In case you missed the bit of humor around the web last week - It comes to you courtesy of the animal ag industry that went into a tizzy when the Country Music Television channel sent out a twitter acknowledging World Vegetarian Day, and suggested a "meatfree" Monday as well. It played out like a similar panic that occurred last year, when a "meatfree Monday" was proposed by the U.S.D.A. It's evident that these carnists suffer from extreme vegophobia:
But don't let the farcical antics by the flesh-peddlers gag your voice. These three advocates and others, certainly aren't letting that happen! And they depend on their hands and sign language as a way to get their message heard:
ZimmySpiritual
amandamac3
DeafNutritionist Sandria Graham hosts the 2013 ASL Vegan Documentary Film
No matter how you're talking about justice and kindness... Please don't let the ridiculous, phobic and fearful, life-snuffers silence you. Speaking up for the world's most mistreated inhabitants is seriously needed. Thank you for doing so! ;)
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Feb 24, 2013
Vegans Have Evidence of Violence
It's fair to say that most of us require evidence to confirm our belief in something. Unquestionable, tangible, irrefutable facts turn belief into confirmed knowledge.
Take for instance decades ago people heard of the conditions inside experimental labs, circuses, factory farms and slaughterhouses, but the truth could be denied without proof. Most said those claims of wrong doing were just exaggerated lies. So brave whistle-blowers and activists penetrated those "science" horror dens and other gulags of torture to capture evidence in photos and on videos. It always is difficult to discredit what the eye can see.
But I've noticed several instances lately where the industry, politicians and profiteers of animal use are attempting to silence the whistle-blowers. And individuals too are making accusations that these Animal Rights activists are also guilty of sending "threatening" emails and electronic data meant to be hostile and "violent".
For example there was the accusation made by Green Mountain College, regarding the scheduled killing of oxen duo Bill and Lou. The accusation was that slaughterhouses were "barraged" by "threats from the animal rights activists" - So much so that they were intimidated from doing the job...
Evidence?
Another case is here on this MeatingPlace forum where industry blogger Emily Meredith's entry "Why can't we be friends?" writes: "Following the launch of my first blog post I received several emails that viciously attacked me personally. There’s no mistaking who these emails were from—they were from activists—and the authors of these emails were most certainly proud of their attempts to harass me. These emails were downright nasty..."
Evidence?
And finally there's an incident that occurred just a few days ago wherein an individual claimed that questioning the actions of an individual who butchers lambs is unkind and "violent". In this individual's mind - Regardless of how harmful others might be... To speak out against those wrongs doesn't spread "love".
So this individual claims that they were "viciously attacked" through their email box that included graphic images of aborted fetuses and slaughterhouse victims.
Evidence?
Now - My best advice to these individuals and anyone who has ever gotten such material is to document it! Publish it! Prove it!
Also - PLEASE RUN to the nearest law official and turn it over to the authorities! They have ways of tracing emails! And of course this would validate what you say is true. For your own safety and the peace of mind to your readers - You have an obligation to present factual proof that these allegations did indeed occur. Otherwise it leaves a broad streak of doubt that how can anything else you claim be accepted with confidence? I assure you - Those who would conduct themselves in such an ineffectual manner would be rejected by the AR community in no time flat!
Conversely in my years of knowing thousands of animal rights activists I've never met one who didn't approach the issues in the most intelligent, mature and upstanding ways. None who ever suggested violence. None who advocated or acted to inflict harm. In fact the opposite has taken place in my own experience. I've had my vehicle vandalized & bottles thrown at me in traffic because of my bumperstickers. I've been spit on at protests. I reported it.
I've been called "vegan *itch nazi", the "c" word and was told recently that I should be a "holocaust victim". I've received obnoxious comments on my blog and in email. I'd gladly post them if it served a purpose - Or if I took any of that nonsense seriously.
But most importantly - I'd certainly provide evidence to my audience if I fabricated a whole blog post around such accusations! What better way to vilify these folks than with evidence?
Finally it always troubles me to see so much negative chastisement surrounding those who advocate a vegan way of living. Contrary to the images that carnists wish to present of the blood-throwing, balaclava donning, bomb-making examples of animal rights advocates - Even "radical" ALF members have never harmed a single living being... Ever!
