What's Fur Got To Do With Love?

The clip below was posted by vegan advocate Jordan Wyatt who is a member of the Invercargill Vegan Society and who hosts the podcast Co-existing With Nonhumans Animals.

The debate on Prime Time Irish TV show asks whether it makes any difference whether we kill animals for the skin or for their meat?

And as Jordon observes this woman who grew up on a "fur farm", actually makes a case for Veganism.

She also makes it clear that the way these farmers "love" their animals is no different than the way others who "use" nonhumans "love" their animals too!



You'll be convinced at her "love" ten seconds in, when she giggles before acknowledging that she has skinned the minks as well.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! Upton Sinclair

At thirty seconds she says that this can't be cruel because there's 1400 fur farmers in Denmark. She rhetorically asks "How can they justify it if they thought it was cruel?" 
If one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people. -Ruth Harrison

"They LOVE their animals!"

According to her because they do this job everyday, they can't possibly not "love" those animals. 
Whenever people say, ‘We mustn’t be sentimental,’ you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add, ‘We must be realistic,’ they mean they are going to make money out of it." - Brigid Brophy

She states the "love" these farmers have throughout the breeding and skinning seasons... 
People who claim to "love" animals while paying workers to harm and kill animals for their enjoyment are frankly delusional. I sure hope none of these people ever "love" me. - Jo Tyler

She concludes that there is no difference between "loving" these fur animals or "loving" the animals used for meat, milk and eggs. She's certainly right there... 
There is no moral distinction between fur and other materials made from animals, such as leather, which also is the result of the suffering and death of sentient beings. - Gary L. Francione 

In her mind it's all okay because we've always done it. "It's in our nature."
In the course of his development towards culture man acquired a dominating position over his fellow-creatures in the animal kingdom. Not content with this supremacy, however, he began to place a gulf between his nature and theirs. He denied the possession of reason to them, and to himself he attributed an immortal soul, and made claims to a divine descent which permitted him to annihilate the bond of community between him and the animal kingdom. - Sigmund Freud 

Their "love" it appears, is all about the devotion of confining these animals in tiny cages, denying them of their freedom, their babies and eventually - their hides and their lives. 

But of course this MUST be "love"... Of money.
Our economic order is tightly woven around the exploitation of animals, and while it may seem easy to dismiss concern about animals as the soft-headed mental masturbation of people who really don't understand oppression and the depths of actual human misery, I hope to get you to think differently about suffering and pain, to convince you that animals matter, and to argue that anyone serious about ending domination and hierarchy needs to think critically about bringing animals into consideration.” - Bob Torres

Whether it's fur, food or "fun". Please think critically. Please think kindly. Please think. Go Vegan.

A Look At Portentous and Pretentious Holy Meat

I've been told a time or two that I have an unconventional sense of humor and that's nothing that I can argue with. And so when I read about the pope meeting with Jewish religious leaders, to discuss which method of animal slaughter is the "god-approved" way, I couldn't help but see the twist of a joke that needed to be teased out.

So here's my look at the conversation:

And should anyone find my opinion irreverent, so be it. I can only add my dismay that others can't see the absurd vulgarity in even speculating the "right" way to do such an evil deed as snuffing the life of an innocent! 

Look at the photo that shows them with smiles and exchanging pleasantries, while they determine the merciless fate of countless victims. Shame on anyone who professes to be enlightened while fabricating methods to make blood-shed sacred! No matter how it's done, the deliberate act of animal murder and meat eating lacks compassionate wisdom, and is void of dignity. It appeases the most base, mindless gluttony while presenting a sham of virtue. It's not hallowed. It's hollow! It's not divine! It's depraved! It's not sacred. It's sinister! Needless killing is not a magnificent ideal! It's a morally bankrupt impoverishment!

Venerate life. Live Vegan!

The Honesty of Being Vegan - Let's Shake on it!

Some of the time it's just amusing for me to look at the language the animal industries use... Words never are quite what most of us would think they should be. "Friendly fire" anyone?

In the case of the dairy folks this comes from the March issue of their online magazine:

You'd think with a lead like this it was an article in Parent's Magazine or New Nursing Mom or something... I mean honestly? Dear dairy folks and consumers: Is any cow's mammary secretions - That she makes for her own calf really "yours"??? 

Must be like the uneasy financial news for hogs. In truth pigs could give an oink about any exploiter's profits. :/

And here's some other things that the pork folks are talking about using a twisted kind of double speak:

They say that the profits are all on "her back":

But closer to the truth is that her little ones are all on their backs ---

Getting their wee tails cut off all while animal "welfare" in the slaughterhouses is being discussed!

And speaking of animal "welfare" in slaughterhouses... Here's what's happening in cheap-speak from the "poultry" folks. {my bold thoughts in brackets}:

"Having been safely {safely? whose safe here?} held in the lairage, the birds will then be moved to the hand-on point. Ensure that the baskets/modules are handled carefully {handle the baskets carefully - but certainly NOT the birds!} and that all operations are completed smoothly. The hand-on point is critical to the bird's welfare {eye roll}. Staff must be trained to shackle birds with minimal force {minimal force? Just enough to end their lives.} and ensure that both the bird's legs are located in the shackles. As part of the shackling process staff should be encourage to momentarily calm each bird by placing a  hand on the bird's back. {LIE! With 10,000 chickens murdered per hour they want the public to think that each individual bird is "calmed"?} Good shackling practice will not only reduce bird stress, but also minimise flapping that can cause haemorrhages in the breast muscle, so adversely affecting the quality."

