Do You Support Animal Rights Issues ?

video... IF YOU CAN THAT IS.

http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

the antibiotics, the insanity that these poor creatures endure... doesn't somehow, and in some way affect the people who wantonly consume them?? I think not.

It's my Number One cause! I'm a card carrying member of both PETA and Farm Sanctuary! Please, all of you who don't want animals to needlessly suffer, check out those 2 organizations!
O8)

I think we have an obligation to treat all creatures humanely. I think there should be criminal penalties for people who are grossly or habitually cruel to animals. But I also enjoy eating meat. I wear leather. I wish PETA would focus at least some of their energy and enthusiasm on the just and humane treatment of human beings. And I think over-the-top animal rights activism is one of the things red-state voters find easy to hate about liberals.

Vegetarian and anti-vivisection campaigns.

I think we still (obviously) have a long way to go toward mitigating human suffering on a global scale. Billions of people don't enjoy even the most basic human rights, so I don't really understand why we think animal rights are a pressing issue right now. It's just a question of priorities, for me.

The famine countries are exporting grain for your hamburger to eat. Vegetarian meals are far more sustainable and use far less resources, pollute less, etc. You can find this information all over the Internet.

As for priorities, you are of course free to work on whichever issues you think are most important, and if you're working on anything at all that's terrific. But you can at the same time, with minimal effort, stop hurting animals by stopping from eating them, wearing them, and paying to watch them perform tricks in the circus, etc. Won't take a second more of your time to make compassionate choices towards animals, and you can still spend all your free time on the other issues you are interested in.

to make way for soybean farmers to feed cattle (to then feed people), maybe some will take notice. You make a great point, jilln. You've made several in this thread.

Veg diets are far healthier and are better for the environment, as jilln so correctly pointed out.

Who are you, George Bush? Can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

You may care more about humans, but I care more about animals :shrug: That's just me. I choose to fight for the weakest, most innocent among us, and that is plainly and simply all animals.

>>I think we still (obviously) have a long way to go toward mitigating human suffering on a global scale. Billions of people don't enjoy even the most basic human rights, so I don't really understand why we think animal rights are a pressing issue right now. It's just a question of priorities, for me. <<

Some people think that humane animal issues, animal rights, and animal ethics is starting at the roots. It's hard to believe that a society that cares about the animals, wouldn't also care about people. If we are empathetic enough to not want to cause pain and fear to animals, why wouldn't that be extended to human animals? Teaching children kindness and empathy, for instance, may start with animals, but it sure doesn't end there.

is also important, when guidelines are followed for using laboratory animals.

and get results as accurate as most animal tests.

Also know that the laws that "protect" animals in labs do not apply to mice, rats and birds, which are the vast majority of animals used.

And that only a tiny percentage of animal testing is medical in nature.

Let me ask you this; would you allow ANY of that to happen to your fellow humans?

* Would you allow humans to be raised only as a food source?
* Would you allow humans to be experimented on for the "benefit" of OTHER species?
* Would you allow humans to be slaves (we soften the word when it comes to animals and call them 'pets') for the sole enjoyment/benefit of another species?
* Would you allow coats to be made of HUMAN skin?

I'd like to see you answer those questions...

one of the things red-state voters find easy to hate about liberals.

I'm all for using animals for food and medical research (although I believe they should be killed as humanely as possible).

I'm not in favor of using animals for non-lifesaving research (like cosmetics). There are other ways to test that don't harm animals.

Medical research? Do you know what they do to those poor animals in the name of "scientific research"?

and/or drugs on animals, I'm all for it.

you don't feel the same way about the same type of experimenting on humans.

Why is that?

...and I'm human.

We are "superior"?

There's a fragile ecosystem that we live in; we're just one cog in this machine. Just because we recognize that we're a cog doesn't make us any better. In fact without the other cogs, we die just like them.

If they need to test medical procedures on animals, so be it.

animal rights protection so medical experimentation doesn't occur.

Sometimes that requires the use of animals.

to humans . . . I've learned more about life from my canine and feline friends (unconditional love, forgiveness, patience, gratitude, simplicity, living in the moment, joy, etc.) than any from any humans I've ever encountered . . .

and I'm still learning . . . my dog is my spiritual advisor . . . :)

I am all in favour of animal welfare, but when you ask a poll question such as this you need to define your terms.

What are "rights"? Are we talking the 5 Freedoms or are we talking about the right to vote or is the definition somewhere else along the continuum?

When have you ever heard an animal rights activist say animals should vote?????

of the "Animal Rights" philosophy. If I said something like vegan someone would be upset.

My question stands.

but that's the typical response of someone trying to keep others from enjoying the freedom they enjoy. It's the response people tried to use to keep slaves from being freed, women from voting, and gays from marrying, and it never stands up.

The rights animal rights activists want for animals are simple: to be free from human-imposed torture and killing, free to live their own lives freely. That's the radical concept in a nutshell.

Animals are analogous to slaves, women and gays.

I'll consider my question answered.

all those groups were considered something "less" than human, as were children at times. So in that sense, yes, animal are analagous. No one is suggesting they be "allowed" to buy property, vote, or run for office. They're far too smart for that anyway.

"They're far too smart for that anyway."

EXCELLENT post ;) Couldn't agree with you more! :hi:

Animals are less than human.

:sarcasm:

Do you think man lives on this planet by himself? This is just like nationalism, but with species! Don't you see that?

Even more so, because animals can't defend themselves against mankind. They can only REACT to man's incursions into their land.

and you have your answer. It's the nature of abuse, not the abused.

There, now your question is answered.

slaves, women, and gays. It has differences of course, but the same principle of right and wrong and protecting the "weak" and less than human is still a very valid point, unlike yours.

children?

Right is right and wrong is wrong?

I disagree: There are valid lines to be drawn in ethics.

It is not acceptable to end the life of a living, breathing child.

It is less acceptable to end the life of a nearly viable fetus (perhaps acceptable only in the case in which the mother will die otherwise).

Taking a morning-after pill to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg is acceptable (to me).

I am in the animal welfare - not the animal rights - crowd because too many people I read and listen to who believe in animal rights don't make sense to me.

And I am a bleeding-heart, pet-rescuing, believer in the sanctity of all life. I escort spiders and other bugs to my backyard when I find them in my home and I pray for squirrels and possums dead in the road.

answered incorrectly by corporate lobbyists who are protecting profit driven clients.

For example, the very revered AKC hires these flunkies to protect puppy mills, which in turn, provides registration fees and corporate grants from the pet industry. Sad, but true. But the AKC isn't doing anything illegal, because the law protects puppy pimps.

That's just a small slice of animal protection the animal rights movement addresses. It's a full menu, believe me, bloodsports, CAFA's (errg, Factory Farms), Canned Hunts (double-eeerg, 'game preserves').

Here's more info: http://www.hedweb.com/arfaq/arpage.htm

I PROUDLY support the animal rights agenda ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=231

Lovely group too :)

I believe that animals should be treated humanely, but I don't believe they have rights.