I believe these accusers are terribly misinformed about what an ethical vegan's motivations are. Most vegans consider themselves advocates of peace. And without justice there can be no peace! When innocent life is being exploited - Good people will always condemn that brutality. And when we do so - This is not violence. It is a shield and an outcry against it!
At the core we (animal right activists/vegans) all care about the wellbeing, safety and protection of sentient life. The same can't be said about the industries that breed life only to use and destroy it. Who really are the violent, hostile bullies? The evidence is any where you care to open your eyes to see it. Perhaps there is a time when we couldtolerate accept forgive love those who inflict harm to others - (?) - For now my sympathies and energies are dedicated to the victims:
I have evidence that they suffer violently - At our will.
Vegan Peace
Take for instance decades ago people heard of the conditions inside experimental labs, circuses, factory farms and slaughterhouses, but the truth could be denied without proof. Most said those claims of wrong doing were just exaggerated lies. So brave whistle-blowers and activists penetrated those "science" horror dens and other gulags of torture to capture evidence in photos and on videos. It always is difficult to discredit what the eye can see.
But I've noticed several instances lately where the industry, politicians and profiteers of animal use are attempting to silence the whistle-blowers. And individuals too are making accusations that these Animal Rights activists are also guilty of sending "threatening" emails and electronic data meant to be hostile and "violent".
For example there was the accusation made by Green Mountain College, regarding the scheduled killing of oxen duo Bill and Lou. The accusation was that slaughterhouses were "barraged" by "threats from the animal rights activists" - So much so that they were intimidated from doing the job...
Evidence?
Another case is here on this MeatingPlace forum where industry blogger Emily Meredith's entry "Why can't we be friends?" writes: "Following the launch of my first blog post I received several emails that viciously attacked me personally. There’s no mistaking who these emails were from—they were from activists—and the authors of these emails were most certainly proud of their attempts to harass me. These emails were downright nasty..."
Evidence?
And finally there's an incident that occurred just a few days ago wherein an individual claimed that questioning the actions of an individual who butchers lambs is unkind and "violent". In this individual's mind - Regardless of how harmful others might be... To speak out against those wrongs doesn't spread "love".
 |
| At all costs - Don't be controversial. |
Evidence?
Now - My best advice to these individuals and anyone who has ever gotten such material is to document it! Publish it! Prove it!
Also - PLEASE RUN to the nearest law official and turn it over to the authorities! They have ways of tracing emails! And of course this would validate what you say is true. For your own safety and the peace of mind to your readers - You have an obligation to present factual proof that these allegations did indeed occur. Otherwise it leaves a broad streak of doubt that how can anything else you claim be accepted with confidence? I assure you - Those who would conduct themselves in such an ineffectual manner would be rejected by the AR community in no time flat!
Conversely in my years of knowing thousands of animal rights activists I've never met one who didn't approach the issues in the most intelligent, mature and upstanding ways. None who ever suggested violence. None who advocated or acted to inflict harm. In fact the opposite has taken place in my own experience. I've had my vehicle vandalized & bottles thrown at me in traffic because of my bumperstickers. I've been spit on at protests. I reported it.
I've been called "vegan *itch nazi", the "c" word and was told recently that I should be a "holocaust victim". I've received obnoxious comments on my blog and in email. I'd gladly post them if it served a purpose - Or if I took any of that nonsense seriously.
But most importantly - I'd certainly provide evidence to my audience if I fabricated a whole blog post around such accusations! What better way to vilify these folks than with evidence?
Finally it always troubles me to see so much negative chastisement surrounding those who advocate a vegan way of living. Contrary to the images that carnists wish to present of the blood-throwing, balaclava donning, bomb-making examples of animal rights advocates - Even "radical" ALF members have never harmed a single living being... Ever!
I believe these accusers are terribly misinformed about what an ethical vegan's motivations are. Most vegans consider themselves advocates of peace. And without justice there can be no peace! When innocent life is being exploited - Good people will always condemn that brutality. And when we do so - This is not violence. It is a shield and an outcry against it!
At the core we (animal right activists/vegans) all care about the wellbeing, safety and protection of sentient life. The same can't be said about the industries that breed life only to use and destroy it. Who really are the violent, hostile bullies? The evidence is any where you care to open your eyes to see it. Perhaps there is a time when we could
I have evidence that they suffer violently - At our will.