"The line should be designed with a breast comforter..."

{Odd isn't it? That the kill line should be equipped with a breast comforter?} :/

"The final welfare check should be made at the exit of the stunner." {Really??? We're checking for "welfare" after the electrical bath and pre-neck slitting? LMAO!!!}

The article concludes:
"It's a good investment to take time to look at the slaughter line in detail as the benefits to the bird and your business can be significant."
page 6/7 Poultry Digital

{Yeah right --- A slaughter line that's to the "benefit" of the birds... My tush!}

No surprise but even the "beef" people want to convince their flesh-eating customers of cow "welfare":

From the video of Kansas State University Veterinarian Dan Thomson

Truth is --- Everyone wants in on the idea of "careful", "humane", "welfare" for animals - But honestly - There's only one way to do it: 

You can shake on it and go vegan!

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". 

At all costs - Don't be controversial.

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 could tolerate  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

The Irony... What's So Different About Other Species?

Let's see how other animals differ from us... 

We both have physical bodies - Check.
These bodies consist of attributes that allow us to see, hear, taste, etc. - Check
We both have tissue that has nerves, cells, skeltal structure, muscles, even blood color is the same! - Check
We both feel pleasure and pain. Can suffer and feel happiness. - Check and check
To different degrees - Some nonhumans nurture their young more devotedly than humans do...
And some mate for life: 

Whereas humans often don't.  Check.

And it's not the use of tools, self recognition, or anything else that distinguishes "us" to be better than "them". Enough to use them the way we do. It's simply is that we can call the shots.


The thing though is that many hinge the "supremacy" of man over non-man on something they claim humans do possess but other animals don't. ...A soul! And isn't it so fortunate for these folks that the very thing that gives us the right and power over innocent others is totally subjective and invisible?

Oh the irony!

This Vegan Doesn't Get Nice, Holy Killing

Holy and home-style slaughter... There's a lot of that going around these days. In fact each November marks the beginning of a two month long blood bath of victims that will either be killed to serve "religious" custom or gustatory delight. In any case, seems like everyone wants to get in on doing it "nicely" themselves.



For instance, from The Jakarta Post: City gives all sacrificial animals a nice, clean bill of health - 10,796 cows, 964 buffaloes, 47,618 goats and 3,450 sheep were killed on one day mostly by do-it-yourselfers...


In Kuwait "My family will feast on this sheep tonight," said one Kuwaiti customer, Salah, who planned to slaughter the animal at his house. "It's fine. This is Halal."


"I will slaughter the animal in my house, because it's better for the children to see it." (Isn't that nice?)


In Spain there is the (nice) Festival of Sacrifice - Killing of Lambs


And all over the U.S. (nice) hunters will begin their annual gutting and "dressing" of their kill over picnic tables and in their garages... Just in Michigan alone hunters are expected to kill 275,000-300,000 during the firearms season that opens tomorrow...  More than half of the deer killed will be shot on the first two days, and a large percentage of them during the first minutes after dawn. Yeah... They even take their kids out of school for the (nice) experience.  


Yep, the blood sure does spill - And everyone wants to get into the act! "Nicely" of course as this Equal Time Radio interview indicates. Just 3 minutes into the discussion I heard the word used 9 times! Yes, everything about killing animals up close and personal is so very "nice".


And just think for those planning a "nice" turkey-dinner, (who can't participate in the holy-bloodletting event themselves), are paying someone else this very moment to do the deed for them!  Of course - It's all so very nice.


nice

   [nahys]  Show IPA

adjective, nic·er, nic·est.

1.

pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit.

2.

amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.


Synonyms: friendly, delicate, exact, polite. 

I suppose then, that the antonyms: unpleasant,  unkind, careless and rude would apply to those who don't kill or don't pay others to kill for them.  

You know who I think is rude? People who abuse animals. Killing an animal and eating its decomposing body could at the very least be described as “rude”. Am I rude for bringing this reality to these people’s attention? Perhaps they may view it as such simply because it is unpleasant news to be confronted with. For them to call me rude for bringing this up is simply the pot calling the kettle black. ~Vegan Rabbit

Yep, that's us alright... vegans who'd rather live another way... Apparently we're rude and not so "nice". 


So as these "holy" days advance I think it's fair warning for me to fess up and admit I just don't speak the same language as others do!  


And since this is the case - Please, family, friends and neighbors spare me the confusion when you tell me how "nice" it was that your brother shared his venison with you... Keep me from being embarrassed and bewildered when you say how "careful" you are because you source "free range" eggs... Refrain from telling me how your God will offer you mercy because you "humanely" slit the throat of a lamb... I confess!  I don't understand a word you say!  