Pets have the right to live with their humans, whether they rent or own their living quarters. I think no-pets clauses in many leases discriminate against households with pets and should be harder to put into a binding contract. No-pets leases are anti-family and needlessly sever the human-animal bond. Pets' rights are human rights, too.

Would you kick your kids out of the house or send them to a shelter because your lease had a no-children clause? Before the law was enacted banning discrimination against households with kids, some families did just that: send their kids to live with relatives because they couldn't rent anywhere else.

charging "pet rent." So if they get charged rent like a roommate would, they should have renters rights, as well.

Only in PA, that's illegal, yet commonplace. Too few tenants complain about it, but I once brought that up and was denied the apartment.

To me, charging extra rent to pet owners constitutes discrimination.

...rights/protection/welfare are starting to fall under the same umbrella.

And like with any political movement, we're not all going to agree on all the same issues!

Even PeTA comes under fire from some of the more extreme animal rights groups as being a sell out to the welfare movement.

Are you a pet owner or a pet guardian? If you think about these words in human terms, we don't "own" our children either. I do believe that!

Here's a wonderful website http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/
which I encourage you (and anyone else!!) to sign up for their newsletter. It's the best grassroots animal protection site on the nets, especially for those starting out with questions about the meaning of 'is' in what 'is' compassion.

:grouphug: ...on edit...spelling, context, etc.

Everyone likes animals righT?

But I think PETA goes about it the wrong way and they are often over the top and not effectively serious (most people view them as a joke).

at least as "humane" as eating them CAN be. I do not support the militant vegetarian agenda of PETA and similar groups.

by promoting a healthier plant based diet. Numerous life threatening ailments can be practically eliminated by going veg.

Not only have I lost weight and even had significant improvements with my diabetes since becoming veg, I've also been sick HALF as much as I used to be (haven't had a cold in 2 years where I previously would be sick at least 2-3 times a year), plus my skin, hair, and nails have never looked better. Plus, I've never FELT better in my life - I sleep better and have way more energy.

The way I see it is people who are militant carnovires are only hurting themselves. I can try to warn them and show them the benefits of a veg* diet, but as with smokers, you can only "warn" so much.

Yes, it is unhealthy to go on a ridiculous meat diet like Atkins. Yes, meat can cause heart disease and cancer if you eat too much of it. Yes, going vegetarian will probably make you lose weight (although not in all cases) and can be a very well balanced diet if you find a way to put some protein in there. However, you can be healthy and still eat meat.

I don't eat them, wear them, nor take part in their exploitation.

nt

Those of you saying this either have no clue what really goes on in factory farms or you are raising the animals humanely yourselves and giving them lethal injections.

Or you're paying companies to crowd them in tiny, filthy pens and cages, force feed them, kick them, stomp on them, beat them, drag them, starve them to produce an extra egg laying cycle, chop off beaks, tails, teeth and testicles without anesthetic, boil them alive, skin them alive and bleed them to death, and deluding yourselves.

All this is on undercover video by those "extreme" organizations such as PeTA who rather than being extreme, are just showing you what you don't want to know because you might have to admit that there is no such thing as humane meat.

whenever possible, and are happy to pay a premium to do so. Nota bene: it's exactly that lecturing tone of yours that turns people off.

but not so different for the animals. "Free range" means that there is SOME access to the outside, not that every animal gets to go out or what that outside might be like. And they are killed the same way.

As for my "lecturing tone," you may be right, but the fact remains that if you buy meat, you are paying someone to be cruel to animals. You can use my "tone" as an excuse to do nothing about it but that won't change the facts.

Why is it lecturing to make a stand? Right now, most people are under the incorrect belief that man is the supreme being on this planet, and don't recognize the eco-system that man is a part of!

We are responsible for MORE than animals are because of our intelligence. We should NOT be taking advantage of the situation and despoiling the world.

I enjoy a shot of libertarianism with my progressive politics, and I resent being told what I should and shouldn't eat or wear by a bunch of privileged whiners who think farm animals ought to be treated like pets. If you want to wear hemp shoes and a piece of string for a belt and spend your whole life in a bad mood because your amino acids are out of whack, that's your business, and more power to you. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to take you seriously. And honestly, if you guys didn't want to hear a few contrarian answers, you shouldn't have asked the question.

* Would you allow humans to be raised only as a food source?
* Would you allow humans to be experimented on for the "benefit" of OTHER species?
* Would you allow humans to be slaves (we soften the word when it comes to animals and call them 'pets') for the sole enjoyment/benefit of another species?
* Would you allow coats to be made of HUMAN skin?

And if gay marriages are allowed, then people will want to marry their furniture, too! - not to mention people having sex with little boys and animals!

I'm still a member of PETA though - People Eating Tasty Animals!

Had a GREAT roast beef last night - yummy!

It was the best we ever made!

"And honestly, if you guys didn't want to hear a few contrarian answers, you shouldn't have asked the question."

Well said. I think this thread was intended to be flamebait.

vegans, and or animals rights activists are neo-hippies who are privileged? Please put down your broad brush.

have not problem telling animals to have their tails whacked off for your convenience, or any of the other truly sickening things that happen to them on modern farms. You have no problem telling slaughterhouse workers that you approve of their conditions (which are widely recognized as the WORST in the country) by buying meat day after day. You have no problem telling the rest of the world to pay for your heart attacks and cancers that you cause yourselves by your crappy eating habits (and no, not all disease is caused by diet but a significant portion is, and it costs a fortune). You have no problem fouling the environment we ALL share with the poop lagoons around pig farms (no wastewater treatment necessary for farms, though animals waste FAR surpasses human waste in this country). No one is perfect and everything we do affects the world in some way. Vegetarianism is a way of minimizing our impact on the earth. So before you tell others what they can "tell" you to do, take a look at what your own lifestyle is doing to others.

Another thing you are completely wrong about is that we think farmed animals should be treated as pets. We think farmed animals should not exist.

They "don't want anyone to tell them what to do" when it comes to diet. As if they haven't already been told what to eat their whole lives, by those who will profit most.

http://www.drredwood.com/interviews/robbins.shtml

REDWOOD: How much of the nutrition education curriculum and materials in America's schools comes from unbiased sources, and how much is supplied by the public relations people of the dairy, meat and egg industries?

JOHN ROBBINS: Very little is unbiased. The foremost supplier of the nutritional materials used in public schools in this country is the National Dairy Council. When I first learned that, I did not really understand just how unfortunate this is. I assumed that the Dairy Council was a public interest council, but it turns out that it's a trade lobby. Its purpose, which is explicit in its bylaws, is to promote the sale of dairy products. The material it provides to schools reflects very directly that inclination.