Vegan Peace
Aug 11, 2012
What Happens on a CAFO - Stays on a CAFO
It's no news that factory farms went to extreme measures to keep activists from filming what goes on inside their "food-growing" warehouses and dungeons. Yes they wanted to make it a felony to photograph any of their prisoners and the conditions that these sentient beings were stored and fattened under.
However AR organizations who conduct under-cover investigations need not feel so singled out... Seems that even the EPA is being repremanded from filming the potential dumping of toxic waste from these operations. And so it began with a letter sent to the EPA in May, 2012.
But According to the EPA:
But According to the EPA:
Surveillance flights began in 2010 in Iowa and 2011 in Nebraska. The EPA has conducted seven flights in Iowa and nine in Nebraska.
Though aerial surveillance is used by the agency in other parts of the country, the EPA has not flown over livestock operations in Kansas or Missouri, the two other states in Region 7. It has focused on Iowa and Nebraska because those states have a greater number of what are called concentrated livestock feeding operations situated in watersheds with histories of contamination.
The planes usually maintain altitudes of 1,200 to 1,500 feet. The EPA alerts state environmental agencies before it takes to the air, but does not notify livestock owners. Photos taken during a flight are evaluated to see if it appears livestock waste is being discharged into streams, ponds or lakes. The agency is looking for runoff of livestock waste, a potential violation of the federal Clean Water Act.
The EPA does not levy fines or take other enforcement actions against a livestock producer based solely on photos, the agency said. If the photos indicate potential problems, an inspection is done at the site to determine if violations have occurred. The flights have identified potential problems, and in some cases, serious contamination, that were subsequently investigated through on-site inspections.So far more than 90 percent of the operations viewed by air have been in compliance. By eliminating the need for on-site inspections at these operations, the flyovers have saved money.
And the EPA justifies it because "Snapping photos of livestock farms from an airplane is a legal and cost-effective way to help protect Nebraska and Iowa streams from runoff contamination, say officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” That's why the EPA exists - Right?
But some folks don't like that idea at all: "Well, that’s just fantastic! So, the Nazi Gestapo, the Soviet KGB, and Oceania’s telescreens are fine, as long as they’re ‘cost-efficient’. Sure, the EPA can violate a few hundred years of checks and balances, all in an attempt to save Mother Earth, as long as they make it inexpensive for the taxpayer. Now, I’m off to set up a giant tarp over my backyard, just to be an annoyance." Spiteful fellow - Aye?
So to put an end to any possible legal monitoring, a grand cover up (beyond a giant tarp) is proposed by way of a bill that will ban EPA Aerial Surveillance, backed by Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE).
1st Amendment Rights and freedom of the press were compromised in the making of these ag-gag laws... I'm sure they will be challenged sometime in the future... But I don't know how such restrictions will be placed on the EPA being that their duty is to document possible infractions. And too there is precedent that gives the EPA authority to protect the environment with aerial surveillance.
In 1986 in DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227, the Supreme Court found that the EPA observation flights were legal in taking photos of that chemical manufacturing facility. The conclusion was that the EPA is charged to use cost effective, modern technology to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act.
Surprise! Surprise! This appears to be yet one more example of the ranchers and harmers wanting to operate above law and outside of public awareness.
The meat/dairy/egg industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars (and lots of political pull) lying to the public about their product. But no amount of cover up or false propaganda can sanitize meat. The facts are absolutely clear: Eating meat is bad for human health, catastrophic for the environment, and a living nightmare for animals. There's never been more compelling reasons or a better time to opt for a plant based diet.
Want to create a better world? Eat like you mean it - Go Vegan!
Art by Sue Coe
But some folks don't like that idea at all: "Well, that’s just fantastic! So, the Nazi Gestapo, the Soviet KGB, and Oceania’s telescreens are fine, as long as they’re ‘cost-efficient’. Sure, the EPA can violate a few hundred years of checks and balances, all in an attempt to save Mother Earth, as long as they make it inexpensive for the taxpayer. Now, I’m off to set up a giant tarp over my backyard, just to be an annoyance." Spiteful fellow - Aye?
