babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » PETA helps fund the US/Mexico wall of terror

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: PETA helps fund the US/Mexico wall of terror
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 18 August 2008 07:25 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This came to me by way of Angry Black Woman...


quote:
No matter what your stance is on the highly controversial U.S.-Mexican border fence project, everyone can agree that those who decide to come to the U.S. should be warned about the downside of our nation's meat and milk consumption habits. PETA is warning immigrants that there's much more to worry about than proper documentation.



Edited to fix link

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]link

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 August 2008 07:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good lord. That's awful. And did you see the ignorant comments under the article at the PETA site? Talking about how Mexicans eat unhealthy food, etc. Nice generalizations, folks.

And buying ad space on a fence meant to keep Mexicans out? Directly financially supporting an anti-human, racist initiative like that? And, as one of the people commenting under the article said, that fence will also hurt non-human animals too, since it will disrupt their migration patterns to find food.

Way to go, dumbasses.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 August 2008 07:55 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
After a stunt like this I don’t know how anyone can still say that PETA is a social justice organization. How can they actually offer to help fund the construction of a border wall that is the epitome of American racism and hypocrisy? Obviously, PETA cares more about what im/migrants are eating than their safety or ability to cross in order to alleviate economic conditions in their home country. The fence is a sign of oppression and should not be treated as an advertising and marketing opportunity.

Racialicious on PETA and Oppression on the Border

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 18 August 2008 09:31 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe the PETA people were all psyched up after seeing Fast Food Nation.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152

posted 18 August 2008 09:43 AM      Profile for ghoris     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not quite as tasteless as this:


From PETA's own website: "Cannibalistic Attack on Greyhound Bus Prompts Ad"

Stunning.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 18 August 2008 10:18 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if progressive boards will be demonstrating the same class of response in twenty five years.

PETA are extremists.

Up to and including the 2000s.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 18 August 2008 11:01 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those PETA signs are disgusting.
From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 August 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why isn't it even in Spanish?
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 August 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 18 August 2008 01:02 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why isn't it even in Spanish?

Yeah sorry, I posted the english version figuring most babblers weren't fluent in spanish.

And to clarify my source, this was a link from a comment on ABW to the Racialicious article BCG posted. Credit where credit is due. A bit confused during my blog reading this'morning.


Animal rights has always been an uncomfortable bedfellow with social justice in my experience - at least the kind of animal rights that PETA engages in (and there are less radical forms that stem from a similar foundation).

I've always found the Pinky Show's episode about animal rights to be a useful critique from a social justice perspective...

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 18 August 2008 01:17 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This would have given Ewan MacColl another verse for "We're a Nation of Animal Lovers".

PETA probably envies the Mexicans for having such an easy time staying on a meatless diet.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm a vegetarian, but, as the English would put it, PETA has clearly "lost the plot".)

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 18 August 2008 01:27 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And, as one of the people commenting under the article said, that fence will also hurt non-human animals too, since it will disrupt their migration patterns to find food.


I found this to be a really bizarre line of thought. As Ken said the English say, "lost the plot". How could anyone have written this statement about the wall?


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 August 2008 01:42 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not long ago, one of the CBC's documentary shows carried a one hour doc of PETA and their founder, and PETA came off (in my view, anyway) as extremely self-righteous and arrogant. After watching that doc, I had little if any sympathy for PETA whatsoever.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 August 2008 02:55 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't someone here once say "PETA makes me want to eat veal"?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 18 August 2008 02:57 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:
Didn't someone here once say "PETA makes me want to eat veal"?

That would make an awesome bumper sticker!


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 18 August 2008 07:25 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:
Didn't someone here once say "PETA makes me want to eat veal"?


While I can see that PETA can sometimes be a little too provocative, what is it about them that makes progressives so crazy? It seems to me that they take "progressive" values to the logical next level.

[ed.] An easy criticism of PETA in this instance is that they are subsidizing this wall, but otherwise, what's wrong with the message?

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 August 2008 07:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I found this to be a really bizarre line of thought. As Ken said the English say, "lost the plot". How could anyone have written this statement about the wall?

Why would you consider this to be bizarre?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 August 2008 02:16 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While I can see that PETA can sometimes be a little too provocative, what is it about them that makes progressives so crazy?
.

For me, it's that they put the animal rights issue in complete isolation, not tying it to any larger social or economic critique.

There's also(as this ad on the Wall shows)sometimes a staggering level of cultural ignorance and arrogance on their part. Do they REALLY mean to imply that it's just as dangerous to undocumented aliens to eat a chicken enchilada or a Quarter Pounder as it is to be arrested and beaten by "La Migra"?

I mean, desperately poor people, people who are often in fact starving, find there way across the U.S. border because, basically, they have no alternative if they wish to survive(there's also the fact that those people are coming in "illegally" as the right-wing racists put it, to a country whose trade policies often increased their desperation)and all PETA cares about, in this instance, is that they might do something terrible like eat meat? Christ on a Gardenburger, that's clueless. And bloody offensive.
(Also, it's insensitive to the fact that, all liklihood, those people wouldn't even be able to AFFORD beef).

I'm for the broad idea of animal rights(and I'd lose no sleep if every slaughterhouse and animal testing lab on the planet were closed), but it needs to be part of an overall program of social change, and not in a way that shows complete and total ignorance of the cruelty inflicted on human beings, cruelty which has been known, as PETA doesn't seem to understand, to be just as horrifying as cruelty to animals.

I can't speak for anybody else here, but that's what does it for me about PETA.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 03:23 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
For me, it's that they put the animal rights issue in complete isolation, not tying it to any larger social or economic critique.

This, in one sentence, puts a finger on exactly what makes me uncomfortable about PETA, particularly with their sexist or racist campaigns.

This is why I have a much bigger problem with this particular initiative and, say, their sexist campaigns, than I do about their recent Manitoba thing about the guy who got killed on a Greyhound bus, or even the Pickton or Holocaust ads. Sure, those are in really bad taste, but really they're just comparing one type of systematic painful slaughter to another in those cases, and in those cases, it's a matter of whether you beleive animals have the same rights and agency as human beings, which of course vegans do. (Although many vegans also think those ads suck too because they alienate people and piss them off. I agree with that.)

But bad taste is not the same thing to me as actually promoting sexist ideals (people who get fat or have acne are bad and it's punishment for not eating properly - and these are almost always aimed at women) or promoting racism (by contributing money towards a fence to keep Mexicans out of the US).


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 19 August 2008 04:26 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For me, it's that they put the animal rights issue in complete isolation, not tying it to any larger social or economic critique.

Agreed! Well said.

From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 August 2008 04:32 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ken B: For me, it's that they put the animal rights issue in complete isolation, not tying it to any larger social or economic critique.

quote:
Michelle: This is why I have a much bigger problem with this particular initiative and, say, their sexist campaigns, than I do about.... the Pickton or Holocaust ads. Sure, those are in really bad taste, but really they're just comparing one type of systematic painful slaughter to another in those cases, and in those cases, it's a matter of whether you beleive animals have the same rights and agency as human beings, which of course vegans do.

Michelle, you are omitting the PETA campaign in which they compared archival images of lynchings of Black Americans with killing animals in slaughterhouses, showing the hanging bodies of dead people alongside the hanged bodies of dead cows/pigs. Also in bad taste, and along the same lines as those ads you mentioned above, yes?

That said, if we look again at Ken's words above, one cannot compare the holocaust/history of lynching to the slaughter of animals, as simply "both times beings were killed in painful and torturous ways; both are bad" which is the message PETA is saying.