For example, I just saw a coloring book that's distributed by the Dairy Council to kindergarten through third grade. It's a very nice coloring book, except that it has some real inherent biases. For example, there's a drawing of the outline of a man's face, and it says "What did Daddy eat today? If he had his cheese, color him happy, and draw a smile on his face. If he did not have his cheese, color him sad and draw a frown on his face.""Did he have his butter today? If he did, color his eyes blue. If he didn't, color his eyes red." And it goes on and on, with ice cream, milk and so forth, so you end up with two pictures. One of this fellow who ate his butter and his cheese and his ice cream and his sour cream and his milk, and he's glowing with a big smile on his face. Then there's this other poor fellow who didn't have his dairy products, and is a mess.

Now there's a message being delivered there. Children, drawing with their crayons, do not realize that they are being programmed. It happened to all of us. I can remember when I was a child--I believed in the four basic food groups as if they came down from Mt. Sinai. I had no awareness that there were previously seven food groups, and before that there were twelve, and that the number had been whittled down in Washington, not in response to advances in health science, but rather in opposition to those advances, as a consequence of lobbying efforts paid for by the meat and dairy industries, and enacted on behalf of their products.

http://www.river-phoenix.org/bookshelf/newamerica/section2/

"Over the years, the 'fat lobby' -- the meat, dairy and egg industries, and their academic and political allies -- has not only influenced our nation's food and nutrition policies, it has *determined* those policies."

http://www.newveg.av.org/heart.htm

We know today how to prevent heart attacks and strokes. We know how to prevent the killers that account for more than half of the deaths in the United States every year. But most of us, thanks to the dedicated endeavors of the meat, dairy and egg industries, have not gotten the good news. We still think we must eat animal products in order to be healthy. We still think heart attacks and strokes are a regrettable but more or less inevitable byproduct that comes with living well and growing old. The heart attack has become so much a part of American life as to virtually be an institution. We take it for granted.

Few of us know that our passive attitude is perpetuated by the deliberate efforts of those who profit from our staying hooked on the foods that cause heart disease.

As long as we remain passive we cannot make the real choices that empower us. Although there are people who do not want us to make such choices and are willing to do almost anything to confuse us, we now have for the first time in history, sufficient knowledge to take control over our bodies and our lives. Now we can make food choices which we know will dramatically improve the health of our cardiovascular system, prevent heart disease and strokes, and at the same time reduce the suffering in the world.

A well-known publication editorialized: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." This publication was not the Vegetarian Times, nor was it the New Age Journal. It was The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Thanks.

I recently went to my high school reunion, and we had a tour of the school hosted by one of my former teachers. In the cafeteria was a huge "GOT MILK" sign and I asked him, "How long has advertising been allowed in the school?" He was surprised I was referring to that sign, he didn't even realize it was advertising. And I have to say this was the government teacher, who is very liberal and aware. Even he didn't know.

And definitely better than buying caged. But as we found out recently with that kosher slaughterhouse where workers were torturing animals before slaughter, nothing is guaranteed, and the industry is so pathetically regulated it's really quite sad.

I don't think the poster intended to "lecture", but she/he has a very valid point in that if you eat and/or buy meat, YOU are contributing to and supporting animal cruelty and torture, pure and simple.

Please don't be in denial about it - if you eat meat, YOU are contributing to animal cruelty. To those of us who see animal rights as a deeply held conviction and belief - it is not a joke and not something we can easily be polite about. It's like telling someone who saw someone be wrongfully murdered to calm down. It's very important to many of us.

This is a superb post, and dead-on.

No animal is killed humanely in today's world unless you personally did the slaughtering and saw it. That "radical" group PETA has shown undercover videotape from supposedly kosher slaughterhouses doing the unthinkable - torture before death.

And for many vegs like me, I take great issue with the way the animals are treated BEFORE slaughter as much as after. There's a BIG difference between raising Bessie the cow on a green family farm with good food and a normal life, then the time comes when you need to feed your family so you shoot her quickly in the head and use the meat...and compare it to what happens today. Educate yourself. Watch those "radical" and REAL undercover videos from slaughterhouses and watch a living, breathing being live for 3-6 minutes after its trachea was ripped out by hand by a human (this was not an isolated torture event but how cows are slaughtered). Watch all the videos, and if you still want to eat meat, then fine. But at least know what misery happened so you could have your hamburger or hot dog or steak.

Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.

we used to buy our chicken and eggs from was a total fabrication on my part, right?

You are totally ridiculuous to make such a sweeping blanket statement like that.

You should be ashamed.

PETA as an organization is laughable at best and has done more disservice to it's original goal than if it did NOTHING.

They are a joke.

Amish family? Honey, if you're so ignorant to even SUGGEST the Amish are a picture of animal stewards, you're not even worth my time arguing with.

I live right near Lancaster County, PA and have seen THOUSANDS of horses previously owned by the Amish. They get a damn stone in their hoof and if it costs any money to help the horse it gets shipped off to New Holland auction to be sold for slaughter. The Amish are also the assholes who run puppy mills.

The one who should be ashamed is YOU. I have nothing to be ashamed about at all, and PETA doesn't either. They have my wholehearted support and probably always will. Period.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what the poster is saying. I'm not going to deny that you bought eggs and milk from Amish folks. Quite possibly very nice Amish folks. It's not to say that all Amish people are bad. However, there are a great number of puppy mills in PA that are run by Amish families. The NY Post did an article in 1996 on it, as a matter of fact.

Here, I'll provide some links:
http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/Lancaster.html
http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/Pennsylvania-kennels-info.html
http://www.charityadvantage.com/njcapsa/TheAmishConnection.asp
http://www.charityadvantage.com/njcapsa/RealitiesofPuppyMills.asp

You can also Google Shipshewana Horse Auction, and read about some of the large draft horses that the Amish (and others) bring in. They are nothing but farming tools to them, largely. I understand that it's their culture and belief, but that doesn't change things for me.

Lastly, I'm not trying to draw an Amish to animal abuse parallel. I'm sure that there are a great many people in the Amish community that don't treat animals any worse than most people.

And also check about the New Holland auction, where we rescue many horses previously owned by Amish families. So many just get a slight case of founder (which is simply an infection of the hoof) and is pretty easily treated with vet care, and they are shipped off to auction for slaughter. Plus, many, many Amish do in fact run puppy mills to supplement their income. Through my rescue, we've also seized many hundreds of dogs from the most deplorable, revolting living conditions you've ever seen. Neglect and abuse are very common in these puppy mill seizures.

And of course, I'd like to reiterate that not ALL Amish families do this. I'm sure there are some that treat their animals with respect, I'm just pointing out that in my 6 years of equine rescue and 22 years living right next door to Lancaster County, PA (Amish country), I haven't seen a whole lot.

And shows you have no argument.

Yes, I am trashing the Amish - may be wrong to make blanket statements, but I've seen far too many animals tossed like trash by "good Amish" families. I'm sure not all Amish are like this, but I haven't seen too many. As I mentioned, I know MANY Amish families who are downright CRUEL to their animals. Re-read my previous post about their disregard for the horses many abuse during the horse's life and as soon as the animal costs them a penny in vet care off to slaughter the horse goes. Not to mention they're the largest group of puppy mill owners in the state.