So to put an end to any possible legal monitoring, a grand cover up (beyond a giant tarp) is proposed by way of a bill that will ban EPA Aerial Surveillance, backed by Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE).
1st Amendment Rights and freedom of the press were compromised in the making of these ag-gag laws... I'm sure they will be challenged sometime in the future... But I don't know how such restrictions will be placed on the EPA being that their duty is to document possible infractions. And too there is precedent that gives the EPA authority to protect the environment with aerial surveillance.
In 1986 in DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227, the Supreme Court found that the EPA observation flights were legal in taking photos of that chemical manufacturing facility. The conclusion was that the EPA is charged to use cost effective, modern technology to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act.
The meat/dairy/egg industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars (and lots of political pull) lying to the public about their product. But no amount of cover up or false propaganda can sanitize meat. The facts are absolutely clear: Eating meat is bad for human health, catastrophic for the environment, and a living nightmare for animals. There's never been more compelling reasons or a better time to opt for a plant based diet.
Want to create a better world? Eat like you mean it - Go Vegan!
Art by Sue Coe
Jun 6, 2011
Farm & Dairy, Silver Spurs - These Are The Free Speech Saboteurs
Up until a few days ago I was actively engaged in a discussion at the Farm and Dairy site. Now, I'm no stranger to censorship on these animal ag sites... On too many occasions to count, I've been cut off in mid thought - Coincidentally, the "last word" is always had by one of their gang. So be it. But this is the beauty of the internet - I can post my responses here instead. I think they are worthy of consideration.
We were debating if vegetation could be grown without the use of industrial animal agriculture. And without laboring over the background conversation the final points I wanted to make to "TY" are in bold.
Warning - For some it might be a gruesome subject:
Ty said: The only way to capture the nitrogen potential would be to macerate, sterilize,and reconstitute...
My reply:
I am not a chemist or biologist but I know that the sooner a cadaver returns to the soil the quicker the worms eat... And the sooner the "cycle" begins.
Now if this more natural mode is riddled with hazards why are green burials becoming so popular?
There are environmentally friendly ways of disposing of human remains that would benefit the permaculture.
Bio-cremations or "resomations" are certainly fertilizing the lawns in a Florida facility!
And in the U.K. there's Promessa: "The primary principles are preservation after death in organic form and shallow burial in living soil that quickly converts us to mulch."
So I disagree - I do think we are culturally ready to think of more renewable things to do with our dead bodies. And given enough funding and study it just might replace animal waste after all.
I wish you well Ty. I hold no bitterness towards you... I think you are bright and that you have a mind strong enough to inquire ideologies further.
We were debating if vegetation could be grown without the use of industrial animal agriculture. And without laboring over the background conversation the final points I wanted to make to "TY" are in bold.
Warning - For some it might be a gruesome subject:
Ty said: The only way to capture the nitrogen potential would be to macerate, sterilize,and reconstitute...
My reply:
I am not a chemist or biologist but I know that the sooner a cadaver returns to the soil the quicker the worms eat... And the sooner the "cycle" begins.
Now if this more natural mode is riddled with hazards why are green burials becoming so popular?
There are environmentally friendly ways of disposing of human remains that would benefit the permaculture.
Bio-cremations or "resomations" are certainly fertilizing the lawns in a Florida facility!
And in the U.K. there's Promessa: "The primary principles are preservation after death in organic form and shallow burial in living soil that quickly converts us to mulch."
So I disagree - I do think we are culturally ready to think of more renewable things to do with our dead bodies. And given enough funding and study it just might replace animal waste after all.
*************************
I think it's easy to see why I became frustrated by not being given the space to reply. I think I had some valid points... But this is how the animal users work on the web... Now let's see how they act in the real world:
I attended the protest at Silver Spurs Rodeo last night... To the right of the photo below is The Florida Cattlemen's building.
This demonstration was just a small group, holding signs in a peaceful, orderly, LEGAL way. I smiled and waved... We all did. It was an effort to just get people to THINK about the possibility that cows, calves, bulls and horses were being needlessly "used" for harmful and frivolous amusement. It was an attempt to get people to WAKE UP from their thoughtless ignorance. That's it.
There were cars and trucks that passed by us... Some with horses being sent possibly to their doom should an "unfortunate" "accident" happen. Still, our small group stood in quiet calm.
