animals to survive. That's a fact, that's the baseline. The hungry carnivore cares not if its kill is humane or if its victim suffers... it mainly only cares that it is fresh. If we are going to claim there is a natural moral for these things we have to show that, regardless of intelligence level (insect, dolphin, man, etc.) animals will kill other animals to survive.

[Ananda]

I had a friend who was one of the extreme viewpoint vegans who said that eating meat was evil. I was also a vegan then and have been some form of vegetarian most of my adult life, but, when he said that, I thought that was really dumb. We live in the world of food. All eats and is eaten. In my opinion, the best we can do is to treat animals who are raised for food humanely. All creatures eat.

The reason I brought up this topic is that there are practices out there for raising animals as food that are really sickening. Likewise, there are product testings on animals that are really nasty, too. Same with medical research. I haven't taken a stance that none should happen, but rather asks where is the balance between need* and compassion for other living things?

* Also, how do we define need? I guess everyone will draw that line in different places.

[paulcoz]

(Bashevis) Singer was comparing only harmful behaviour and the justifications for it. He didn't say that all humans are literally National Socialists. The ONLY reason I brought up his 'nazi' comment is that people have made arguments in this thread invoking supremacy.

I know this is a bitter pill for many of you to swallow, but you have no moral authority when you object to bias or supremacist worldviews ONLY when you don't like the consequences, or your own interests are damaged.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

The shoe is now on the other foot, you say? Too bad. You make your bed, then you lie in it.

So, let's strip away all this sophism for a moment, the idea of supremacy and Nazi equivalence and souls and God-imbued qualities.

Well yes, if you take the supremacy out of supremacy it's much more palatable!

Let's look at nature in her, well, natural state. What do we see? We see animals eating other animals to survive. That's a fact, that's the baseline. The hungry carnivore cares not if its kill is humane or if its victim suffers... it mainly only cares that it is fresh. If we are going to claim there is a natural moral for these things we have to show that, regardless of intelligence level (insect, dolphin, man, etc.) animals will kill other animals to survive.

I already addressed this.

[TheFallen]

Geez. Sophism is undoubtedly le mot juste to describe some of the arguments in this thread.

Claiming a moral equivalency between the toleration of industrialised meat farming and the "final solution" of the Nazis is specious in the extreme. Like an attempted build of an upside-down house of cards, it apparently starts from the premise that animals should enjoy the exact same rights as human beings, with no stated or logical basis for such belief. Why stop at animals then? Why not include lettuce? If you don't, doesn't that make you vegetablist?

Look, I'm all in favour of "as humane as economically viable" conditions for farmed animals - not because those animals have any "God-imbued" intrinsic rights per se, but simply because it behooves us as a species to treat them with a reasonable level of decency, care and compassion, for all that we're going to chow down on them. Again, if it's economically viable, we should treat the creatures we're due to eat humanely – solely because it's within our capability to do so.

However, the various arguments being laid out above border on the ludicrous. You might as well state that, if you're prone on occasion to swatting an irritating fly with a rolled-up newspaper, then you're effectively morally supporting murder for convenience. Or if your child comes home from school with head lice and you use a medicated shampoo to get rid of 'em, you're advocating mass murder for convenience.

Sorry, but that's trite beyond compare. There's no "bitter pill" to swallow here, but instead we're being proffered a plateful of unjustifiable, irrational and nigh on fanatical flannel, liberally garnished with (what I presume must be knowing) false equivalency. Were I feeling a tad more mischievous, I might claim that this in itself is an ironically unwitting form of moral fascism. But I'm not, so I won't.

[paulcoz]

... it apparently starts from the premise that animals should enjoy the exact same rights as human beings, with no stated or logical basis for such belief

Did you even read the thread?

See the exchange I had with Hashi about the right to vote and get married. The right to an abortion. I did not claim that animals (or humans) should have the exact same rights.

Tom Regan (see his response to the 'exact same rights' claim and more):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img

I have explained the basis of my belief that human and non-human animals should have rights (see my third post). This view demands the equal consideration of the welfare and interests of those capable of living an experiential life, regardless of their actual equality. This is the only logically consistent view which has been shown to reject the exploitation and abuse of ALL human beings.

