I'm in a state of shock

Post Reply New Topic

I just watched a documentary on the reality of how we as humans, treat animals.
OMFG, I feel sick. I'm not even going to say the name of the documentary because it is so intense.
And if anyone suspects the name of the movie I saw, please don't say it. It's something people need to find on their own and only watch when emotionally prepared to see such a thing.

Needless to say, I will have to re-think how I do things. I'm likely to become vegetarian.

I mean, yeah, in the back of your mind you know it's not pretty, how humanity treats animals for food, clothing, entertainment and science. But to bring that to the forefront and truly examine the reality puts me into a state of emotional shock. To think, what our species is capable of.....
Humans can be such monsters, to the truest sense of the word. At times utterly demonic.

Which is why though I'm intellectually aware of the atrocities our species commit, I refuse to watch such documentaries because I actually really enjoy and crave meat, and I'm too poor to get all picky and squemish about where I'm getting my protein from.

I'm picky and squemish enough about my food as it is already, thanks.

Why anyone would ever let themselves be talked into watching those things is beyond me.

When I buy meat, I usually try to spend the extra money to buy organic or free range meat.

I am aware that we kill animals for food. That's the natural order of things.

But we do have a duty to treat our food humanly while it's alive.

Cuddles are a renewable resource. I am overflowing with cuddles for my cuddly animal friends. My hugs are their hugs. I will smooch all silly animals upon request. My preferred spot is on the top of the head, which is often smooth and shiny--or puffy and silly!--on a mammal. But I will smooch most other places too. Having said that, I eat meat and I feel bad about it sometimes.

I would caution you not to take anything put out by the animal rights nuts too seriously. Just because they can find serious cases of abuse doesn't mean what they describe is the rule. They have their own agenda, and aren't above dishonesty to further it.

Having said this, I do have strong objections to factory farming, as it really is cruel to animals. Being a rancher, I can say that cattle aren't treated this way; they are allowed to run free in pastures rather than being confined to tiny cages. Even the feed lots cattle are put in to be fattened up aren't as bad as the factory farms. So, if this kind of thing concerns you, as it does me, you might want to think about eating more beef, or spending the extra money to buy free-range meat and eggs.

Is factory farming not the rule?

Yes, but there are exceptions to the rule, which I described in my original post. Again, I'm a farmer and do not treat my animals that way. Nor do my neighbors.

I'm not accusing you of mistreating animals. I just want to point out what appears to be an inconsistency in your initial response to the OP. You say that, "Just because [animal rights activists] can find serious cases of abuse doesn't mean what they describe is the rule." You then say that, "factory farming...is cruel to animals." You then admitted in your second post that factory farming is the rule.

You both want to admit that factory farming is the rule in farming and that it is cruel to animals, while still denigrating animal rights activists for blowing up cruelty towards animals as the rule, rather than the exception.

I've noticed this a lot in your posts. Your hardline right-wing libertarianism gets in the way of your opinions and experiences.

First off, I'm in no way, shape or form any kind of liberal, including being a libertarian.

Second, PETA and like-minded nuts want to go far past stopping factory farming. As the OP alludes to, they are against using animals for medical and scientific research. It is also quite clear that PETA would make it illegal to eat or sell meat no matter the conditions it was raised under. These are my problems with PETA.

As far as factory farming goes, that is a separate issue from what PETA--the "meat is murder" crowd--would inflict on us. Don't you think a real libertarian would say that factory farming is just fine?

It sounds to me as if your liberal ideology doesn't allow you to draw subtle distinctions or appreciate nuance. Since you seem bright enough, all I can do is think it a shame you would inflict yourself with such a sick, vapid ideology.

I called you a right-wing libertarian. If we're using the typical left=liberal, right=conservative line, then as a right-winger you would be by definition not a liberal. But that's a terminological point and it's unimportant. What is important is the inconsistency which you're trying to whitewash.

Whether PETA is against more than simple factory farming (which, of course, they are) is not at issue. You claimed that animal rights activists make occasional cruelty out to be the rule rather than the exception. Then you admitted that factory farming is both cruel and "the rule" rather than "the exception". Now you've moved on to other apparent examples of such unjustified outrage on the part of animal rights activists. But you've just mentioned other institutionalized acts of animal cruelty (medical testing, for one--an undoubtedly widespread and cruel act, regardless of the human benefits it may hold). You've so far shown only that two of the major animal rights talking points are, contrary to your own suggestion, both (a) widespread and (b) cruel.

I'm still waiting to see an example of an occasional cruelty towards animals which is blown up by animal rights activists. Your other example was that they want all consumption of animals to be banned (or de-normalized, or whatever). Nobody is going to deny that the consumption of animals is widespread, and it's debatable whether it's cruel. I think the cruelty of eating meat is determined in large part how the animal lived before being eaten. Since most lived in factory farms, I would think that eating such meat is indeed cruel. So that's one more widespread, cruel act which animal rights activists rightly recognize as cruel and widespread.

The situation for some animals is real unconscionable. But the thing to do is join the fray on their behalf as in captivity they cannot any longer fend for themselves. You choose your piece of the fight. I am not talking about freeing all animals per se, though some deserve that (ie. primates, where medical testing has proved worthless), but at requiring and enforcing humane treatment.

The Haven seems an entirely inappropriate place to insist on this kind of thing.

Wow, I didn't mean to spark off such a debate.
I was just expressing my shock at the cruelty humans can engage in.

It'll probably be some time before I totally switch off meat. I'm poor and my body is used to a limited diet.
It'll take time and education to transition to something different.

But I'll never look at my cheezeburgers the same way again.

Why can't we eat people? Is it because they would taste horrid what with all the chemicals and poisons we ingest? Unless they are babies. They would probably be tasty. Like veal? Or like piglets more likely. Who doesn't like a bit of bacon?

If the animals dies of natural causes you can't eat it in case the natural causes were sickness. So you have to kill a healthy animal so that the meat you eat would be healthy.

So, if we ate eachother, we'd have to find the most healthy specimens, like athletes and young children to eat, as the rest of us would probably taste of Roundup.



This is the kind of thing I always want to talk about but apparently, it is socially unacceptable. Is it the same here?

I think it's a perfectly valid question. In fact, I think it's perhaps the most important question at issue here. Why is it OK to eat a cow but not a person? Peter Singer actually has a pretty neat argument that this all just amounts to nothing more than discrimination, no different from racism or sexism. It's called speciesim.

As I understand it, if a species eats too much of it's own kind, it will get sick.
I've heard about some kind of illness cannibalistic tribes would get from eating people.
Also, isn't mad cow disease a result of feeding beef to cows?