But many of these trucks with tires taller than my vehicle - spit and threw used chewing tobacco at us. They shouted obscenities. They cussed and gave us the finger... They spun their wheels so as to kick up pebbles and rocks in our faces... The gunned their engines and left clouds of black smoke as they sped off towards the parking lot. Many had children in the cars as well. They were brutish. Angry. Aggressive and hostile.
It wouldn't be a stretch that if possible, they would have stomped and slammed on us physically so that our message would be silenced. I am sure in the same way that they think nothing of harming innocent "rodeo" animals, they'd think nothing of tyrannizing us too. You see that's the way it goes when you run roughshod over those "smaller" than you - When you're a bully - Everyone's is game and nothing's too petty.
And let it be no surprise to anyone that these thugs are also the first to call activists "communists", "liberals", "radicals", troublemakers, terrorists and un-American. But look how they represent themselves! On line or not... It is the voice of reason and compassion they suppress... It is the very first order of Free Speech which they deny and attack.
I'm sure their mothers didn't raise them that way... And I'd bet anything even the Florida Crackers who actually did drive the cattle through the swamps way back when would be aghast at the uncivil display of rude childishness. As for me, I've paid my taxes to the "Sunshine State" for almost 40 years - and I hang my head in embarrassment for I've truly seen the underbelly of it all at the Silver Spurs sham. Just pitiful.
*********************
I hope the information about the possibility of growing REAL food without the need of killing animals is useful knowledge... As for anyone else even considering spending their valuable time or money in Florida, as you can see we're not the progressive, civilized state you think we are. We're knee-deep in hillbillies that abuse animals as "things" just 20 minutes from the zipitee-do-da "magical" kingdom where they eat them all day.
La-la-land for sure. :/
Feb 4, 2010
VEGAN MUST AIR DAIRY 'S DIRTY LAUNDRY
I wasn't even going to blog about the Mercy For Animals dairy investigation. I figured enough had been said about it:
ABC'sWorld News Tonight with Diane Sawyer and Nightline,CNN, and hundreds of newspapers, radio and television news networks from coast-to-coast featured the investigation, including the
Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and Forbes.
But when my comments were restricted from being heard on the Dairy Goddess blog site I am compelled to reply here.
However before doing so, I must say, in all my blogging - or communicating in any form -I've never attempted to silence my opponents viewpoint. I've invited everyone no matter what their opinions. I've never omitted, refused, trashed or deleted any one's input - Even if some comments are embarrassing to the author. I figure, if my position is worthy it will stand up to any critic and hold its own merit.
I really don't know why my comments were snuffed by the Dairy Goddess blog. It's not like it costs the blog owner time, or money - or even noticeable bandwidth. And I wasn't untruthful, irrelevant, vulgar, disrespectful, brash or crude either... 
My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future.
So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here:
In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws.
Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole.
There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh...
Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so".
Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both."
The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc.
I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion.
I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway???
The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals.
The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – "
I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign.
S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t."
And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so.
Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live."
And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat".
I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate.
photo: Washday- my backyard
My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future.
So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here:
In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws.
Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole.
There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh...
Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so".
Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both."
The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc.
I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion.
I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway???
The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals.
The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – "
I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign.
S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t."
And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so.
Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live."
And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat".
I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate.
photo: Washday- my backyard
Nov 6, 2008
An Open Challenge to Advocates for Animal Agriculture and Meat Industry
As I posted before - It seems that the animal agriculture and meat industry feel like their views aren't being presented.
I find that hard to believe as untold dollars are spent on their behalf through "pork check-off" and "beef check-off" campaigns as well as numerous class activities meant to inform children about animal farming and about the benefit of their dairy & meat products. And lets not forget the constant onslaught of advertising on tv, radio, billboards, etc. I have a difficult time navigating 2 blocks anywhere without a dairy truck or fast-food-meat-menu restaurant...
I have attempted on several occasions to contribute comments to Troy Hadrick's blog. The most recent in response to a post he left here at another animal agriculture site whose topic is the PETA Hormel investigation. So all of us... are invited to "share our concerns" with the informed members of the industry.