When you tell me you're planning a "nice" Thanksgiving... I haven't a clue what you're talking about!  And quite frankly... I don't want to learn your pleasant language anyway. But I do understand Benjamin Zephaniah who knows how to talk turkey AND how to be sincerely nice! 


So in your festivities and celebrations that gorge on "compassionate" murder... Consider me uncommunicative and unable to comprehend you.  Oh yeah and if you're killing animals?... 
Be sure to 

               !

HUMANS EATING HUMANS - Survival Without Choice

Was it something I said? Here's what happened. Last night, I was watching this wonderful movie - Defiance. Without giving away this true story... it's based upon the lives of hundreds of Jewish, Nazi refugees who escaped into a forest and lived there for over 2 years. While they lived in these woods, there were desperate situations without food... Through the desolation of subzero winters; they were all starving... Any attempt to procure food from a distant village, would risk death to those who tried, and possibly expose those who remained hidden. Meanwhile members of the group were dying - from the elements and from starvation... At this point in the film, we all took a stretch break... and I stated what I thought was the obvious: People dying... People starving - You fill in the blanks... No, I was not talking about the horrific act of man killing; these lives were already gone. They already paid the ultimate price for birth... and left behind a dead, unfeeling corpse - which could save lives. And I didn't mean to be upsetting either... only that this seemed like an obvious solution in this situation of survival... Yet my suggestion was met with absolute repugnance! And I agree totally (to the extent that I consider any flesh unappetizing)... But we were discussing humans eating humans for the lack of anything else. We weren't examining the sadistic depravity (or violence) that's needed to satisfy the appetite of a Dahmer. No, this scenario I presented, had no innocent victims... Just a group who's only option at life was to consume the dead... the human dead... I brought up the soccer team whose plane crashed in the Andes. Their story, told in "Stranded", accounts for their experiences of survival. The most desperate was their need for food. And under this circumstance, they had to redefine what (and who) becomes "food"... But again, they had no choice. In order to survive they had to eat. And most people, if they are honest would say they'd do the same. There really is no ethical problem here... Need and survival trump everything... And even if the "harm" were in the "desecration of the sanctity" of (human) life"... still, it was done for the sake of saving human life... and would be justified by most as "necessity". Yet, this group of people, who winced at human flesh eating, even through non-violent necessity, are the same ones who have no compunction to cause horrific pain and suffering, and the greatest of harm to innocent beings... through the foods they choose to consume. Not for survival or for lack of any other option... but for whim and trivial fancy. For taste. There is absolutely no "survival" issue for this group of people... They represent and share in the abundance of civilization... and the easy array of choice. Still, they accept (and encourage) in each other, the social license to kill the innocent - for pleasure-- And I am the barbarian for suggesting eating a human corpse... for survival? Twisted.

Thoughts on the Animal Exploitation Tree

After reading "Picking the Low-Hanging Fruit": What is Wrong with Single Issue Campaigns? Posted by Dan at UnPopular Vegan Essays I'd like to respond with this: Dan, I agree that SIC actually promote speciesism. Seals trump caged mink, puppy mills trump hog houses and equines trump bovines. You're also correct in your analysis of how SIC raises (and wastes) precious funds that should be used to advocate veganism. Energy that could be used to promote abolitionism. I appreciate your analogy of "the animal exploitation tree". Huge investments are tied into welfare "campaigns" and "propositions", just to net a bigger piece of paper for chickens to stand on. One could build a career (or an empire) crusading for a few more inches every few years, couldn't they? And now that you know I'm aware of the evils of "low hanging fruit"... Of "compromise". That I too am frustrated (and angry) that we aren't (all) striking at the obvious and critical "root". That we (all) aren't using "creative and intelligent ways to get our (vegan) message across". That animal exploitation might continue to infinity. That they (the animals to whom we are kin) - are forever destined to abuse... to pain and suffering. It is seeing this possibility that makes their plight ever more urgent - and makes most of our efforts seem that much more inadequate. We are silenced by their moral apathy... by their pragmatism. It really stinks when those who profess to be champions for animals are the very ones that delay their liberties... Your outrage is heard - and echoed. But for my own sanity... and the "practicality" of the matter - I try to ignore the "campaigns" and "propositions", and their hollow "victories". I think animal abuse (and "ownership") is so pervasive in our culture that it will take all efforts coming from every direction imaginable to create "change". Sadly, there will be much time and many resources wasted on the way. I've come to recognize that they (who pick the low fruit), may be necessary (and unavoidable) increments to change. In my perfect world - All injustices would be now be axed till the jungle of exploitation was leveled. But in reality, I must allow others to "prune" what they will... This picking of low-hanging fruit, and pruning will provide clear access (someday) to the essential root... BTW I discovered "factory farms"/"veganism" through a PETA site. I hardly knew what "PETA" was, but was directed there by a friend when I mentioned "circus tickets". I never knew about any of it - the animal abuse... the caged pigs, chickens and calves... My friend was (and is still) an omnivore. She had sympathy for the elephant, but not the cow (?). This illustrates the all too common speciesist, "moral coma" you brilliantly coined. Most do not want their "privileges" challenged. Others, decide differently. Patience...

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