Both the holocaust and lynching were grounded in systematic, institutionalized, government approved racism/anti-Semitism and hatred which led to people systemically killing other people in those manners. The method by which people were systemically killed cannot be separated from the "everyday" and "normalized" societal functions that allowed and encouraged this to happen.

To be more offended by, let's say, the sexism of the image of Pamela A. in a cabbage bikini, than the use of images from racist, anti-Semitic and genocidal moments in Western history is to not see those connections.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 05:53 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
For me, it's that they put the animal rights issue in complete isolation, not tying it to any larger social or economic critique.

I agree with that and am in no way a supporter of PETA. On the flip side one of my reasons for leaving the NDP was that they put larger social, economic and environmental issues in complete isolation from animal rights/welfare issues.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 05:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Michelle, you are omitting the PETA campaign in which they compared archival images of lynchings of Black Americans with killing animals in slaughterhouses, showing the hanging bodies of dead people alongside the hanged bodies of dead cows/pigs. Also in bad taste, and along the same lines as those ads you mentioned above, yes?

That said, if we look again at Ken's words above, one cannot compare the holocaust/history of lynching to the slaughter of animals, as simply "both times beings were killed in painful and torturous ways; both are bad" which is the message PETA is saying.

Both the holocaust and lynching were grounded in systematic, institutionalized, government approved racism/anti-Semitism and hatred which led to people systemically killing other people in those manners. The method by which people were systemically killed cannot be separated from the "everyday" and "normalized" societal functions that allowed and encouraged this to happen.

To be more offended by, let's say, the sexism of the image of Pamela A. in a cabbage bikini, than the use of images from racist, anti-Semitic and genocidal moments in Western history is to not see those connections.


I'm going to push back a little, not because I don't agree with you (I'm not sure) but because I think that people who are really into animal rights (as opposed to animal welfare) would say that the meat industry is a "systematic, institutionalized, government approved speciesism and hatred" and "genocide" of non-human animals. I know you don't agree with this, and that's fine, but you're talking about people with an entirely different worldview than your own when it comes to their philosophical view of animals. To them, non-human animal life is absolutely equal to human animal life, and they see factory farming and the disregard people have for the life of animals to be rooted in contempt for, or hatred of, animals. They see it as systematic, government-sponsored and government-approved murder.

People who don't see the systematic killing of animals as murder, and who don't consider animals to have the same inherent right to life and liberty as human beings will, of course, be offended by comparisons of people to animals. But vegans who compare people to animals come from a philosophical worldview where people ARE just another type of animal, and no more or less entitled to their lives and their freedom.

Do I agree with this? I don't know, it's an issue I struggled with when I was vegan (I'm not anymore, so now I participate once again in the systematic torture and murder of millions upon millions of innocent lives) because I know that in a society that isn't "there yet" (or even anywhere near beginning to think about it in any serious way) on animal rights, comparisons of oppressed humans to oppressed animals are extremely alienating.

But I'm not sure how else they're supposed to make their point that it's just as bad to oppress animals as it is to oppress humans without comparing the current situation for oppressed animals to current (or recently past, historically speaking) situations for oppressed humans. In all movements against oppression, the activists who push the most at the beginning are the ones that people hate the most and fight the most and vilify the most.

What I have a big problem with is when they actively oppress humans (or actively promote human oppression) in order to publicize their point of view. And PETA, unfortunately, does this. If you're directly supporting a racist initiative like this fence by financially contributing to it (and inviting your readers to make racist remarks about Mexicans and the stuff they eat), then you've crossed the line into oppression, as far as I'm concerned. As for Pamela Anderson posing nude or whatever - I couldn't care less about that. When I mention sexism, I'm talking about perpetuating oppression such as making women feel bad about their bodies by lying to them about how veganism will help them meet impossible beauty standards of perfect bodies and acne-free skin. Especially when they hand out those cruel cards with mocking pictures of fat kids and kids with acne in order to try to get kids to stop drinking milk, for instance.

I'm not talking about the "sex sells" marketing of "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" or Pamela Anderson wearing a lettuce leaf bikini. I couldn't care less about those ads.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 19 August 2008 06:01 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It seems to me that they [PETA] take "progressive" values to the logical next level.

The "next level" of progressive values involves not giving a shit about human beings?

ETA: michelle I for one have never bitten into a burger out of hatred... there is no argument to be made that hatred motivates the raising and slaughtering of livestock, it is motivated by appetite.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 06:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
ETA: michelle I for one have never bitten into a burger out of hatred... there is no argument to be made that hatred motivates the raising and slaughtering of livestock, it is motivated by appetite.

Thoughtless sexism is still sexism and stems from a (sometimes unconscious) contempt for women.

Likewise, many vegans believe that human contempt for non-human animals, whether conscious or unconscious, motivates the systematic murder of livestock animals.

How could it not be hatred to torture factory farmed animals during their lifetimes and then cruelly slaughter them at the end?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 06:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, since we're on the subject of veganism and racism, this blog, Vegans of Colour, is pretty interesting.

Not surprisingly, they're not huge fans of this latest PETA campaign.

And here's an excellent point about
which humans PETA doesn't compare to animals. (Of course, one could argue that this is a function of the fact that white people as a group are not oppressed, so it's hard to make a comparison between the oppression of animals and the oppression of white people...)

If you read the comments, it's clear that there is a lot of lively debate on these issues.

Do PETA's race-based tactics work or just alienate?

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 19 August 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How could it not be hatred to torture factory farmed animals during their lifetimes and then cruelly slaughter them at the end?

Because there is no malice towards them? I get the impression you see hatred as an act as opposed to a motivation, if so, you are right about all killing automatically expressing hatred I suppose. Is it also hatred to propagate and raise livestock? If hatred is to be reduced to an act then love could be as well (giving rise to life, nurturing it as it develops); are we showing both love and hatred towards livestock?


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 06:28 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

would say that the meat industry is a "systematic, institutionalized, government approved speciesism and hatred" and "genocide" of non-human animals.


I wouldn't say hatred, although in the case of the government approved and financially supported destruction of nature and natural habitats the word seems to fit. If we were to destroy the communities of certain groups of people, with the obvious result in loss of life that would rightly be called genocide. Furthermore, I don't think that "hatred" is necessary. If you dehumanize a group, take advantage of them in everyway, are indifferent of their pain caused in the name of your own benefit, and feel that they have no rights or interests whatsoever, then hatred isn't necessary, because you are indifferent to them.

But, on the other hand, maybe hatred is the appropriate word. When you think about the way food animals are referred to by many people (think back to the last bbq you attended), there is little doubt that if someone had the same regard for women, other races etc, etc, that such beliefs would be regarded as hatred.

quote:
To them, non-human animal life is absolutely equal to human animal life

For many yes, but not for all. Legal author, and animal rights law professor Steven Wise has written two books on a new legal definition of rights for animals ("Rattling the cage" and "Drawing the line") in which he does not call for equal rights, but for the rights which are more appropriate - and not for all species either.

quote:
People who don't see the systematic killing of animals as murder, and who don't consider animals to have the same inherent right to life and liberty as human beings will, of course, be offended by comparisons of people to animals.

Very true, and many people were and are deeply offended by the idea of same-sex marriage. People like to feel that they are special, whether that be heterosexuals feeling that they are better than homosexuals or humans feeling they are better than animals.