Mr. Hadrick said: "If these allegations are true, this is in no way acceptable behavior. Any person who believes in and practices animal husbandry would not do this to their animals. These rare instances of farm animal abuse do no represent the overwhelming majority of livestock producers who realize how vitally important it is to handle their animals in the proper way. There are a couple of things we should take home from this video. First, it is fortunate that we have the regulations in place to handle abusive situations in this country. If animal agriculture is forced out of this country, most other places don't have the laws in place to prevent and punish this type of behavior. We lose control of how animals are treated if they leave this country. Second, the AP article interviewed the undercover investigator and he said how he had to use all his willpower to not do anything about the alleged abuse. My question to him would be this, was shooting the video more important than stopping the abuse? Was his organization more important than protecting the animal? I believe anyone of us would have stepped in to stop these actions rather than being worried about getting good footage."
This is my response:
Hello Mr. Hadrick - These actions and abuses ceased to be "allegations" once the footage was made. You saw... the lame and cripple pigs, the ones who couldn't stand... the ones dragging their hind quarters paralyzed from a life of brutalities... The brutalities in the chain of animal "husbandry", "animal agriculture", factory farming, feedlots, hog barns, poultry houses, livestock trucking, stockyards, "packing houses" then finally the knocking box... This is the chain "domestic use" "food" animals are in. (Not unlike the Hallmark fork-lifted, water-boarded cows)... Little concern is given to these beasts... They are commodities and there's bottom line and all that... As long as the whole (hog, poultry, dairy/cow) barn makes a profit, there's little grief over the "expected" and acceptable rate of mortality of a few dozens/hundreds "individuals". These animals are bred, grown, finished, slaughtered and packaged as lickity-split as can be. You say (as a representative of the industry) that if the animal ag industry were to be forced out of the country - we will have "no control" in the way of their (better) treatment"... In other words, it's these "generous" laws and regulations that exist here in the good old "Humane Slaughter-Act of the U.S.D.A." that insures these (food) animals will "continue" to be treated "kindly"... before (and during) their slaughter... I'm sure these "food" animals are very thankful for your concerns... moments before and during their slaughter...
Stopping this video for the pig's (cow's or chicken's) "protection" is misinforming... Her "protection" has been denied to her thousands of years ago when she was first claimed as "property". Man's "use" and man's "need" trump all her interests, all-the-time, ever since. This video simply documents a nano-moment in the animal "husbandry" business. Hers was the sad fate of billions before her... and untold billions to come...
And finally, I commend you for having such high views of your institution and your colleagues... But if any of you were really *serious* about stopping abuse you would never, ever be in the line of business you're in and you certainly wouldn't be chowing down on pieces of flesh that used to be their bodies. The entire animal/"food"/meat industry thrives on smoke and mirrors. It perpetuates myths with government grants, subsidies, tax incentives and of course... the government is the meat industry's largest customer as well... so that's enough about who's guarding the hen-house.
I have been on your blog site several times Mr. Hadrick... I've left civilized, mannerly comments and replies to your postings - yet you have always declined permission for my response. This (censorship) seems typical of the animal agriculture industry thus far.
I will continue this conversation further on my blog - along with an open challenge to any/all representatives of the "animal husbandry" field. All are welcome to contribute views on my site.
Stay tuned for more invitations to the animal agriculture and meat industry... I really would love to have an open debate to insure that every one's views are heard.
I find that hard to believe as untold dollars are spent on their behalf through "pork check-off" and "beef check-off" campaigns as well as numerous class activities meant to inform children about animal farming and about the benefit of their dairy & meat products. And lets not forget the constant onslaught of advertising on tv, radio, billboards, etc. I have a difficult time navigating 2 blocks anywhere without a dairy truck or fast-food-meat-menu restaurant...
I have attempted on several occasions to contribute comments to Troy Hadrick's blog. The most recent in response to a post he left here at another animal agriculture site whose topic is the PETA Hormel investigation. So all of us... are invited to "share our concerns" with the informed members of the industry.