What have the opponents of animal rights proposed? Prejudice towards their favoured outcome. Arguments invoking supremacy which undermine human rights when applied consistently. Principles applied in one case (rights stem from actual equality), then disregarded in another (actual equality is not necessary).

[TheFallen]

Yes, I read the thread ( )

Your alleging a similarity with Nazism is a classic and depressingly overly simplistic false equivalency and a typical non-rational appeal to emotionalism. That said, I freely grant that you haven't claimed entire equal rights for animals. What you've variously maintained is this:-

My ethics are guided by the consistent application of principles to those who can intelligibly be regarded as individuals: those who have a subjective EXPERIENTIAL life which can fare better or worse for them. Those who can conceivably be regarded as 'somebodies', distinct from mere objects...

...Unlike the rights to voting and getting married, animals like humans have a 'stake' if you like (a direct interest) in being given the right to not be regarded and treated like someone else's property. They have the same 'stake' (direct interest) in being given the same prima facie right to life, that we accord mostly without exception to humans. This would make their life fare better than the life they live not having this right...

...I have explained the basis of my belief that human and non-human animals should have rights (see my third post). This view demands the equal consideration of the welfare and interests of those capable of living an experiential life, regardless of their actual equality.

And here, despite your claimed logical absolutism, is where you run into trouble, because your own stated dividing line is a) subjective and b) purely arbitrary, despite your carefully chosen terms of "subjective experiential life" etc This cries out for a reductio ad absurdum, so here goes.

Most would agree that a prime driver of life – all life – is reproduction. All life strives and in particular strives to reproduce itself. Thus, any living thing very definitely has a "direct interest" of some sort in living long enough to further its own particular genetic strain. So, if you're to swallow a healthy live yoghurt or chomp down on some baby carrots, you're impinging upon that right.

However, maybe that's being overly minimalist. Let's confine ourselves to so-called "higher" life-forms. Where are you going to draw your line and upon what logical basis? Is it okay to swat that annoying fly? Or use head lice shampoo on your children? A fly or a head louse is easily distinguishable from a mere "object" or other inanimate thing, after all. But perhaps in your book (and note the "your"), you'd maintain that insects don't have a "subjective experiential life"?

Okay, suppose that you do assert such (and why wouldn't you?) – again, where are you going to draw your line and why? Mammals only? Why? Or are amphibians allowed into the protective fold? Reptiles? Fish? Maybe all vertebrates? But then how about the arthropods? Surely it's possible to be cruel to a lobster? Again, on what logical and objectively measurable basis are you making your distinctions? Upon anything more than your own subjective feeling as to what species are experientially aware? To what degree?

My point is that, unless one is going to take an ur-Buddhist and fundamentalist approach that literally all life is "sacred" and that the ending of any living creature's life is immoral, then you're instantly into relativism and arbitrary. personally inspired lines being drawn in the sand. And that, however worthy, cannot be dressed up and presented as a matter of cold and clinical logic. You're inevitably going to end up at some form of subjective "species-ist" position.

Me? As I've stated above, I believe we should treat farmed animals as humanely as economically possible and indeed all creatures without cruelty where reasonably feasible – pretty much solely because it is within our power to do so. But although my belief may be (personally) ethically driven, there's no logical basis for it and nor would I claim such.

[Zarathustra]

That's just reductive banality and platitude, Z. This isn't a binary operation. It is not a choice of absolute cruelty or nothing at all. As you point out, we are matter that is able to contemplate itself. Therefore, we can do more than just robotically harvest at the most efficient industrial scale. There is something between.

I'm not sure my meal has the capacity to appreciate the nuance. I think these arguments are more about assuaging the conscience of sensitive humans than actually making the lives better of the beasts we plan on killing and consuming. If you could explain the situation to them, I wonder if they would care?

"No, seriously Mr Chicken, I want you to live a full and happy life before I chop you up and turn you into a nugget. Don't you appreciate my concern?"

But since we can't have this conversation with them, I guess we're stuck projecting our feelings upon them.