I can't think of any case in which the person eating an animal doesn't think that they are inately better. Imagine someone classifying that as hatred.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 06:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine, whatever. Change it to "contempt". Although I think comments like "PETA pisses me off so much I'm going to eat veal tonight" to be hateful towards animals, frankly. What the hell did the cow ever do to people who say stupid shit like that? Anyone who has such contempt for animals that they think it's okay and even funny to joke about going out of their way to eat a truly tortured and murdered animal (veal should be repugnant even to people who aren't vegetarians simply because of the absolutely disgusting conditions those poor animals are kept in) as a way of getting revenge on human beings they don't like are, as far as I'm concerned, guilty of not just contempt for, but hatred of animals.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 19 August 2008 06:33 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle: agreed.
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 August 2008 06:33 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle. there is a difference between eating other creatures, which one could argue a whole nature food chain thingy about the history of this (paging Farmpunk!), and systemic killing of certain people based on perceived biological differences (and real social differences) that make some people "less than" certain other groups of people.

Even in PETA, all people are not equal. Just the fact of the sexism and racism in their ads tells us they are a white- and male-dominated organization with the view that only white people "count".

Equating people of colour to animals is a classic racist maneuver, even if PETA values animals as equal to humans, they are still using a racist trope to make their point. Where else are humans and animals side by side in their imaging? Nowhere except in their degraded, immature, masculinist "shock" images.

Obviously I don't agree with their point. They are against all killing of animals by humans. This is a contrived ahistorical Western privileged position. And I say this as a meat eater who's part of the problem. If animals are killed humanely, PETA is against it. If all parts of the animal is used they are against it. This position is loaded with racism (I'm thinking about FN cultures in this moment) about how cultures which are non-Western in root have lived, sustainably, for more centuries than veganism has existed.

Politically I agree that the way animals are farmed and kept is horrible. I don't think the solution is to be against everyone eating any animal product whatsoever. It's this type of "We believe this therefore all should believe this and live by this" that puts them into the right-wing "scolds" camp.

By the way, I say "eating" but I also mean all the other ways in which we utilize animal products in our lives including wearing, milking, cheesing, animal testing, etc.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 August 2008 06:35 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Note: I just cross posted with a whole bunch of folks, and clearly didn't read any of those posts as I was composing mine. Will do so now.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 06:42 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Michelle. there is a difference between eating other creatures, which one could argue a whole nature food chain thingy about the history of this (paging Farmpunk!), and systemic killing of certain people based on perceived biological differences (and real social differences) that make some people "less than" certain other groups of people.

I agree that the systematic killing of certain people based on differences is worse than the killing of animals for food. But, I hardly think that it is a progressive view to say that something is perfectly fine because there is something else that is worse.

As for the whole food chain thingy being an excuse because it is natural or a part of our history. So is the killing of outsiders and the dominance of males over females, patriarchy etc, etc - most likely going back to the before our last common ancestor as they are common place among chimpanzees.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 06:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Obviously I don't agree with their point. They are against all killing of animals by humans. This is a contrived ahistorical Western privileged position. And I say this as a meat eater who's part of the problem. If animals are killed humanely, PETA is against it. If all parts of the animal is used they are against it. This position is loaded with racism (I'm thinking about FN cultures in this moment) about how cultures which are non-Western in root have lived, sustainably, for more centuries than veganism has existed.

No, I don't think this position is necessarily "loaded in racism" and there are vegan people of colour out there who don't think so too, otherwise they likely wouldn't be vegan. There are even the occasional First Nations people who are vegan, believe it or not. And there are non-western cultures that are vegetarian as well, although I'm not sure whether there are any that are vegan.

It's not racist to be against the killing of animals, humanely or not, whether you use the whole animal or not. There are racist ways of expressing this sentiment, of course, and the Vegans of Colour blog I linked to above has a fantastic post about how misguided white western vegans start racist campaigns against eating dog or cat or whatever in Asian countries, for instance - in which case, they're attacking culturally-specific choices of meat as opposed to meat-eating in general.

The vegan movement, like every other anti-oppression movement, has a long, long way to go when it comes to combatting racism and sexism and other types of oppression within their ranks. But you know, other anti-oppression movements have barely even begun to combat animal oppression within their ranks.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 19 August 2008 06:49 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I'm not sure how else they're supposed to make their point that it's just as bad to oppress animals as it is to oppress humans without comparing the current situation for oppressed animals to current (or recently past, historically speaking) situations for oppressed humans. In all movements against oppression, the activists who push the most at the beginning are the ones that people hate the most and fight the most and vilify the most.

Well I suppose Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists have been doing it for thousands of years and more successfully than PETA could lay claims to.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 06:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doing what? Being vegetarian/vegan, or advocating for and being activists for animal rights?

But those are good examples of non-western (and non-white) traditions that believe, to certain degrees, in not harming or eating animals.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 August 2008 07:07 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are even the occasional First Nations people who are vegan, believe it or not. And there are non-western cultures that are vegetarian as well, although I'm not sure whether there are any that are vegan.

Of course there are, but to make a wide sweeping political point and position about what it means to eat animals, without any context, is problematic. As for cultures that don't eat animals, I'm pretty sure none of them are represented in PETA's leadership, so my analysis stands. All-white organizations operating without any coherent anti oppression analysis does this kind of thing all the time. PETA is not the worst, but they're the ones on the hotseat at this point.

As for combatting animal oppression in other anti-oppression organizations, perhaps the ranking of humans higher makes this a vicious circle. But for many marginalized people, this may be seen as just another way to not prioritize their issues.

Cross-fighting like this does none of us any good. Making ads that draw on racism and sexism divides a cause that doesn't have to be, and really, shouldn't be.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 07:09 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can completely agree with your most recent post.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 19 August 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why would you consider this to be bizarre?

The fact that the person who posted that comment was concerned about the effects of the wall on migrating animals and the destruction of their habitat when the wall is their to disrupt the migration of people and destroy their habitat.

Like Ken said (jeez I'm quoting Ken like the encyclopedia in this thread)

quote:
I mean, desperately poor people, people who are often in fact starving, find there way across the U.S. border because, basically, they have no alternative if they wish to survive(there's also the fact that those people are coming in "illegally" as the right-wing racists put it, to a country whose trade policies often increased their desperation)and all PETA cares about, in this instance, is that they might do something terrible like eat meat?

And that this other PETA-pet is not only concerned that migrant works might eat meat but also that the wall will disrupt migrating animals. Cognitive dissonance.


PETA seems to hold (if I can delve into some amateur psychoanalysis) a vision of the world that is incredibly Biblical. They view humans as separate and sinful from animals and seem to have given up on human oppression. This of course is a stance that only some humans can convince themselves of - which might be why almost every PETA supporter I have met is white and middle-class.

quote:
But I'm not sure how else they're supposed to make their point that it's just as bad to oppress animals as it is to oppress humans without comparing the current situation for oppressed animals to current (or recently past, historically speaking) situations for oppressed humans. In all movements against oppression, the activists who push the most at the beginning are the ones that people hate the most and fight the most and vilify the most.

I think that pursuing this line of thought in their activism is actively oppressing humans. The posters with the lynchings and the cow are disgusting. To compare the mob of murderous racists in the picture on the left to the two people getting paid minimum wage to slaughter a cow on the right is pretty crappy analysis to say the least. It minimizes and obscures racism. Not to mention that by making a comparison between racialized people- in the case of the lynching and holocaust posters- they are perpetuating the racist view that racialized people are animals. They come at it in a different direction but end up in the same place. Maybe this would be a compliment in their "worldview" that privileges animals above humans but it displays a total disregard to hundreds of years of anti-racist struggle. It is what I would consider "active oppression".

quote:
How could it not be hatred to torture factory farmed animals during their lifetimes and then cruelly slaughter them at the end?

Yes, the out-of-sight-out-of-mind type of hatred - willful ignorance. Most meat-eaters know that they would not want to see a slaughterhouse yet still eat meat.

PETA has also never focused on the fact that slaughterhouses in North America (now that local abattoirs have gone extinct) are terrible places to work, have incredibly high rates of injury and that the people working there don't get off on slaughtering animals for 8-10 hours a day. Not to mention that in many parts of NA this work is done largely by migrant workers and always by poor people.