I think it's fine if you want to have a steak - that's your choice, veganism is mine. It's your own health you're hurting, not mine.


"Damn hypocrites. Gonna get rid of hour leather belts and shoes, too?
I'm done with stupid people!"

First of all, I'm not a hypocrite. I don't eat meat or any animal products, and no, I don't wear leather. Even my horses have synthetic saddles and harness. If you eat meat and say you're against animal cruelty that makes you the hypocrite...you support animal cruelty if you eat meat. Period. I would like you to be a veg too, and not wear leather, but I'm not going to "get rid" of it. I'm pro-choice with regard to abortion and I'm pro-choice in this area, too. I have my personal wishes, but they are *my* personal wishes. I think you're just overreacting and making paranoid accusations about animal rights supporters.

"...but you are just plain nuts, and you are losing any support you may have ever had, if at all, by your extremem craziness, just like that idiotic organization PETA."

I really can't understand why you're so upset and resorting to childish, immature name calling. Methinks you're just feeling a bit guilty over your own choices, and feel the need to thrust it in my face to "prove" how unashamed you are of eating meat. It's your choice, but don't try to justify it to me because you never will. You'll need to justify it to yourself when you end up with heart attacks and stroke and obesity from eating meat. So the research on the benefits of a vegetarian diet: it's all out there if you have the desire to educate yourself.

I think you need to take a break for a little and relax. Name-calling is a very unattractive habit. :hi:

*on edit: horrific spelling - geesh!

Therefore, I support the use of antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. I do not promote the idea that the value of absolutely any animal is the same as the value of any child. That is an extreme view but some "animal rights groups" will promote it.

is creating killer bacteria that no antibiotic can destroy. Bacteria reproduce very fast, and quickly figure out how to become immune to antibiotics, especially when they are exposed to them on a grand scale. If you and your children were not consuming meat you'd be a lot less likely to succumb to some super bug. Sorry to sound harsh but this is a harsh reality.

This would actually be necessary if it was human v. animal, kill or be killed. But it's not. Animals are the innocent victims who get tortured, neglected and killed by humans. We're the ones with all the BRAINS and IMMORTAL SOULS. We're the ones who know the difference between right and wrong. We have all the tools needed to make the world a better place. We just don't do it. We'd rather go easy on ourselves and tell ourselves that animal life just isn't as important as human life. That lets us off the hook.

There is basically nothing we can do for bacteria. But we CAN help the plight of animals, especially those who are enslaved for man's enjoyment and food.

It's not a question of "values"; it is a question of RESPECTING YOUR ENVIRONMENT!

I have no patience for the quibble over whether animals have innnate rights or whether we humans simply have a moral obligation to treat them gently and with dignity. The effect is the same.

Also, there's always the assertion on these sorts of threads that people suppourt animal rights and humane treatment of livestock but they still wish to eat meat. (I'm not responding to any specific poster, this line of thought shows up on a lot of AR threads.) Those assertions always sadden me, because they're so contradictory. No matter how gently a cow or chicken is treated in it's short life, it's still going to die in agony to provide you with a luxury food item. No meat eating, no matter if it's organic or family farmed or whatever, is consistent with respect and compassion for animals.

<http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf>

The bulk of cattle are killed with a penetrating captive bolt pistol, judged by the American Veterinary Medicine Association to be humane.

The one horse slaughter plant I have visited used a .22 calibre rifle, also judged by the AVMA as humane.

Electric stunning of poultry and hogs is humane as long as the equipment is mainatined and used properly.

There are horror stories, and those are what are marketed.

See also Temple Grandin.

<http://www.grandin.com/>

http://www.aavs.org/actionalerts02.html and commitee members have been involved in horrible crimes against animals http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/aro040201.html so "judged by the AVMA as humane" doesn't mean shit.

Dr. Grandin designs factory farms and slaughterhouses in an effort to minimize crulety, however the factory farm and slaughterhouse are inherently cruel systems. She knows this, and persists in her efforts, so I can't say I think much of her. I have no desire to read her whole website, please let me know what aspect of her work you're refering to.

However a quick search revelas that her work reveals the ineffectiveness of the captive bolt pistol:

" In the early 1990s, Grandin developed the first objective standards for treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, which were adopted by the American Meat Institute, the industry's largest trade group. Her initial, USDA-funded survey in 1996 was one of the first attempts to grade slaughter plants.

One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that use stunning devices known as "captive-bolt" guns. Of the plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of "acceptable" or better, meaning cattle were knocked unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the time. " from a WaPO article archived at http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_brutalhar.html

euthanasia is the gold standard. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Check the later audits. Grabdin has done much to improve standards.

But I guess religion conquers all.

On Edit: The system here in Canada seems to be ahead of the USDA interms of standards, compliance with those standards and enforcement of those who break the law.

Given that, I know that the system need not be cruel, is not intrinsically cruel. I see it be not cruel, and I get to prosecute those who are cruel.

Diet for a New America by John Robbins:

The Federal Humane Slaughter Act sounds good, but in practice it is so riddled with loopholes as to be virtually meaningless. Less that 10% of the country's slaughterhouses are inspected for compliance with the Act, and only a very small percentage of even these few plants are under any legal obligation to observe its guidelines anyway. Furthermore, chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese are not considered animals by the Act, and so receive no protection, even in the few cases where the Act does apply.

The vast majority of slaughterhouses today may legally use any method they choose, and are under no obligation whatsoever to take the slightest concern for the animals. With profits being the sole motivation, the result, as you might expect, is not a happy one for these poor creatures.

<snip>

The industry chooses the cheapest possible methods of killing. They do not purposefully choose to be brutal and sadistic. It just works out that way.

The "captive-bolt pistol" is one of the most effective methods of stunning cow, pigs and other animals unconscious prior to killing them. Unfortunately, however, the cost of the charges used to fire the thing is enough to deter many slaughterhouses from using it. You may wonder how much money is saved thus, at the cost of forcing the animal to be fully conscious when killed. I've become somewhat accustomed to the industry's callousness, but I was still stunned to learn that the savings amount to approximately a single penny an animal."

http://www.kinshipcircle.org/columns_articles/0041.html

Veteran inspector Temple Grandin audits slaughterhouses to determine if they adhere to federal humane slaughter laws. Cows and pigs are commonly stunned with captive bolt guns that shoot a retractable metal rod into their brains. Grandin observed defective bolt guns and incompetent or insufficient staff at two-thirds of the processing plants she surveyed.

"Their eyes look like they are popping out," a former employee of the IBP-Wallula Slaughterhouse stated during a cruelty investigation of the Washington plant. "I feel bad when I have to do my job on them." Pigs who awaken after stunning wind up boiled alive in hot-water tanks. Grandin documented inept stunning procedures at one-third of the hog plants she examined.