Again, Z, that's just insipid. It's not binary as you are making it. I am not taking a black/white stance on this issue, but you seem to be in addition to an attitude of condescension. I doubt you looked at any of the videos or know much about the process. Extreme cruelty is business as usual for some large businesses. It doesn't have to be like that. No one has to understand the vocalisations of another animals to understand that they are being tortured and are in extreme duress since they, like us, share being the same type of animated matter. Try learning a little about the issue this time instead of making snide comments about the righteous indignation of a pampered people who can't accept 'dark truths' as you call them. You can still eat meat, but it can be done more humanely. Plenty of people, including posters here, do just that by supporting the producers who have higher ethical standards.

I thought I was being funny, not condescending. I think most of liberal moral positions are inherently condescending. I think this thread is condescending.

I do not think there is ANYTHING humane about industrialized meat production. All you have to do to see this is to substitute humans for animals (in imagination only!). Would it matter one bit that we were treating ... let's say Africans ... "humanely" if we were capturing them, imprisoning them, breeding them, and killing them for food? Would a single conscience be assuaged by our handling of them? No, the distinction between treatment and killing/eating would disappear, because the killing/eating is orders of magnitude more significant than how people are housed and their living conditions.

So, again, in my opinion these nuances are insignificant platitudes (to borrow your word) for no other reason than to make us feel better about killing/eating animals. If it's wrong to treat them poorly, then it sure as hell is wrong to kill/eat them. If this isn't true, then why does the ethics of this situation suddenly REVERSE when we substitute human-animals for nonhuman animals? Why does the killing/eating suddenly become orders of magnitude more important, given the specific animal?

"We should because we can" isn't even an argument. It's nonsense. There's millions of things we can do that we shouldn't.

[Ananda]

I'm not sure my meal has the capacity to appreciate the nuance. I think these arguments are more about assuaging the conscience of sensitive humans than actually making the lives better of the beasts we plan on killing and consuming. If you could explain the situation to them, I wonder if they would care?

"No, seriously Mr Chicken, I want you to live a full and happy life before I chop you up and turn you into a nugget. Don't you appreciate my concern?"

But since we can't have this conversation with them, I guess we're stuck projecting our feelings upon them.

Again, Z, that's just insipid. It's not binary as you are making it. I am not taking a black/white stance on this issue, but you seem to be in addition to an attitude of condescension. I doubt you looked at any of the videos or know much about the process. Extreme cruelty is business as usual for some large businesses. It doesn't have to be like that. No one has to understand the vocalisations of another animals to understand that they are being tortured and are in extreme duress since they, like us, share being the same type of animated matter. Try learning a little about the issue this time instead of making snide comments about the righteous indignation of a pampered people who can't accept 'dark truths' as you call them. You can still eat meat, but it can be done more humanely. Plenty of people, including posters here, do just that by supporting the producers who have higher ethical standards.

I thought I was being funny, not condescending. I think most of liberal moral positions are inherently condescending. I think this thread is condescending.

I do not think there is ANYTHING humane about industrialized meat production. All you have to do to see this is to substitute humans for animals (in imagination only!). Would it matter one bit that we were treating ... let's say Africans ... "humanely" if we were capturing them, imprisoning them, breeding them, and killing them for food? Would a single conscience be assuaged by our handling of them? No, the distinction between treatment and killing/eating would disappear, because the killing/eating is orders of magnitude more significant than how people are housed and their living conditions.

So, again, in my opinion these nuances are insignificant platitudes (to borrow your word) for no other reason than to make us feel better about killing/eating animals. If it's wrong to treat them poorly, then it sure as hell is wrong to kill/eat them. If this isn't true, then why does the ethics of this situation suddenly REVERSE when we substitute human-animals for nonhuman animals? Why does the killing/eating suddenly become orders of magnitude more important, given the specific animal?

"We should because we can" isn't even an argument. It's nonsense. There's millions of things we can do that we shouldn't.

Z, I don't think you read my position on the topic since I didn't really make one other than to say that this happens and what do we think about it. I said I don't know how these topics should go and that I don't ask if a medicine has been animal tested if my child does need it. And, what's with this binary liberal stuff you always add in? I think you're stuck in 0/1 state or something. By the way, the liberal party here is right leaning. This whole black white stuff is just boring, though, Z. We are not binary constructs. Middle ways are possible.

And, fair enough on trying to be funny. I sometimes do the same and it doesn't quite make the jump from seedish to english to spoken to written. I have found a number of your posts to be funny, by the way- the intended to be funny ones- especially in the books discussions.