Hmmm... no respect for anti-racism, no respect for workers rights, financially supporting an illegal colonial boarder... I wonder what kind of folk make PETA policy? Could it be people that don't need to worry about all that other messy stuff?

I've been taught that it takes life to sustain life, no matter if a human eats a sheep or a plant draws nutrients from decaying matter in the soil. We should make ourselves more aware of the lives that are given to sustain ours and be thankful, take only what we need and do it ethically (not factory farming IMO). PETA likes to focus on certain life to the exclusion of other life and always uses the lives it does not value to carelessly advance their agenda. PETA are actively oppressive.


ETA: Sorry, huge cross-post, I don't even know where the conversation is anymore!

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 07:24 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:


While I can see that PETA can sometimes be a little too provocative, what is it about them that makes progressives so crazy? It seems to me that they take "progressive" values to the logical next level.

[ed.] An easy criticism of PETA in this instance is that they are subsidizing this wall, but otherwise, what's wrong with the message?

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


There is simply nothing progressive about what PETA does or the issues they preport to support. In many ways it is regressive, but on balance it is at best neutral on the progressive-reactionary scale.

It always fascinates me to see progressive people, who support say organic agriculture can't or won't see the big picture.

You simply can not have organic agriculture on a scale that will support large urban communities without livestock manure. Green manures (like buckwheat) just are not suffcient to keep soil healthy and productive over the long term. In our rotational schedule you can see the difference between the fields that have had a green manure application and those that have had manure spread on them.

The only other alternatives are application of commercial fertilizers, sewage sludge or pulp. The latter two are especially nasty. There is also the likely applications of herbicides and pesticides that go along with those methods.

I have no problem with anyone who makes the choice to be a vegan, vegitarian or any other way to eat. However, I do have a significant problem with those who pretend, or are ignorant of the reality of how food is produced, that there is some kind of moral continuim that places the non-meat eater on a pedistal. The plain and simple fact is that there are costs to food production, we have evolved as omnivores and those that do so are no less moral, no more cruel and no more effecting the environment than a raw food vegan.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 07:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact that the person who posted that comment was concerned about the effects of the wall on migrating animals and the destruction of their habitat when the wall is their to disrupt the migration of people and destroy their habitat.

I think the person posted that as a criticism of the campaign - in other words, not only does this campaign fail by supporting a racist measure like this fence, but it actually goes against PETA's explicit mandate, which is to liberate animals, since the fence will also harm animals.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 August 2008 07:43 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bookish, excellent points, thanks for your post.

And, Le Téléspectateur, wow, excellent and worth repeating.

quote:
Le Téléspectateur: PETA has also never focused on the fact that slaughterhouses in North America (now that local abattoirs have gone extinct) are terrible places to work, have incredibly high rates of injury and that the people working there don't get off on slaughtering animals for 8-10 hours a day. Not to mention that in many parts of NA this work is done largely by migrant workers and always by poor people.

Hmmm... no respect for anti-racism, no respect for workers rights, financially supporting an illegal colonial boarder... I wonder what kind of folk make PETA policy? Could it be people that don't need to worry about all that other messy stuff?


I need to make it clear that I feel there are ways to have food production that isn't horrible and exploitative (of animals and the earth). But, like the realities of global warming, will require a huge change in our Western lifestyles, something that most of us, and I'm including myself here, really don't want to do, and likely won't until we're forced to by way of no more trucks from California delivering produce as often, as one example.

I saw the most grim intense documentary at Hot Docs one year called "Our Daily Bread". It was made in Germany I think. No dialogue or verbal narrative. Not only did it show the gross ickiness of various animal factory farming (cows, baby chicks, pigs) it also showed the back breaking work of greenhouse veggies like green peppers, and open farms of cauliflowers and other vegetables, salt mining; basically, most of the foods we eat. It also, in a number of odd sequences, showed the various workers eating lunch.

I left thinking there's nothing I can eat, as a city person, that's not steeped in exploitation, pollution and generally leading to the destruction of the planet. I know there are alternatives for those with money. I think other alternatives will have to come? Or else what?


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 19 August 2008 07:58 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

There is simply nothing progressive about what PETA does or the issues they preport to support. In many ways it is regressive, but on balance it is at best neutral on the progressive-reactionary scale.

It always fascinates me to see progressive people, who support say organic agriculture can't or won't see the big picture.

You simply can not have organic agriculture on a scale that will support large urban communities without livestock manure. Green manures (like buckwheat) just are not suffcient to keep soil healthy and productive over the long term. In our rotational schedule you can see the difference between the fields that have had a green manure application and those that have had manure spread on them.

The only other alternatives are application of commercial fertilizers, sewage sludge or pulp. The latter two are especially nasty. There is also the likely applications of herbicides and pesticides that go along with those methods.

I have no problem with anyone who makes the choice to be a vegan, vegitarian or any other way to eat. However, I do have a significant problem with those who pretend, or are ignorant of the reality of how food is produced, that there is some kind of moral continuim that places the non-meat eater on a pedistal. The plain and simple fact is that there are costs to food production, we have evolved as omnivores and those that do so are no less moral, no more cruel and no more effecting the environment than a raw food vegan.


Exactly! Without livestock, we would cause widespread environmental damange.

Part of what bothers me about the PETA line of thought is that we are presented with a binary choice -- veganism vs factory farming. As an omnivore who does not support factory farming, I can't see it that way. I have sourced meat from local producers who care for their animals. It is possible to do this, especially for PETA's target market.

Thank you, BA, for your most sensible post.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 08:01 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know either. It's a conundrum.

And Bookish Agrarian (and Farmpunk in the past) have both raised really good points about the logistical considerations when it comes to farming without animal products.

Can I post one more fabulous blog posting about how race and veganism intersect in communities of colour where veganism isn't all that common?

I promise I won't post every article on the entire blog. But wow, it sure is a fabulous resource, and a great way for white animal rights activists to learn about and try to incorporate anti-racism into their activism.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 08:02 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks BCG

Food is a massively complicated issue. I am steeped in food policy on a daily basis, and I feel like I am only scratching the surface.

There is a simple fact that seems to simply elude to0 many- there are no simple answers when it come to food. Those that think that there are are either wrong, ignorant, or a sales rep for a GMO company.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 August 2008 08:03 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You simply can not have organic agriculture on a scale that will support large urban communities without livestock manure.

Why do you keep insisting on pointing this out? It's a strawmulch argument.

Is organic farming currently supporting any large urban community in North America? I don't know how much organic food is consumed , but the only organic food I eat is pretty well whatever I grow in my gardens.

quote:
And Bookish Agrarian (and Farmpunk in the past) have both raised really good points about the logistical considerations when it comes to farming without animal products.

Unless they've been advocating the use of horse-drawn implements, no they haven't.

Back when we were farming we used commercial chemical fertiliser on our crops, as did every other farmer in the area, whether they raised livestock or not.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 19 August 2008 08:06 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
al-Q: So you can have either organic plants AND livestock or you can have no livestock and no organically farmed plants?

ETA: Very interesting thread, I'm happy just reading along but I need some clarification on this point.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 August 2008 08:09 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. I have organic vegetable gardens, but don't use any animals other than earthworms and bees - and they're volunteers.

And you can use animal manure to fertilise crops and still be organic. I suppose to be strictly organic the animals have to be raised without use of supplements and hormones as well.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 19 August 2008 08:17 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So it is only in the to-date hypothetical case of large-scale organic agriculture that livestock animals producing manure would be needed? But at that point, they would be required to support organic farming right?
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 08:23 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why do you keep insisting on pointing this out? It's a strawmulch argument.