The AMVA:

http://upc-online.org/avma/welfare_policy.html

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/aro040201.html

The American Veterinary Medical Association does not address the humane treatment of animals in factory "farms." Rather, they currently support hens in batteries and sows in gestation crates. The American Veterinary Medical Association has had many opportunities to change their inhumane and pro-industry animal welfare policies. For years, Dr. Holly Cheever has presented scientific evidence that forced molting causes the needless death of many hens in egg-producing factories. I have twice presented information from meat inspectors on the injuries and death of roping calves in rodeos. The Animal Welfare Committee has never responded to our concerns. In fact, the AVMA is more pro-actively anti-animal welfare and aggressively obstructive. At the last AWC meeting, speakers were not even allowed to hear each other's presentations.

While the American Veterinary Medical Association sponsors various animal welfare forums, no expert on the humane treatment of food animals has been invited to speak at their symposia. Instead, the AVMA supports all industrial uses of animals. This year, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, an AVMA supported organization, gave their annual humane award to the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association. While humane treatment is occasionally mentioned in these forums, the AVMA does little or nothing to change its policies supporting the information therein.

Dr. Cutler is not the only culprit in the inhumane killing of 30,000 chickens. The American Veterinary Medical Association is a willing accomplice due in part to their archaic and inhumane animal welfare policies. The AVMA must remove Cutler from their Animal Welfare Committee.

http://upc-online.org/alerts/112303chipper.htm

San Diego County's Animal Services Department has filed a complaint against a veterinarian who allegedly authorized a Valley Center egg ranch to kill 30,000 hens by dumping them alive into a wood chipper. Reports by the county, recently obtained by The Times, recount workers at the ranch feeding squirming birds by the bucket into the pounding machine, then turning the mashed remains with dirt and heaping the mixture into piles. The complaint centers on Gregg Cutler, a veterinarian who is also on the animal welfare committee of the American Veterinary Medical Assn.

I'm a more than a bit suspicious that funding taints results, expecially since results fell off when audits were no longer announced. (Announced audits are of course useless, it gives people time to clean the place up, slow the line down and make a good show for the inspectors.)

As for your comment about religion conquering all, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not religious, nor am I some sort of fanatic. I just beleive animals are entitled do decent treatment and I don't think there's any way to reconcile that with killing them and eating them.

If you think that would cause her to change her report one iota you would be wrong.

She was hired by McDonald's because McDonalds and KFC have begun to recognize that animal welfare is not just some airy fairy idea spun by idealists. In survey after survey animal welfare rates 2nd after food safety in peoples' concerns about their food supply.

Grandin was hired (and continues to be hired) as a result of that, and because there is recognition that she sets the standard. She is an interesting woman. She is a high-functioning autistic and has few social skills. She calls a spade a spade. No, I take that back, she calls a spade a fucking shovel. She is THE expert. For McDonalds to use anyone else for their audits would have had any and all critics asking why they hadn't used Grandin.

The same holds true for the American Meat Institute.

I do animal welfare enforcement. I believe that there is no inherent inconsistency between taking exceptional care of our livestock and eating them, PROVIDED, it is done humanely. That is not to say that I approve of veal crates, egg barns or sow crates, it is to say that there is a lot of misinformation out there about where our food comes from.

I don't trust an industry funded study, mo matter who is conducting it, and I don't believe there is a humane way to slaughter a living being.

I was married to a vet, watched and assisted euthanasia. The animal is restrained, the leg is clipped, the needle is inserted, the Sodium Pentobarbital is injected. It's a process, and often for the animal, a new and unpleasant experience.

Contrast that with a gunshot or a captive bolt. Bang, dead, an event.

I've seen a lot of animals die, and I kill more than I want to, usually with captive bolt, immediately before I charge the owner with cruelty.

I have no doubt how fast, and how humane it is.

That's not exactly reassuring, even if one thinks that a blow to the head is the ultimate gentle release.

It is not difficult to do. It requires training for proper placement, it requires ongoing maintenance and it requires dry cartridges.

What she did say was that in her first set of audits only 36% of plants had an acceptable rating of 95%.

That could be 36% rating at 96% and 64% at 94%. Not perfect, a long way from perfect, but not 36%.

Her latest audits have better scores, things improve. Her mantra is "if you don't measure it, you can't manage it".

I am buffaloed by the fact that American slaughterhouses are not bound by law. In Canada, there is the Humane Slaughter Act, both Federal and Provincial. There is also the Cruelty to Animals provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I saw the PETA video of the chicken abuse. If that were my case, the perpetrators would be in jail.

I stopped eating meat because I could not trust that the farms were treating animals decently. I still don't.

I appreciate the animal welfare activists who work to raise standards. But, raising standards doesn't do anything unless those standards are enforced.

I appreciate the work you do, very much. Still, we have too few people doing your job - enforcing standards. I remain doubtful and, because, I can't police the farmers, I choose to not support them.

... but probably not as far as say PETA would.

I believe that all animals should be treated humanely. I'm pretty sure that many animals raised for food today are not.

Animal rights and the treatment of animals are at the center of my whole philosophy of life, along with a very few other issues. I have always loved dogs my whole life, but as I have gotten older, I realize a unifying connection between this love of mine and the deepest issues that can be thought of. That the deepest political, even metaphysical, guiding truths about life and the real, are not disconnected off somewhere, "too important" to be part of ordinary life, but are actually the same as those most ordinary things you already love. Sometimes you need to realize that the "further truth" is already showing itself all around you. "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing," (Job 12:7-10).

You really start to get at the heart of a lot of moral (and criminal) issues when you study the treatment of animals: how do people act when they don't think anyone can see or hear them, and that they will get away with whatever they do, that the victim who knows and who suffered it, cannot tell it? Sadly, we know, often. Animal cruelty brings you face to face with the real problem of trying to stop violence and selfish anger, difficult and heartbreaking to solve. Slogans and "framing" will not do it; you have to really, deeply understand why things work they way they do, for the sake of the victim. There was a really great quote from the anthropologist Margaret Mead on this, that "The very worst thing that can happen to a child is to be cruel to an animal and get away with it," as if it were nothing, because now you have implanted an idea of justification and trivializing that will eventually make its own poison. Animal cruelty is a hard thing to think about because it is so horrible and its victims so much better than their attackers, but it needs to be faced: it exists. It leads to other things, notably domestic violence, but I don't like to point to that because it implies that it is only a tragedy when the victims are human.

Of course, a philosophy is just a fantasy until you find something to apply it to, to put it to the test. Being around dogs and learning from them, and not just giving them orders but trying to learn their ways too, has made me more patient, accepting (because dogs are good, have conscience, but are not "perfect" and are not trying to be), and has made me notice more clues in the world. You get a lifetime of free education from being around dogs, especially if you have more than one so you can witness them with each other and not just with you, and it improves your personality completely. Dogs love home-life, they love you, they know what to ignore, etc.--all animal lovers know all these things. Then when you contrast this with the unfathomable stupidity of those who abuse animals and don't even know the first thing about them, then you can understand the anger of anyone who has to deal with these assholes.