Mr. Hadrick said: "If these allegations are true, this is in no way acceptable behavior. Any person who believes in and practices animal husbandry would not do this to their animals. These rare instances of farm animal abuse do no represent the overwhelming majority of livestock producers who realize how vitally important it is to handle their animals in the proper way. There are a couple of things we should take home from this video. First, it is fortunate that we have the regulations in place to handle abusive situations in this country. If animal agriculture is forced out of this country, most other places don't have the laws in place to prevent and punish this type of behavior. We lose control of how animals are treated if they leave this country. Second, the AP article interviewed the undercover investigator and he said how he had to use all his willpower to not do anything about the alleged abuse. My question to him would be this, was shooting the video more important than stopping the abuse? Was his organization more important than protecting the animal? I believe anyone of us would have stepped in to stop these actions rather than being worried about getting good footage."
This is my response:
Hello Mr. Hadrick - These actions and abuses ceased to be "allegations" once the footage was made. You saw... the lame and cripple pigs, the ones who couldn't stand... the ones dragging their hind quarters paralyzed from a life of brutalities... The brutalities in the chain of animal "husbandry", "animal agriculture", factory farming, feedlots, hog barns, poultry houses, livestock trucking, stockyards, "packing houses" then finally the knocking box... This is the chain "domestic use" "food" animals are in. (Not unlike the Hallmark fork-lifted, water-boarded cows)... Little concern is given to these beasts... They are commodities and there's bottom line and all that... As long as the whole (hog, poultry, dairy/cow) barn makes a profit, there's little grief over the "expected" and acceptable rate of mortality of a few dozens/hundreds "individuals". These animals are bred, grown, finished, slaughtered and packaged as lickity-split as can be. You say (as a representative of the industry) that if the animal ag industry were to be forced out of the country - we will have "no control" in the way of their (better) treatment"... In other words, it's these "generous" laws and regulations that exist here in the good old "Humane Slaughter-Act of the U.S.D.A." that insures these (food) animals will "continue" to be treated "kindly"... before (and during) their slaughter... I'm sure these "food" animals are very thankful for your concerns... moments before and during their slaughter...
Stopping this video for the pig's (cow's or chicken's) "protection" is misinforming... Her "protection" has been denied to her thousands of years ago when she was first claimed as "property". Man's "use" and man's "need" trump all her interests, all-the-time, ever since. This video simply documents a nano-moment in the animal "husbandry" business. Hers was the sad fate of billions before her... and untold billions to come...
And finally, I commend you for having such high views of your institution and your colleagues... But if any of you were really *serious* about stopping abuse you would never, ever be in the line of business you're in and you certainly wouldn't be chowing down on pieces of flesh that used to be their bodies. The entire animal/"food"/meat industry thrives on smoke and mirrors. It perpetuates myths with government grants, subsidies, tax incentives and of course... the government is the meat industry's largest customer as well... so that's enough about who's guarding the hen-house.
I have been on your blog site several times Mr. Hadrick... I've left civilized, mannerly comments and replies to your postings - yet you have always declined permission for my response. This (censorship) seems typical of the animal agriculture industry thus far.
I will continue this conversation further on my blog - along with an open challenge to any/all representatives of the "animal husbandry" field. All are welcome to contribute views on my site.
Stay tuned for more invitations to the animal agriculture and meat industry... I really would love to have an open debate to insure that every one's views are heard.
Oct 15, 2008
Youtube and Arbitrary Censorship
Within a month of discovering the truth about how I had been living a lifetime of contradictions concerning animals I was moved to make a video showing the hypocrisy that I had been made aware of. A video that had over 50 comments and was viewed over 7500 times... After 9 months being hosted at Youtube - I was sited for this video as it "violated the terms and use of Youtube"... This video was flagged because the contents were "too graphic". I still am rather confused why my video was removed - there are certainly other video with much more horrific images than mine... I've come to realize since that it wasn't the images but rather that I pointedly exposed the contradictions in the way we treat "pet animals" as opposed to "food animals". I was also amazed that these images were considered "too graphic" as the scenes were obtained from USDA approved slaughterhouses... You know, where they do "humane" killing of (some) animals for "food". In any case, there are dozens of alternative video hosting sites that I was able to upload my video to:
Vegan - Moral Hypocrasy - Pet vs Farmed Food Animal from I'mvegan2 on Vimeo.
So if any meat eaters find this too much to handle remember... all scenes originated at USDA facilities - you might want to question your approval of these practices in your own ethics. “Remember what is unbecoming to do is also unbecoming to speak of” Socrates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)