Is organic farming currently supporting any large urban community in North America? I don't know how much organic food is consumed , but the only organic food I eat is pretty well whatever I grow in my gardens.



No it is not a 'strawmulch' argument. Many of those who advocate a strict vegan or even vegetarian diet, also advocate for organicly produced food. Good for them, but there is no logic to that argument. You can not have organic agriculture on a scale that feeds others without livestock manure. Currently our farms directly feed about 1100 people, some vegan, some vegetarian, most omnivores. We would have to significantly decrease that number without livestock manure and each year that number would slowly decline as the soil degrades.

Groups like PETA suggest factory farming is bad so suggest a vegetable and fruit based diet when the choice is not either/or.

Commercial fertilizer is made from natural gas, ever larger farms require ever larger equipment. We are in essence eating oil on an ever increasing level. The only way to break this cycle is to remove ourselves from it. But to do that livestock manure is essential for maintaining soil health and productivity.

Eat what you want. But the pretense that one is more moral, one is less damaging to the environment, one is more progressive and that one is better for ones overall health is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 08:29 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
So it is only in the to-date hypothetical case of large-scale organic agriculture that livestock animals producing manure would be needed? But at that point, they would be required to support organic farming right?

I guess it depends on what you mean by large scale.

As well, a garden is not a field. I can bandage my arm if I cut it, that doesn't make me a surgeon. Someone with a garden, unless it is a large market garden, is not farming, nor are they feeding people other than themselves year round. We grow 26 varities of heritage tomatoes for example. Tomatoes grown year after year take a lot out of the soil, not as much as corn, but a lot. Even though we rotate those tomato rows it is essential to replentish soil health. You can get away with it in a little backyard plot for longer, but even there the soil will degrade and become less productive over time. It may take longer to notice becuase you are not feeding as many people, but it is basic soil science.

Edited to add
As well I farm with the long view in mind. I could easily mine the soil like a backyard gardener is doing when they do not feed their soil, but I have (I feel) a responsibility to keep our land healthy for whomever comes after us whether it is our children or someone else.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 August 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No it is not a 'strawmulch' argument. Many of those who advocate a strict vegan or even vegetarian diet, also advocate for organicly produced food.

And many of us don't, thus a lot of moisture is evaporating out of your argument, not to mention it's full of weeds.

quote:
As well I farm with the long view in mind. I could easily mine the soil like a backyard gardener is doing when they do not feed their soil ...

So can anyone, but again you're arguing from the point of the false assumption that backyard gardeners do not feed the soil.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 09:48 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So can anyone, but again you're arguing from the point of the false assumption that backyard gardeners do not feed the soil.

Unless you are fertilizing, either with manure or commercial fertilizer that is exactly what you are doing.

quote:
And many of us don't, thus a lot of moisture is evaporating out of your argument, not to mention it's full of weeds.

Then never, ever make an environmental argument to bolster your personal choice. If you do that your argument will be is full of something my two bulls produce.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 11:08 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sistah Vegan - an anti-racist academic who draws parallels between human oppression and animal oppression - she compares the attitudes behind people's treatment of food animals to white people's attitudes towards Black people during the time of slavery, and she tells an interesting anecdote about her sympathetic (but omnivore) father who drew the connection between a local chicken factory and a "concentration camp". The link is to a podcast that lasts maybe 15-20 minutes (I think? I didn't time it) and I found it riveting.

Oh man, now I'm on a total bender. Buh-bye afternoon! Hood Diet - Afrikan Raw Vegan blog.

Okay. I'll stop now. I promise. But I keep reading great stuff and then following links to other great stuff and I think, okay, I'll post one more link and then I'll stop, I promise.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 August 2008 11:53 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like a great site. I'm going to listen to the podcast tonight.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Looks like a great site. I'm going to listen to the podcast tonight.

me too.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 12:19 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

So can anyone, but again you're arguing from the point of the false assumption that backyard gardeners do not feed the soil.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


Are you serious? You claim a farming background and make a comment like this. The exact quote you were referring to said you can get along with not feeding the soil in a backyard garden longer. Not as you claim that backyard gardeners do not feed their soil. The comment from BA is exactly right. The First Nations farmers of the Great Lakes Basin understood this millennia ago. They would plant maize and squash in an area for a period of time, and then move their community before the land became too infertile to feed them. Your ignorance about soil health makes me wonder if you left the farm at 5 years old, or ever did any work on one besides chores.

When we bought our farm and began market gardening we thought we were pretty good urban gardeners so the transition would not be too hard. We were wrong. The scale is totally different. What is a small problem in a garden is now a huge problem in our market garden. That definitely includes keeping the soil fertile. Even though we are strict vegetarians we know that in order to grow food commercially, as opposed to being subsistent farmers that we must fertilize. We chose to contract for composted manure. We tried other ways and it was a disaster. If we went the other route and used chemicals we would be supporting a system that abuses the world- people, animals, plant life, water and soil alike. We believe as environmentalists that animal manure is the best choice given the real life options.

I have been a vegetarian for over 15 years. My wife, for religious and cultural reasons has never eaten meat and so I honour that as part of our relationship. But I am embarrassed by wankers like PETA and those that think it is ‘progressive’ to be against meat eating. You make your choices, others make theirs.

I always wonder what the PETAites expect farmers to do with all those animals currently on farms. Your average beef cow can live to be around 20 if well looked after. It is likely that cow will produce a dozen offspring. So we either shoot them all, or kill the males. There really isn’t another option that I can see. As well if animal protein was eliminated you would see a huge concentration of mono-cropped vegetable and fruit production that is very heavily dependent on chemical use- way more than corn and grain. This would have a enormous negative effect on the health of farm workers around the world, destroy eco-systems, and have a gigantic negative effect on wildlife, which now lives on and around pasture and forage crop lands. In the longer term it would lead to increased hunger and food insecurity as the long term implications of farming like North America farms became apparent.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 19 August 2008 12:31 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Bookish Agi, I love that you pointed out the manure factor. Although I grew up on a working farm and have intimate knowledge of manure management, I didn't start talkin' vegan until I moved to the city and met some. Until this thread I had never put it together that no food is vegan because most vegetables and fruits take animal manure (all take human labour). I don't think many vegans have considered the manure input. Most don't care about the human labour.
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 19 August 2008 12:38 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
there are costs to food production, we have evolved as omnivores and those that do so are no less moral, no more cruel and no more effecting the environment than a raw food vegan.

That omnivore statement sounds a lot like the old it's in our nature argument which I don't subscribe to.

And it's funny I only hear the omnivore line mentioned whenever people are pushing meat - like western society is so into salads that we have to remind people that they are capable of eating meat. Puhleeze

And just to get it off my chest - I don't think vegans/vegetarians are doing what they do so they can flaunt their moral superiority in people's faces. But yet I always hear this. I'm far far far more used to seeing meat eaters trying to ridicule, bait, bully, humorously jab or logically state why the ethical vegan/vegetarian position is not worthy of respect.

It's like a game for some people. I swear if I see another smirk from someone at a BBQ chowing down on a burger, all self satisfied when they think that they have just destroyed the whole movement with some lame ass "logic" - acting like they know how the world works and I'm just some naive fool- why then I WILL see the light and start eating meat again. Starting with them.

It seems like these talks usually only pop up in Peta denouncing threads (not that I'm defending them, I'm not familiar enough with them).
There are some extreme politics that get a little more acceptance on this board in other areas so I don't know why they can't get a little more consideration here. Not enough people I guess. I appreciate Michelle's explanations though.


From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 August 2008 12:47 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you serious? You claim a farming background and make a comment like this. The exact quote you were referring to said you can get along with not feeding the soil in a backyard garden longer.