There are many issues relating to animal-treatment, and not all people agree on what is cruelty, (Is meat-eating? Are good farms as opposed to factory torture-chambers, where nonetheless the animals will eventually be killed for food?), but relating to animals, knowing that you can't just live in a fantasy world when you have animals to take care of, and also that they don't always conform to your opinion of them, and so you learn, I think gives you the basis of a real understanding of life, psychology, others--and it was all taught to me by dogs. Issues relating to animals are very important to me.

from my profile:

Hobbies: learning about my "inner canine" ...

if only more understood this ...

And the right way to support them is on a spit, then on my plate.

Cuz, shit...you are funny.

That's a pretty low thing to say, especially in a thread like this.

Damn dude, are you Jerry Seinfeld in disguise here? :eyes:

I hope someday you need the compassion of someone or something, and they show you the same amount you've shown animals. Karma's a bitch, my friend.

You sound more like a twelve year-old.

people would have a better appreciation of their place in the ecosystem if they actually played the part they're supposed to in it, rather than delegating the "unpleasant" parts of the food chain to large industrial concerns. A friend of mine decided she wanted to quit being a vegetarian and so she went hunting and field dressed the deer she shot herself.

In my ideal world, that's what I'd do. If I knew how to hunt. Or track game. Or gut a dead animal. Or not trip over my own shoelaces when I'm out in the woods. Or cook.

there would be more vegetarians. And in my opinion, hunters are cruel barbarians.

Check it out.

"Humans are omnivores too! Our teeth are designed to eat both meat and plants. Our front teeth help us rip into meat and bite into fruits and vegetables, and our molars help us grind up meat and chew fruits and vegetables."

I think eating meat is part of being in harmony with nature. If I ate meat but refused to accept hunting, I'd be in harmony with hypocrisy.

Consumption of flesh is perfectly natural. The shame comes from the indecent treatment of factory animals. Of course factory farms cuts down the production cost of meats dramatically, but not the consumer costs, since the decreased production cost is mostly passed along to the company's shareholders as dividends and executives as salary rather than to consumers as savings.

A lot of evidence in your article to back up that claim. /sarcasm

Check out the chart at the bottom of this page.

"The Comparative Anatomy of Eating"

http://www.earthsave.bc.ca/materials/articles/health/comparative.html

I can't vote in this poll - if I support laws against animal abuse, but I eat meat, am I not supportive?

See what I mean? Too vague, unfortunately.

nor armed bears either!

eom

would give?

"Man's inherent superiority over animals" is not a realistic answer, btw. We're sharing this world and have responsibilities with our neighbors.

I didn't vote at all because I am not sure what you mean. I am all for protecting animals, but I wouldn't want my housecat to vote. (He has a tendency to leave hanging chads.)

Are you talking about animals having constitutionally mandated rights? And if so, what kind of rights?

Are you talking about doing away with animal protein in the diet completely? (Not necessarily a bad idea. Certainly animal fat is no friend to human arteries.)

I need more info before committing myself one way or another.

BASIC rights, like survival, not being slaves, not being experimented on or slaughtered so you can be someone's coat.

So yeah, that means no meat in the diet, just as you wouldn't like humans to be on the menu.

And no one I have ever known has ever suggested a cat vote, but it shouldn't be too hard to respect other species.

Not used for "entertainment" by death.

Not used for SOME medical experimentation.

Not used for decoration, or ornament.

I would suport the research so we wouldn't have to kill them to eat, also. But until a viable alternative is found, and so far veggie ism does NOT work for MOST from what I've seen, heard and read, then humane raising for food is about the only thing that's OK.

I'd be willing to give up my occasional steak or burger. Trouble is, a lot of persons NEED the nutritional value of MEAT/FISH/etc. There IS no veggie alternative.

I am not sure what you mean.

To give me some idea, suppose I had chicken for dinner. Would potential animal rights laws have me put in prison?

http://www.defenders.org/exxposeexxon/

check out the denlines

I certainly do!

Although I'm pretty murky on what your definition of "animal rights" is. It seems that some posters would argue that if you aren't a vegan you can't care about animals, so by that definition I guess not. I eat meat. My husband and I raise chickens and rabbits FOR MEAT (and eggs from the chickens) We even do our own butchering...the kids even help-so I doubt I'll win any brownie points on this thread.

:hi:

Here's some info for you:

http://www.factoryfarm.org/

pustulent, feces spattered meat at (over) $3.00/lb is NOT my idea of a bargain and certainly not what I want to feed my family.
Here's a little tidbit that isn't widely known (although it's probably old news to most the folks on this thread): Do you know why there is such a salmonella risk with eggs? Because in the commercial laying houses they feed the chicken manure BACK to the chickens THREE TIMES to extract all the food value from the manure. In farm fresh eggs the salmonella risk is almost nonexistent.
Thanks for the link.

Saw videos on public access tv. Appalling how the animals are treated in the stock yards. Live stock constantly being electricaly proded, actually beaten, dragged by the ears,legs, calves being tossed aside because they can't even stand yet, and worse. Brutal. Ashamed that I even eat meat.

Eat meat, that is. Not looking to flame. You seem to have a good grasp on it, and so I'm curious.

But I respect those that have a strong conviction about protecting animal rights.

I also differentiate between animal rights and protecting endangered species which I view as environmental conservation.

they aren't rights if you don't put them on the same level, are they?

Human rights trump animal "wink wink" rights "wink wink"

Grab a burger, oh it's cold, grab a fur. My makeup is not soft enough, please scald some monkeys for my complexion.

Again, the questions remain unanswered:

* Would you allow humans to be raised only as a food source?
* Would you allow humans to be experimented on for the "benefit" of OTHER species?
* Would you allow humans to be slaves (we soften the word when it comes to animals and call them 'pets') for the sole enjoyment/benefit of another species?
* Would you allow coats to be made of HUMAN skin?

against gay marriage

"They'll marry their furniture!"

"They'll want polygamy!"

"They'll want sex with children!"

"They'll want to marry their animals!"

Same stupid spew.

Spare us.

By the way, when did you stop raping little boys and girls?

for totally ignoring my questions.

Please tell me if I am so wrong why you can't simply answer the question?

Mine aren't loaded like yours is, which begins with a presumption of guilt. Mine are using apples and apples, asking you DIRECTLY about your treatment of humans and why it differs from animals.

Cog envy anyone?

I just don't equate animal suffering to human suffering. I love my pets but if truth be told I'd kill and eat them before I'd let myself or my child go hungry. Though my pets visit the vet for routine checkups more often than I go to the doctor.

I like fur, though I don't own any. I love pork, beef chicken ect.. But prefer organic or free reigned not because of animal suffering but it because it's healthier and taste better.

I would have no problem hunting or shooting an animal, though I have never gone hunting. But I have killed my share of fish.

I strongly support the endangered species act and any legislation that protects endangered animals.

I respect people that have evolved to a more compassionate level to want to protect all living things. I'm just not there and never will be. When I see a cow in the pasture you probably see one of gods beautiful creatures that should be protected and cherished.

I JUST SEE LUNCH! :evilgrin:

Forget the fact that they get to live indoors, eat table scraps, play with their owners, many of which genuinely love their pets as much as they love other human beings.

Forget all of that and tell me exactly what you propose that we do with all of the domesticated animals other than keep them as pets.

And that's what the South said to justify enslaving blacks.

"We're giving them a better life than they had in Africa"

What do I propose? Stop the sale, trade and exportation of animals.

Let the current domesticated animals (I abhore the term "pet" because it justifies slavery) live out their lives as they are because they can't survive in the wild, but all of them should be spayed or neutered.

No further allowance of animal slavery, trade or raising for food purposes, medical experimentation or fur.

I'm not asking they be worshipped. I'm suggesting that we wake up and realize that we are not some species that lives outside the ecosystem. That, as I said, we are just one cog in the system and we are not superior just because we KNOW we are a cog.

Without the other cogs, we cannot survive.

And humiliating the other cogs doesn't increase our survivability; it just lowers us to being a species bully.

but again I note that you didn't address my point, just try to make it look funny.

Think beyond these self-imposed boundaries. Believing that humans are inherently superior to anything is just arrogance. The world ran just fine before we got here and it will run just fine long after we're gone (if we don't blow it up or scavage all of its resources first, that is).

Now try to address my points seriously. I am addressing yours with respect.

Your entire argument is predicated on animals being somehow equivalent with human beings... They aren't. I know as a vegan you'd really like to think so, but you're wrong.

With rights comes responsibilities. Animals are incapable of performing basic social responsibilities, therefore, fuck them.

And categorize me however you wish, we are only one part of the cog of life on this world.

Just one.

And you say I'm wrong, but what is that based upon other than a selfish form of humanism? The belief that we are inherently superior because we can say we are?

The animals of the world could get along just as fine if we weren't here (actually better by the way some of us treat it), but we couldn't get along without the animals.

Think about that for awhile.

Im really sorry that you feel guilty for being at the top of the food chain and that you think humanity is 'bad'.

I prefer the company of humans to animals.
I like a nice thick juicy steak.
I think vegans are arrogant and annoying.

Here's a question for you to think about, which makes you feel worse: Passing a packed McDonald's or hearing about the latest Iraq bombing?

yeah...i thought so.

Are somehow not equivalent to other humans, because they are incapable of performing basic social responsibilities? That is, after all, what it seems like you're saying.

So a creature's worth is defined by what it can do for you. Wow. How very 'Murikan of you.

"So a creature's worth is defined by what it can do for you. Wow. How very 'Murikan of you."

You completely misunderstood what i 'seem' to be saying. A person's RIGHTS are defined by their ability to EXCERCISE them with respect to OTHERS in society. That is why babies and the mentally retarded have less rights than others. It does not mean they are 'less human'.

You're confusing humanity with rights, probably because it punches up your flawed argument.

P.S. PETA euthanizes animals and dumps their bodies in restaurant dumpsters.

And your snide little closing remark has been discussed ad nauseum around here.

I care about a creature's ability to suffer, not what species they belong to. You care about what something or someone can do for you.

But since you rely on fundie-type definitions ("The Bible says we can eat animals, so there) to call my argument "flawed," I guess that shows how interested you are in discussing it. Oh, and capitalizing certain words doesn't make your point any more valid or any less obtuse.

But what do I know? I'm just an "annoying vegan" "hippie." That's what you said, right?

My definition of rights is not 'fundie' but come from my fancy pants political science book learnin'.

"I care about a creature's ability to suffer, not what species they belong to. You care about what something or someone can do for you."

Dont ascribe motivations to me. If a canary can save coal miners lives, fuck it. Its a bird, not a human. We have different values, I value humanity above cats, dogs and slugs, you do not. It doesnt make you a bad person, just an annoying vegan.

You called everyone who defends animal rights a hippie, further down the thread. If you're still here after 100 posts, I'll owe you a coke.

And I'm ascribing motivations to you because you say, "It's a bird, not a human," like that somehow proves that its life is less valuable. I'm not arguing biological differences with you, I'm saying that just because it's a different species doesn't make it any less worthy of consideration. You do know this is the same argument people used to enslave black people, deny women the right to vote, etc.

So I'm annoying because I disagree with you? Newsflash: this is a discussion board. I'm sorry you can't handle people disagreeing with you. Personally, I find it annoying when someone shows up out of the blue to post links to right-wing organizations and doesn't seem to display even basic debating skills.

Its a values thing. If you get equally upset over a McDonald's advert as you do over the casualty reports coming out of Iraq, there's nothing I nor anyone else can do for you.

Same applies if you're equating women's suffrage and black slavery with animals rights.

Im all for the humane (not to use too humanocentrist a word for you) treatment of animals, but 'rights' as some people on this thread have put forth are outright ridiculous.

Are you accusing me of being a FReeper, 'cause them's fightin' words. (I didnt have the AP link, so I went with the top of the google pile)

Ill forward you an address for that coke.

That's the first you've spoken of that. I was going off "fuck them."

You haven't once explained why you believe the way you do. You just said you believe that way, and said I'm beyond help if I disagree with you. Great. Congratulations. Sorry for disagreeing with you, but arguing with meat-eater fundies is just too much fun. :eyes:

not to endure unnecessary cruelty, etc.

Otherwise, they're what's for dinner.

which has been important for many advances in medical techniques that save human lives.

About PETA: see the links at this google search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PETA+piggly&btnG=Google+Search

And to explain that - I believe in the humane treatment of animals, but I will also eat them. So, I buy free range organic chickens, grass fed beef, and pastured pork. I don't believe in factory farming. I also eat foie gras from time to time. (NB: Ducks and geese don't have a gag reflex, imprint on the people that feed them and naturally will eat until they fall over). I also eat fish, lobsters, crabs, mussels and shrimp. As a chef friend once said, 'A lobster's stomach is directly behind its eyes.'
I have yet to be convinced that all medical testing on animals is wrong. The jury is still out on that, though I do think that medical testing needs far stricter controls.
I do buy cruelty free products and don't think that makeup or cleaning products need to be tested on animals.
I have two cats that I would never eat, and I believe in neutering and spaying. I don't believe in keeping exotic pets.
I wear leather shoes, but wouldn't wear fur unless it was the only option available in an extreme climate.

It's pretty simple, if I tried to be vegan or even vegetarian, I'd die of malnutrition.

I also don't have a problem with eating animals. To me it's just part of the food chain, it's how things work. Do I like the fact that animals are raised in factory farms? No I don't. But as I said, I don't have the willpower to not eat meat.

I have a lot of respect for those who do support this cause, I just personally can't do it.

Did you see my link above to the Grace Factory Farm project? Also, the people at http://www.farmaid.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage

are anti-factory farm and pro-family farmers!

Think less harm in your choices, which is more humane for the animals and healthier for you!

Hell I get really annoyed when my dad (a lifelong yellow dog Democrat) shops at Wal-Mart on a weekly basis. I haven't COMPLETELY boycotted the store, but if I go in there, it's because there's NO alternative (usually when I'm traveling).

Unfortunately, the Reagan administration pretty much banged the nail in the coffin for family farmers. My teacher has told me many times about how his parents' farm was successful until Reagan came to office. Reagan's policies made it so that their farm simply could not sustain itself anymore. His parents were able to take other jobs and thus they could still keep the farm, but some were not as lucky. We've visited and stayed on the farm and the small town that surrounds it (it's in upstate New York) is one where you can see the impact of a crappy economy. A business is doing fine one year, it's gone the next year. The sad part is that with the exception of my teacher, and probably his parents, I'm pretty sure I know who most of the people in this town voted for last November.

You can try and find an organic grocery store in your area and by meats from local farmers who use more traditional and organic methods for raising livestock. Since I started to eat organic meats and poultry I've lost 25 lbs. :)

...especially when my favorite Steak House "issues" me a medium well T-Bone with fried shrimp on the side...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Think animal rights as the "activist" arm of animal protection (welfare) !

Here's an excellent pro-animal group:

http://www.humaneusa.org/

Sidebar: it's non-partisan :)

because Catchawave didn't put a "some I do, some I don't" choice in the poll.

I don't support factory farming, but I wouldn't support a ban on the production of meat. People grew meat for centuries before factory farming came about; it seems to me that if factory farming was eliminated they could still grow meat. It would probably be more expensive meat, but it would be better meat. (Has anyone besides me noticed that the quality of meat since factory farms became the norm has gone down quite a bit?)

I support limited use of the Draize test--when there is a totally new compound on the market that is destined for an application where it routinely gets into your eyes, it is very important to know what that compound will do to the eyes. (If they performed more than five Draize tests in a year under that criteria, it would have been a very inventive year for the chemical industry.) But in most cases it's completely unnecessary. If NSMA makes a new shampoo from the ingredients normally found in shampoos, there is no need to Draize test it--it will perform on a Draize test like any other shampoo. And there's no need to Draize test my new kind of battery acid; you know what battery acid's going to do to your eyes already.

A pet rat deserves the same protections as a pet dog or a pet cat. A rat living in the birdseed aisle of my store is fair game for anything I want to do to kill him.

I also think PETA is shooting itself in the foot. Example: their antifur campaign. I don't support the fur trade. But what have they done to make a nonfur product hip, fun and desirable? Nothing. Where are the fashion shows with the gorgeous models showing $20,000 coats that contain no fur? I have always thought "do this" was a more effective way to persuade than "don't do this." Within reason, I'm gonna do the things the "don't do this" people say not to do. (If someone says "don't jump off that bridge" naturally I'm not going to jump off it out of spite. But when someone says "don't smoke cigars" I tend to get my humidor. But if someone says "do this" and it's something I might want to do, I'll try it. Why not?)

They were criticized for that, too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,651291,00.html

Current Pleather Contest:

http://www.cowsarecool.com/feat/toosexy/index.html

P.S. Go Veg http://www.goveg.com

If you're going to eschew the use of a product on morality grounds, don't come up with a "well, this is just like it but my morals approve of it" substitute. Innovate!

Fur is fucking disgusting--they either trap it or raise it in tiny little cages. But wool is okay; sheep don't mind being sheared because they're cooler with all that insulation gone, and because of what sheep eat it would be hard to factory-farm them--not impossible, but hard. Why not a wool-coat show?

This whole thing is sentimental nonsense.
:yoiks: :grr: :grr: :banghead:

Whether or not animals do or should have rights has nothing to do with the rainforests, farm pollution, conservation generally or whether or not animal tests work. The subjective well-being of domesticated animals and if we have a duty to protect them from suffering is its own largely philosophical issue. I am not going to denegrate people who act from compassion. My wife is for animal rights and is a vegitarian and we just agree to disagree. Nevertheless, PETA is full of it in one respect. That is the claim that medical experiments on animals are unnecessary or unreliable. They are not. Scientists rely on animal experiments because they need to know the results. It is not a question of an animal being a stand-in for people to test some drug. They are testing specific biochemical properties and tolerate animal experiments because that is what works. Do you think they like the expense, the work or the smell of maintaining live subjects? I am sure they would rather have dummies or computer models. Unfortunately, no test subject we can build contains actual biological processes. The scientists know what science requires and PETA's efforts to discredit them is just an effort to silence their supporters' doubts about their extremist agenda. It is no different than creationists who find "evidence" for a young Earth.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2833

what part of euthanizing and throwing in a dumpster is 'ethical'?

Try again.

http://www.wnct.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNCT/MGArticle/NCT_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783337916&path

I saw this on AP a few weeks ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24sun3.html?

As I said before, we weren't discussing PETA, we were discussing animal rights as a whole.

But you seem more concerned with calling people "hippies" and saying that since animals can't vote, "fuck them."

I dont think I called anyone a hippy, I could be wrong, this is a pretty long and pointless thread. I know I never said "since animals can't vote 'fuck them'"

I wonder if this thread was meant to be flame bait?

Hmm.... okay to answer the Original Poster
"Do you support animal rights issues"
no. not like you guys. im done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1950935&mesg_id=1958750

Animals are incapable of performing basic social responsibilities, therefore, fuck them.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1950935&mesg_id=1958796

Agreed
/signed

hippies.

This thread was meant to discuss an issue that some progressives find important. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it flamebait.

Agreed
/signed

hippies.

I am not very receptive to absolutist arguments for animal rights for individual animals. Those who think all zoos, circuses, and labs should be closed tomorrow.

But I am receptive to arguments that species should be strongly protected.

Yes, I eat meat (cue flame suit). I also believe in using animals for legitimate medical experimentation.

But I do think wearing fur is stupid, and I don't think cosmetics should be tested on animals.

And I don't buy the "animals are superior/equal to humans" argument, either.

I heard it put this way once:

Not when an animal rights activist steps over a homeless person to pour blood on some wealthy matron's fur coat.

progressive issues further before we quote from corporate sources? Though a link would be helpful to your quote, I doubt it comes from a compassionate understanding source???

Much more committed, hard working and devoted than most.

Wholeheartedly.

isn't empathy part of our human spirituality? I personally am unable to turn off my feelings when I know the cruelty animals suffer at the hands of humans. I have been trying to find a way to fight to end the tradition of hunting. Those people claim they are experiencing the beauty of nature. Here in Wisconsin, the hunter's lobby in coordination with the dept of natural resources call themselves the "conservation congress". Anyway, people seem to be ok about hurting others, as long as they feel they are within safe bounds. :nopity:

While animal rights issues come under a huge (political/advocate) umbrella, not to mention it's supporters are painted with a broad brush under the "terra" umbrella also, I feel your pain! Especially when "tolerance" is so low on DU to support our compassion.

Welcome to DU :yourock:

And for you federal employees it is part of the CFC...

Humane Farming Association...works on factory farming issues

www.hfa.org

I especially liked their campaigns:

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/index.html