Can you read?

I said BA was mistaken in assuming that backyard gardeners do not feed the soil.

I feed my garden daily, without the use of commercial fertilisers.

I'll let the giant brains figure out how that's possible.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 12:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Compost!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 August 2008 12:55 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No bull?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 12:55 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Hey Bookish Agi, I love that you pointed out the manure factor. Although I grew up on a working farm and have intimate knowledge of manure management, I didn't start talkin' vegan until I moved to the city and met some. Until this thread I had never put it together that no food is vegan because most vegetables and fruits take animal manure (all take human labour). I don't think many vegans have considered the manure input. Most don't care about the human labour.

No, few things are completely vegan. I recognize that. That doesn't mean I won't try to steer clear of what I can - the worst stuff. It's impossible to avoid capitalism entirely either. That doesn't mean I'm not going to try to avoid the worst of it where I can.

And of course I care about the human labour. I am entirely capable of caring about humans and other animals. I don't find that this strains me unduly. On the other hand, trying to explain to myself why the screaming agony of some creatures doesn't matter while that of others does would take up a lot of my energy.

In any case, the point isn't to avoid any contact with atrocities. The point is too eliminate them.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 12:58 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking as a vegetarin farmer without livestock I have to say this is horse manure.

The only lectures I have received from people on these topics have been from other vegetarians or the worse offenders are usually vegans. The tone changes as soon as I say we don't rasie livestock. Which I take to mean we are 'good' farmers. I have run into the odd bore who wants to bait me, but if it wasn't about that, those types would do it over something else.

You will never go wrong underestimating just how big an asshole some people will be regardless of the topic.

As for the term omnivore, that is an exact description of what a person who does eat meat is. We don't have a fuzzy positive name for that person. Would you have prefered if he had said something prejorative like normal. Why dis someone for having good manners.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 01:03 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I'm a vegan who spends a lot of her time with farmers, some of whom are family. And I'm exceedingly polite
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 01:04 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Can you read?

I said BA was mistaken in assuming that backyard gardeners do not feed the soil.

I feed my garden daily, without the use of commercial fertilisers.

I'll let the giant brains figure out how that's possible.


I guess it is you that can't read.

Here is the quote

quote:
Tomatoes grown year after year take a lot out of the soil, not as much as corn, but a lot. Even though we rotate those tomato rows it is essential to replentish soil health. You can get away with it in a little backyard plot for longer, but even there the soil will degrade and become less productive over time. It may take longer to notice becuase you are not feeding as many people, but it is basic soil science.

You will notice that he is saying IF you don't feed the soil you can get away with it LONGER in a backyard garden. There is nothing in there that says gardeners do not feed their soil.

In the spirit of the Olympics I would make sure you can stick your landing before you try to turn yourself in knots to lash out at someone.

And unless you are taking in the neigbourhoods scraps no one growing food for others could possible do it on compost alone. Been there, done that and it is totally inadequete.

In defrence to BA here's your bandage

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 01:11 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Even though we are strict vegetarians we know that in order to grow food commercially, as opposed to being subsistent farmers that we must fertilize.

Agreed fertilizer is necessary.

quote:
We chose to contract for composted manure. We tried other ways and it was a disaster. If we went the other route and used chemicals we would be supporting a system that abuses the world- people, animals, plant life, water and soil alike.

You choose manure. Good for you.

However, the attack on vegetarians/vegans occuring on this forum is rubbish. As it stands now huge amounts of cropland are being used for raising animals. Huge amounts of synthetic fertilizers are being used to grow food for those animals. Huge amounts of pesticides are being used to grow food for those animals. Huge amounts of fossil fuels are being used to grow the food for that livestock. Huge amounts of fossil fuels are being used in managing and shipping that livestock. Furthermore it is far from an abuse free environment as has already been pointed out about treatment of slaughterhouse workers, treatment of animals and pollution of land, water etc. Many vegetarians saw this plight and decided to stop eating meat to not contribute as much to those problems. Many of them support organics as they feel it will further reduce those problems. I think they are wrong on the second part.

However a fully vegan planet (which is not something that I or any other vegetarian on this forum has been demanding but seems to be what this thread has devolved into) would require about 1/3 the farmland, would require about 1/3 the chemical pesticides and the synthetic fertilzer required would be extremely diminished as we would growing crops to feed livestock. Anyone who thinks that such a world would lead to more environmental destruction is simply wrong. I do not support a transition to organic farming as it is currently practiced but do hope for a blending between certain organic techniques with conventional farming and genetic engineering.

quote:
We believe as environmentalists that animal manure is the best choice given the real life options.

Again that is your choice. I disagree. My environmental view is that the environmental damage caused by raising livestock far outweighs the damage caused by synthetic fertilizers (Especially as in most cases far more synthetic fertilizers are used in raising livestock anyways).

quote:
I always wonder what the PETAites expect farmers to do with all those animals currently on farms. Your average beef cow can live to be around 20 if well looked after. It is likely that cow will produce a dozen offspring. So we either shoot them all, or kill the males. There really isn’t another option that I can see.

I am not a member or supporter of PETA, but to me it would make sense the that same organization that spends so much time asking people to spay and neuter their pets would....um...do the same thing with livestock. These animals are bred, so the solution is to stop. Furthermore, I highly doubt that anyone at PETA thinks that everyone will wake up tomorrow as a vegan so the problem solves itself if populations stop eating meat over a period of time.

quote:
As well if animal protein was eliminated you would see a huge concentration of mono-cropped vegetable and fruit production that is very heavily dependent on chemical use- way more than corn and grain. This would have a enormous negative effect on the health of farm workers around the world, destroy eco-systems, and have a gigantic negative effect on wildlife, which now lives on and around pasture and forage crop lands.

I think that is baloney. Yes there would be increase in the amount of fruits and vegetables grown, but that would easily be offset by the much larger decrease in the food currently produced for livestock.

quote:
In the longer term it would lead to increased hunger and food insecurity as the long term implications of farming like North America farms became apparent.

Again, I think that is baloney. Increased hunger and food insecurity is partly and will increasingly be caused by the increase in meat consumption throughout the world and pressures that results in because it uses more land, fuel, fertilizers, pesticides all to feed food to livestock.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 01:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just a reminder to keep it civil. I think we're also getting a bit sidetracked into arguments about veganism itself (not that this is a terrible thing, but it's not great when it leads to bickering and questioning each others' reading ability).

An article from Satya Magazine on racism and the animal rights movement.

quote:
In April, 316 people from over 20 states attended the first Grassroots AR Conference in NYC, but the people of color caucus numbered only eight. If no one is racist, why is the movement largely segregated?

But is it just looking white that keeps people of color away from the movement? Or are white activists who lack awareness making people of color feel uncomfortable?

Patrick Kwan, founder and Executive Director of the Student Animal Rights Alliance, said, “At the first demonstration I went to someone asked me ‘Do you speak English?’—and that was in New York City!” He’s gotten these comments from white staffers of “pretty big AR organizations”: “I can’t believe how Asians treat animals” and “I don’t like Asians.”

Kris, an African American activist, describes how it feels to experience tokenism: “They haven’t done outreach to the community, but they call—‘Hey we need a black face at the protest.’ I go, but it’s not a unifying way, it’s a marginalizing way of organizing. You’re not one of us, but we need you.”


quote:
According to Patrick, there is a preconception that people of color do not care about animals. But, he says, surveys have shown that African Americans are actually more likely to consider vegetarianism than whites after being informed about the plight of farmed animals. Surveys of Latinos and Asians also show positive attitudes toward animal protection.

Olivia, who grew up in the projects and lives in Spanish Harlem, reports that people eagerly take her flyers. Another African American activist found people snapped up samples of vegan cooking. A young white woman active in the PETA KFC campaign noticed that “older white men never take our flyers. The people who show the most interest in talking to us are African American men and women and Latino men and women, and young white people.”


quote:
It’s one thing for a white person to pass out vegan flyers. But attempts by white AR activists to set the agenda for other cultures bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the historical pattern of suppression by dominant nations. Instead of exporting “democracy,” AR activists are exporting their cultural concepts of the proper relationship between human and nonhuman animals.

quote:
According to one activist, outreach to communities of color is approached like a marketing challenge, not as a desire to share power. A corporation is a legal person, but without a mind. As such, no one is accountable for de facto segregation unless someone is stupid enough to use the “n” word.

The People’s Institute, in its Undoing Racism workshops, asks social workers and other participants “Do you make money off the poor?” One by one, people nod their heads. Is it possible that AR workers—from the CEOs of large nonprofits who may make a third of a million dollars, to grassroots grunts who make minimum wage—are making money off of animals? The People’s Institute states: Any organization that is not intentionally anti-racist inevitably benefits white people.


[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 01:21 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Trevor- Thanks for the factless rant.

However, the most intensive use of agricultral chemicals is in the production of fruits and vegetables. Most livestock are fed forages, which do not require chemical inputs and stand for 5-7 years in most rotations acting as carbon sinks, sheltering wildlife and as corridors for wildlife to move. Chickens receive a mostly grain diet, that is true, but chicken production is very efficient and the caloric intake balance in removing the chicken part of it and just eating the grain yourself wouldn't make even a slight blip of difference.

Livestock that are fed grain and or corn would not be enough to offset the needed protien increases provided by Round Up Ready Soya Beans, GMO Canola or wheat, spelt and other flour grains. Current mass production of your favourite 9 Grain Bread is loaded with the use of chemical inputs.

I think you are proving the point others have made though very well. None of them have said it has to be a pure vegan world, just that there is no real difference between the two on the grand balance scale. It has been the meatless warriors who have been the ones to fly off the handle with aggressive language and lecturing tones.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 01:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Left J.A.B., I'm sure we probably cross-posted above, but I would draw your attention to my post just before yours where I asked everyone to stop posting personal attacks. There's no need for it here, and it's just causing the thread to degenerate into bickering.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 01:27 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps you could address this thread then too -

The meat-eaters are chuckin' their spears at me over in the PETA thread


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 01:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Left J.A.B., that thread has nothing to do with the fact that you and everyone else are being asked, in this thread, which has been going relatively well, to stop posting personal attacks so that it will continue to go well.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 01:39 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a thinly vieled attack on those who that poster disagrees with and it is the same poster that started the comments that you say devolved into bickering. Not to mention the fact that the term chuckin' spears seems to fit into the concerns raised by this thread.
From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 August 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Im sorry folks but civility and rationalization has to win over. Human beings slaughtered as a result of their ethnicity etc is far more egregious than animal slaughter. i love animals but I love hukman beings far more.

Michelle I know its a stupid ethical question but one that deserves consideration. If your house is on fire who do you save first, your beloved cat or your child?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 01:42 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Trevor- Thanks for the factless rant.

However, the most intensive use of agricultral chemicals is in the production of fruits and vegetables.


I didn't say that it wasn't. However, there would be a far larger decrease in chemical use from the massive decrease in crops grown for livestock, then in the much smaller increase in fruit and vegetable production. Take the amount of meat someone eats, remove the environmental destruction caused by that meat. Add in replacement amount of fuits and vegetables (although most people will replace a large portion with grains) and add in that environmental destruction. You come out way ahead. At least that is what every science journal and magazine I have ever read - but no, you must right.

quote:
Most livestock are fed forages,

Sure until they go to a feedlot when they are pumped full of grain and gain several pounds a day.

quote:
Livestock that are fed grain and or corn would not be enough to offset the needed protien increases provided by Round Up Ready Soya Beans, GMO Canola or wheat, spelt and other flour grains.

Those GMO crops are all mainly developed for feeding livestock.

quote:
Current mass production of your favourite 9 Grain Bread is loaded with the use of chemical inputs.

I would hope so. Pure water is a chemcial. But I assume you are talking about things such as pesticides in which case I don't care. I have studied enough science to know that 95+% of the pesticides anyone consumes comes naturally from the food they eat. Our bodies have evolved to easily deal with them. Consuming organic foods would make almost no difference at all.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 01:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Im sorry folks but civility and rationalization has to win over. Human beings slaughtered as a result of their ethnicity etc is far more egregious than animal slaughter. i love animals but I love hukman beings far more.

Well then, you clearly disagree with many animal rights activists, who see oppression of animals as just as bad as oppression of humans. Which we've gone over in quite a bit of detail in this thread.

Many animal rights activists would not consider the point of view you have put forth (that humans are more important than animals) to be either civil or rational. They would see it as oppressive and speciesist.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 19 August 2008 01:50 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Fine, whatever. Change it to "contempt". Although I think comments like "PETA pisses me off so much I'm going to eat veal tonight" to be hateful towards animals, frankly. What the hell did the cow ever do to people who say stupid shit like that?

If you take the statement at face value, sure. The way I took it (and the way that I meant it in repeating it) was as a statement that PETA, by their method of campaigning, sometimes bring the very cause they support into disrepute. Saying "PETA makes me want to eat veal" is simply using shock value to hammer that message home.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 01:50 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Those GMO crops are all mainly developed for feeding livestock.

Totally 100 per cent wrong. The holy grail of GMO production is wheat. Wheat is not fed to ruminents - they can't handle it as it is too hot a grain. The amount of wheat it takes to make a single loaf of bread would astound you.

Round Up Ready Soya beans are mostly sold to the food market. It is why they want them so 'clean' The discards might go into the livestock stream, but most farmers are going for table beans. The same goes for white beans and other crops. The only crop that is grown exclusively for feed is barely/oats grown together which is called mixed grain. It is a miniscule amount of total grain production.

But as Michelle asks I will only stick to the topic of the apalling lack of perspective PETA shows in this campaign.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 01:57 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Well then, you clearly disagree with many animal rights activists, who see oppression of animals as just as bad as oppression of humans. Which we've gone over in quite a bit of detail in this thread.

Many animal rights activists would not consider the point of view you have put forth (that humans are more important than animals) to be either civil or rational. They would see it as oppressive and speciesist.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


I am not trying to be argumentative but I have to ask. Would you consider Farmpunk and Bookish Agrarian as cruel people who care nothing about others, including animals?

They sure don't strike me as such.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 01:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But that doesn't mean you can't carry on that stream in another thread - I think that would be really interesting.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 02:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How's this thread?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 August 2008 04:07 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Well then, you clearly disagree with many animal rights activists, who see oppression of animals as just as bad as oppression of humans. Which we've gone over in quite a bit of detail in this thread.

Many animal rights activists would not consider the point of view you have put forth (that humans are more important than animals) to be either civil or rational. They would see it as oppressive and speciesist.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


That "animal rights activists" see animals on the same plain as humans I understand; I find it unethical and would still ask them the "housefire" question>

I have raised dogs all my life. I care for them and love them deeply. But in the end they are dogs. I hurt when they are gone but my emotional pain on losing a human friend is so far greater. For those who place animals and humans together, well frankly I find it offensive.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 19 August 2008 04:09 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well then, you clearly disagree with many animal rights activists, who see oppression of animals as just as bad as oppression of humans. Which we've gone over in quite a bit of detail in this thread.

Many animal rights activists would not consider the point of view you have put forth (that humans are more important than animals) to be either civil or rational. They would see it as oppressive and speciesist.


You responded to a comment of ohara's but didn't answer ohara's question:

quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Michelle I know its a stupid ethical question but one that deserves consideration. If your house is on fire who do you save first, your beloved cat or your child?

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts regarding that question.

I don’t have any children but I have four pets who I love dearly. If I was faced with a choice of (A) saving one neighbor kid from a fire or (B) saving all four of my pets from a fire, I’d save the one neighbor kid. No question about it.

But, presumably, someone who is an “anti-speciesist” would choose to save the four animals. If all animals are, by definition, equal, then the only logical and ethical conclusion would be to choose the act that resulted in the saving of the most animals (the four pets).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 04:18 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts regarding that question.


Which of your children would you save if you could only save one? Your mother or your father? Your wife or your father? A child with a disability or a child without one. The athlete or the geek? Introvert or extrovert? An old person or a young person? The adult with autism or the child with CP? An attractive person or an "ugly" person? A fat person or a thin person? An immigrant or a native-born Canadian? Man or woman? Muslim or Sikh?

These are ridiculous questions.

I don't know that these "intuition pump" arguments establish anything except someone's immediate reactions.

(I'd save my dog before I'd save a neighbour child. But that proves nothing, morally.)

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 04:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts regarding that question.

Sorry, I find questions like that boring.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152

posted 19 August 2008 04:49 PM      Profile for ghoris     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just unlurking to say that this has been a really good thread - lots of food for thought and (generally) good arguments. This is one of the better threads I've read, I think, in a long time. There was a bit of a bump towards the end where things got a little 'uncivil', but by and large I'm impressed that posters in this thread has avoided the personal attacks and flamewars that have characterized so many other threads in the "international news" forum. Kudos to the mods and all contributors!
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 19 August 2008 05:17 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:

Saying "PETA makes me want to eat veal" is simply using shock value to hammer that message home.
[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

Veal may be a bit harsh. But it does make me want to serve them a big plate of veggies and rice and then tell them afterward that I used chicken stock in it.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 August 2008 05:18 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Sorry, I find questions like that boring.



Nice Michelle, ya "boring"...nice way to avoid the answer.

As for This:

quote:
Which of your children would you save if you could only save one? Your mother or your father? Your wife or your father? A child with a disability or a child without one. The athlete or the geek? Introvert or extrovert? An old person or a young person? The adult with autism or the child with CP? An attractive person or an "ugly" person? A fat person or a thin person? An immigrant or a native-born Canadian? Man or woman? Muslim or Sikh?


that becomes rather pedantic. My question was quite specific. One child or one animal. I love the way some crawl into corners to avoid answering these questions. Says a lot.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 05:41 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
that becomes rather pedantic. My question was quite specific. One child or one animal. I love the way some crawl into corners to avoid answering these questions. Says a lot.

Oh, "pedantic". That's a devastating counter-argument.

My questions were equally specific. It's just that there are more of them.

But you tell me which of your children you'd save and then I'll answer your question.

That will give us a certain amount of information about each of us. It has no bearing on the question of the moral claims of different species, however. Would you care to address that point?

And I had another point as well, though I left it implicit: this kind of question implies that there's a gradation of moral worth.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 19 August 2008 05:47 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Many animal rights activists would not consider the point of view you have put forth (that humans are more important than animals) to be either civil or rational. They would see it as oppressive and speciesist.
[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

So's our unfair treatment of plants, viewed in a particular way. From a genetic point of view, some plants have more information in them than any animal.

Stop the salad bars and submit to your new photosynthesizing masters!


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 19 August 2008 06:07 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Be proactive and establish a personal disaster plan.

Practice it, keep your escape routes clear and, in the unlikely situation that a responsible pet parent/parent finds themselves in a fire emergency,follow the plan and save them both. Duh!


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 06:08 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
that becomes rather pedantic. My question was quite specific. One child or one animal. I love the way some crawl into corners to avoid answering these questions. Says a lot.

When I was a child my house burned down and as it was burning my father rushed into the house not knowing if any of us were inside. My father saved the dog first - because she was standing at the door. No one else was inside (My mother, siblings and I were at a hockey game), but even if we had been the dog would have been saved first based on her location and ease of saving. I guess he should have pushed the dog back inside until he was sure that no one was left inside.

It is not a question worth answering. People are reacting in the case of a severe fire, not making value judgements.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 06:11 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoa
I come in from the fields all day after baling hay to unethically feed my cattle this winter and see I caused a disruption early on. Sorry about that Michelle.

Anyone who thinks the natural world is all rosy should see the 'mess' left behind by Coyotes who attacked and killed a newborn calf overnight. There is no way that was done nicely or friendly.

Oh and Michelle - don't answer the question posed about farmpunk and I. I would prefer to think you view me as that dangerous kid in the back of the class that had that air of sexuality about him that drove evenone mad -boys and girls alike. Sort of a less fuzzy Arthur Fonzirelli


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 06:46 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

Anyone who thinks the natural world is all rosy ....

I don't think anyone is saying that. We're all adults here.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 06:54 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
I don't think anyone is saying that. We're all adults here.

Yes, if I thought that nature was the cat's ass then I personally would be a meat eater.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 19 August 2008 07:23 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

I don't think anyone is saying that. We're all adults here.


quote:
Yes, if I thought that nature was the cat's ass then I personally would be a meat eater.

And I didn't say anyone did. I am simply talking about all those people, and there are lots of them, that think the natural world is some kind of Disney movie. It sure as shit ain't.

Thanks for your caring words though they mean a lot. You see like many farmers I get upset when an animal is sick, dies or is injured. But of course we livestock farmers are just heartless killers who only care about making a buck. You'd never find us caring for all the animals dropped off at our gates by urbanites who have grown tired of that no longer cute kitty or puppy that actually thinks it should be fed or walked or played with. The hundreds of dollars we have spent is just blood money after all. Let alone keeping older cows that are no longer 'economic' to die of old age in comfort when it is possible.

Sorry Michelle. I am not helping. I might as well just go to bed. I looked up possible solutions to coyote predation. The OSPCA, which I looked to for a more begiegn solution recomends fencing down into the ground 6 inches and locking the animals in the barn. That would destroy the wild turkey, and other creatures habitat, cost thousands, be up out of the ground by next spring and have a large detremental impact on the health of our herd. Idiocy like that gets my blood pressure to the boiling point.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 07:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Oh and Michelle - don't answer the question posed about farmpunk and I. I would prefer to think you view me as that dangerous kid in the back of the class that had that air of sexuality about him that drove evenone mad -boys and girls alike. Sort of a less fuzzy Arthur Fonzirelli

Oh you nasty boys!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 07:32 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:


Thanks for your caring words though they mean a lot. You see like many farmers I get upset when an animal is sick, dies or is injured. But of course we livestock farmers are just heartless killers who only care about making a buck. You'd never find us caring for all the animals dropped off at our gates by urbanites who have grown tired of that no longer cute kitty or puppy that actually thinks it should be fed or walked or played with. The hundreds of dollars we have spent is just blood money after all. Let alone keeping older cows that are no longer 'economic' to die of old age in comfort when it is possible.


This is about factory farming and slaughterhouses, for the most part. No one has said anything against farmers. And if you're caring for "dropped off" dogs and cats, I think well of you for it. Same with the old cows.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 August 2008 07:32 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Bottom line for me human kind before animal kind...seems pretty obvious
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 19 August 2008 07:36 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Bottom line for me human kind before animal kind...seems pretty obvious

Well, that settles it for me then!


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 07:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh but I love it when a complex issue can be resolved with a one-line knee-jerk response. Guess we can close the thread for length now!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca