If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Problem: Farm animals are being abused while being taken to slaughter, do you A. Impose higher standards for animal welfare B. Prosecute those responsible for animal abuse or C. Make it illegal to record videos at the slaughterhouse   (foxnews.com) divider line 159
    More: Sick, standards, slaughter, video cameras, American Legislative Exchange Council, HSUS, state legislators, California State University-Chico  
•       •       •

4743 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2013 at 3:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-18 04:40:11 AM  

Bumblefark: Gawdzila: feckingmorons: Those who mistreat animals, even the animals we use as food are scumbags.

Yeah, this.
I don't have any moral issue with eating meat as I simply don't believe (no matter how much I love my pets) that animals are equivalent to persons, but I'm certainly not callous enough to think that they don't feel pain.  I don't want my meat tortured before I eat it, and anyone who would do such a thing must have a sense of empathy that is defective on an almost sociopathic level.  It is often mentioned (and it is true) that animal torture is a common behavior for young psycho/sociopaths.

It's also a common behavior for those who have a hand in bringing meat to market. Curiously enough, folks who raise/slaughter livestock for a living aren't so delicate in their sensibilities as the vast majority of people who benefit from their labors...

Sorry to say, your diet hinges on a whole lot of people you'd probably rather not associate with. By necessity...


Pretty much this.

My best friend grew up and worked on his family's dairy farm, and they certainly didn't mistreat their animals. They were valuable economic assets which provided a necessary commodity. But they weren't tucked into comfy beds in a cozy house every night, either. And they raised veal calves (since male calves are pretty useless on a dairy farm). The little guys got raised on 20' chains in little sheds till they were big enough to slaughter.

That said, nobody wants to hand slaughter animals over to people who want to torture them to death. But moving a large number of very unintelligent animals into what is essentially a mechanized assembly line, with attendant loud noises, bright lights, and unpleasant smells, is going to be incredibly stressful on the animals. They're not going to want to go. They'll have to be driven. You can't ask them nicely or wait till they go on their own. So they have to be poked, prodded, hit, and sometimes shocked. It's not a happy-making experience for either the animals or the people who have to do it. And animal slaughter laws require that certain cleanliness regulations be observed, which makes it even worse for everyone.

If that's too much for people to handle, then don't eat it. Or eat hand-raised and hand-slaughtered meat. But don't be too shocked by what goes on in an industrial slaughterhouse.
 
2013-03-18 04:40:44 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: So how do you force a 1000lb animal that really, really doesn't want to die to go calmly to its death?


I was watching a PBS show about small-time farmers a couple of months ago. One scene that stuck out is when the hippy-looking guy drove out to the cow pasture with a front-end loader on his tractor. At first I thought maybe one of the cows had died, until he grabbed his shotgun as he was getting off the tractor, and realized, not yet.

The screen went black and you only heard the gunshot, but afterwards, they showed an interview in which he discussed why he did that. The idea was that the cow would be in his normal environment, amongst the other cows he knew and was familiar with, and his death would be instantaneous and painless rather than a long, drawn out walk to a slaughterhouse, smelling blood and death and being uncomfortable and tense. He said that not only was it very humane, but the meat tasted better that way.
 
2013-03-18 04:41:50 AM  

doglover: Mid_mo_mad_man: The problem is the trespassing and lying to obtain the footage

No need to pass laws against trespass, as that's ALREADY illegal.

As for the lying, that should be illegal, too.

However I am against bans and for breaking unjust laws. If people feel strongly enough about these movies to keep making them, it's a freedom of speech thing. If they get caught breaking the law, prosecute 'em for trespass and possibly falsified documents, but don't pass a ban. That's a dick move.




How is sneaking onto private property and conning your way into places freedom of speech?
 
2013-03-18 04:43:15 AM  

ox45tallboy: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: So how do you force a 1000lb animal that really, really doesn't want to die to go calmly to its death?

I was watching a PBS show about small-time farmers a couple of months ago. One scene that stuck out is when the hippy-looking guy drove out to the cow pasture with a front-end loader on his tractor. At first I thought maybe one of the cows had died, until he grabbed his shotgun as he was getting off the tractor, and realized, not yet.

The screen went black and you only heard the gunshot, but afterwards, they showed an interview in which he discussed why he did that. The idea was that the cow would be in his normal environment, amongst the other cows he knew and was familiar with, and his death would be instantaneous and painless rather than a long, drawn out walk to a slaughterhouse, smelling blood and death and being uncomfortable and tense. He said that not only was it very humane, but the meat tasted better that way.


God I hope he used a slug.
 
2013-03-18 04:44:51 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: How is sneaking onto private property and conning your way into places freedom of speech?


He should be tried by laws on the books, not laws written by industry for his benefit.
 
2013-03-18 04:46:32 AM  
I'm a member of PETA
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Mmmmmm.  Cheeseburgers!
 
2013-03-18 04:48:18 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: doglover: Mid_mo_mad_man: The problem is the trespassing and lying to obtain the footage

No need to pass laws against trespass, as that's ALREADY illegal.

As for the lying, that should be illegal, too.

However I am against bans and for breaking unjust laws. If people feel strongly enough about these movies to keep making them, it's a freedom of speech thing. If they get caught breaking the law, prosecute 'em for trespass and possibly falsified documents, but don't pass a ban. That's a dick move.

How is sneaking onto private property and conning your way into places freedom of speech?


I think what he's referring to is that people who do this sort of thing aren't disclosing the fact that they're also working on behalf of an animal rights group. They may be completely honest with their name and SSN and employment history, but they lie on the part of the application (if there is one) that asks if they are affiliated with any sort of tree-huggin' vegan hippies.

Personally, I don't think it's any of a prospective employer's business what my political affiliations are, as long as I am willing and able to do the job.

Do you think that political litmus tests for employment are acceptable?
 
2013-03-18 04:49:28 AM  
The ones complaining about slaughter houses are the same type who move to the country and complain about bad smells. My first job was on a 3,000 head hog farm. A retireee from St Louis moves a mile down from it. First thing he does is biatch about the odor
 
2013-03-18 04:50:37 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: How is sneaking onto private property and conning your way into places freedom of speech?


Uncovering dark conspiracies is pretty much the only reason you'd need to make a public announcement to your fellow countrymen and the burden of evidence is a minimal requirement.
 
2013-03-18 04:50:50 AM  
My GED in law tells me that neither laws against filming nor laws against lying on job applications will make it thru the courts even if they do get passed.
 
2013-03-18 04:51:20 AM  

Yogimus: God I hope he used a slug.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

barfblog.com
 
2013-03-18 04:59:07 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The problem is the trespassing and lying to obtain the footage


Lying is protected speech under certain circumstances.  The Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the SCOTUS.  Even Alito, ironically, lent credence to protection for this sort of lying in his dissent to the Stolen Valor decision:

"the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest."

I would say that exposing animal abuse is a legitimate interest.  The doctrine of "clean hands" arguably precludes an animal abuser from claiming harm by the exposure of his crime.

It is instructive to review Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., a case in which investigative journalists obtained employment at Food Lion supermarkets and secretly videotaped unsafe food handling practices. Food Lion ultimately prevailed on claims of trespass and breach of duty-of-loyalty, but each journalist only had to pay $1 per offense.  Awards for fraud and unfair trade practices were voided.  Food Lion got zippo for damages to its reputation.
 
2013-03-18 05:02:44 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The ones complaining about slaughter houses are the same type who


are better people than you.
 
2013-03-18 05:04:54 AM  

Frederick: are better people than you.


Tell me how to love a cow into a burger and I will listen.
 
2013-03-18 05:05:13 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: doglover: Mid_mo_mad_man: The problem is the trespassing and lying to obtain the footage

No need to pass laws against trespass, as that's ALREADY illegal.

As for the lying, that should be illegal, too.

However I am against bans and for breaking unjust laws. If people feel strongly enough about these movies to keep making them, it's a freedom of speech thing. If they get caught breaking the law, prosecute 'em for trespass and possibly falsified documents, but don't pass a ban. That's a dick move.

How is sneaking onto private property and conning your way into places freedom of speech?


It isn't, but the act of trespassing and the photography are two different subjects (pdf). See also,  College of Charleston Foundation v. Ham.
 
2013-03-18 05:06:30 AM  
What I saw in the graphic calf slaughter video were men who suffered psychological damage while preserving our way of life... just like soldiers do.
 
2013-03-18 05:09:58 AM  

Yogimus: Frederick: are better people than you.

Tell me how to love a cow into a burger and I will listen.


Strawman.

There is a difference between slaughter and abuse.  Do you disagree?
 
2013-03-18 05:13:16 AM  
Yeah!

Cuz sociopaths need jobs too!
 
2013-03-18 05:21:57 AM  
I love crap like this.  The PETA argument crops up all the time from Veggies and Vegans.  The FDA regulates meat product, and conducts inspections of farms, especially when there are complaints.  If unsanitary conditions, abuse, or anything of the sort are found the farm is often fined and temporarily shut down until regulations are met, and the farm is "back up to code".  Lost revenue, etc etc.  People see shiat like this on the internet and think that this is how ALL farms operate.  Then they scream and cry foul and demand action (and the loudest are often the ones who already abstain from meat).  Problem is, this isn't how all farms operate.  This is representative of a tiny tiny minority of farms.  The FDA inspection process is slow, and typically governmental.  So rights advocates get wind of the complaints, and breach the farm somehow to document what has ALREADY been documented.  They just get in before the FDA and make a bigger, louder, more widely disseminated fuss.  I grew up in farm country, I spent time working on farms (dairy, meat, grain, horse boarding, etc) and they all treated their animals with respect.  Slaughter is a messy business.  Animals don't want to be slaughtered.  As a farmer, farm hand or butcher you do everything you can to keep the (dis)assembly line moving.  Sometimes it's ugly because the animals freak out. And when one freaks out, they all freak out.  And still, most farms manage this the best they can without breaking every FDA code because they want that stamp of approval on their meat so they can sell it.

The best slaughter guy is the mobile butcher.  He shows up with a big 18-wheeler, the inside is all stainless and clean.  He hands you a menu, you check off what you want, in goes your pig, out comes butchered and neatly wrapped deliciousness.  This doesn't really work on a large scale though.

Anyway, if you think farms are dens of animal abuse and filth, drive out to the country, find a hog farm or a dairy or whatever, and drive down the driveway and ring the bell of the home.  Ask whoever answers if you can volunteer some time to "see how a farm works".  Mention you live in the city, and want a taste of "country life".  These things will humor the farmer, and he will laugh at your cosmopolitan, sissy ways and give you a laundry list of chores to be done that day more difficult than what you typically accomplish in a month.  You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.
 
2013-03-18 05:28:40 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: and give you a laundry list of chores to be done that day more difficult than what you typically accomplish in a month. You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.


My sister and her husband ran a hog operation for several years. I had nightmares after I watched her castrating piglets.
 
2013-03-18 05:31:03 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Mid_mo_mad_man: The problem is the trespassing and lying to obtain the footage

Lying is protected speech under certain circumstances.  The Stolen Valor Act was struck down by the SCOTUS.  Even Alito, ironically, lent credence to protection for this sort of lying in his dissent to the Stolen Valor decision:

"the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest."

I would say that exposing animal abuse is a legitimate interest.  The doctrine of "clean hands" arguably precludes an animal abuser from claiming harm by the exposure of his crime.

It is instructive to review Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., a case in which investigative journalists obtained employment at Food Lion supermarkets and secretly videotaped unsafe food handling practices. Food Lion ultimately prevailed on claims of trespass and breach of duty-of-loyalty, but each journalist only had to pay $1 per offense.  Awards for fraud and unfair trade practices were voided.  Food Lion got zippo for damages to its reputation.




The Stolen Valor Act ruling does not protect lying for economic gain. One could say that with cherry picking footage they are lying to get more political donations. As for Food Lion they were commiting illegal acts. If the slaughter houses are not commiting illegal acts then your citation is invalid.

/ I'm not a lawyer but I play one on Fark
// Grew up on a farm raising most of the meat we consumed
/// Even named steers that we were planing to eat.
 
2013-03-18 05:33:12 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: I love crap like this.  The PETA argument crops up all the time from Veggies and Vegans.  The FDA regulates meat product, and conducts inspections of farms, especially when there are complaints.


There is a difference between nurturing animals for months or years and then slaughtering them, and spending 40 hours a week for months or years doing nothing but slaughter.  The latter takes a greater toll on a person's humanity, I think.  One is more likely to find abuse at slaughterhouses than on farms.
 
2013-03-18 05:36:51 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The Stolen Valor Act ruling does not protect lying for economic gain


So as long as the person doing the filming accepts no pay from the activists, then it's okay?
 
2013-03-18 05:38:01 AM  
Some people here seem to be having trouble separating the issues of abuse & cruelty with eating meat.

WhiskeyBoy: You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.


I think most people agree with what you said.  But it doesnt mean cruelty and abuse dont exist or shouldnt be exposed.  Exposure is the subject of the proposed bill.
 
2013-03-18 05:42:17 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: Anyway, if you think farms are dens of animal abuse and filth, drive out to the country, find a hog farm or a dairy or whatever, and drive down the driveway and ring the bell of the home. Ask whoever answers if you can volunteer some time to "see how a farm works". Mention you live in the city, and want a taste of "country life". These things will humor the farmer, and he will laugh at your cosmopolitan, sissy ways and give you a laundry list of chores to be done that day more difficult than what you typically accomplish in a month. You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.


Sounds like you've been to some farms too.  Having been to many during my childhood and even more while installing equipment, let me assure you that there are farmers at all ends of pretty much all spectrums.  One of the filthiest places I know is a hog farm where the crap level in the pens will go right up your shins.  Could he clean it?  Yes.  Would most farmers clean it?  Yes.  Did he clean it?  No.  Generally speaking, you get into problems when farmers are just a little bit lazy which is funny because most of us are easily in that group.
 
2013-03-18 05:47:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: If that's too much for people to handle, then don't eat it. Or eat hand-raised and hand-slaughtered meat. But don't be too shocked by what goes on in an industrial slaughterhouse.


Fair enough--so you'd be okay with filming what takes place, right? To keep people informed of all their choices and consequences?
 
2013-03-18 05:49:30 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: The Stolen Valor Act ruling does not protect lying for economic gain. One could say that with cherry picking footage they are lying to get more political donations. As for Food Lion they were commiting illegal acts. If the slaughter houses are not commiting illegal acts then your citation is invalid.


Without reading the final decision, I don't know if Food Club's culpability mattered or not to the court. It seems the investigators could not determine whether Food Lion committed crimes before they committed crimes.  ABC certainly did lie for financial gain (audience/advertising), and yet it was not punished for airing the story.

The bills under consideration would ban infiltration and recording even for Alito's "legitimate" purposes; if you go a step too far for him, you are in deep yogurt!
 
2013-03-18 05:51:21 AM  

Frederick: Some people here seem to be having trouble separating the issues of abuse & cruelty with eating meat.

WhiskeyBoy: You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.

I think most people agree with what you said.  But it doesnt mean cruelty and abuse dont exist or shouldnt be exposed.  Exposure is the subject of the proposed bill.


Agreed.  But this thread quickly devolved in to something more.  I just wanted to get my $0.02 in.  The problem is most of these farms getting this widespread attention already have complaints on the books, and that's how these "undercover operatives" know where to go.  Still, maybe it prevents abuse at other farms, maybe not.  I doubt it does.  And as a consumer, you either risk it and eat meat, or abstain entirely.  Making a law that says you can't film the abuse though is just plain stupid.
 
2013-03-18 05:53:39 AM  

ox45tallboy: Mid_mo_mad_man: The Stolen Valor Act ruling does not protect lying for economic gain

So as long as the person doing the filming accepts no pay from the activists, then it's okay?


He seems to be addressing "cherry picking footage," which takes place far from the scene of any crime contemplated by these bills.  Editing is not even addressed in the bills.  Lying to gain access to the facilities and making unauthorized recordings are all the bills are about.
 
2013-03-18 05:55:36 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: Agreed. But this thread quickly devolved in to something more.


It did.  I had a hand in that and will dial it back.  The emotional aspect of the thread reminds me of the anti-vax threads.
 
2013-03-18 05:58:49 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: Frederick: Some people here seem to be having trouble separating the issues of abuse & cruelty with eating meat.

WhiskeyBoy: You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.

I think most people agree with what you said.  But it doesnt mean cruelty and abuse dont exist or shouldnt be exposed.  Exposure is the subject of the proposed bill.

Agreed.  But this thread quickly devolved in to something more.  I just wanted to get my $0.02 in.  The problem is most of these farms getting this widespread attention already have complaints on the books, and that's how these "undercover operatives" know where to go.  Still, maybe it prevents abuse at other farms, maybe not.  I doubt it does.  And as a consumer, you either risk it and eat meat, or abstain entirely.  Making a law that says you can't film the abuse though is just plain stupid.


I don't see any problem with pressuring the government to address complaints faster.  I don't see any problem with going fishing where fish have reportedly been sighted.
 
2013-03-18 06:00:03 AM  

Frederick: Strawman.


I wonder if you know how to use that word.
 
2013-03-18 06:00:09 AM  

Frederick: WhiskeyBoy: Agreed. But this thread quickly devolved in to something more.

It did.  I had a hand in that and will dial it back.  The emotional aspect of the thread reminds me of the anti-vax threads.


When the word "sociopath" crops up, we're in rape-thread territory.
 
2013-03-18 06:03:12 AM  

Yogimus: Frederick: Strawman.

I wonder if you know how to use that word.


I thought I used it correctly.
Why didnt you respond to this:  There is a difference between slaughter and abuse.  Do you disagree?
 
2013-03-18 06:14:27 AM  
I thought everyone knew terrified meat is the most tender.
 
2013-03-18 06:15:27 AM  

Frederick: Some people here seem to be having trouble separating the issues of abuse & cruelty with eating meat.

WhiskeyBoy: You will also get a first hand account of how difficult animal management can be, and how well these people treat the animals in their care.

I think most people agree with what you said.  But it doesnt mean cruelty and abuse dont exist or shouldnt be exposed.  Exposure is the subject of the proposed bill.




One of the problems with "abuse" is that the bleeding harts wouldn't be able to tell between it and what it isn't. Banding cavles f and burning horns off them would seem cruel if you didn't know it's for thier own good. Same with tail docking and snout ringing on pigs. All look cruel but are common things.
 
2013-03-18 06:18:09 AM  

Frederick: Yogimus: Frederick: Strawman.

I wonder if you know how to use that word.

I thought I used it correctly.
Why didnt you respond to this:  There is a difference between slaughter and abuse.  Do you disagree?


Of course sir, but you are changing the parameters of your original argument. As if to imply my position to be one that I do not profess. Almost as if one were to build a man from straw, so he could strike it down easily.

/I believe the difference between slaughter and abuse is the "joy" derived by the perpetrator from the act
 
2013-03-18 06:21:26 AM  
Mid_mo_mad_man:
One of the problems with "abuse" is that the bleeding harts wouldn't be able to tell between it and what it isn't. Banding cavles f and burning horns off them would seem cruel if you didn't know it's for thier own good. Same with tail docking and snout ringing on pigs. All look cruel but are common things.

From the article it doesn't seem like they had much of a problem in finding it.
This isn't a Facebook poll or something, it's the law.
 
2013-03-18 06:27:02 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: 7KQ201_McKittrick: Video or it didn't happen

Here  y'go.  Graphic.


I'm a voracious omnivore and I think I'll have a salad for lunch today...
 
2013-03-18 06:28:34 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: One of the problems with "abuse" is that the bleeding harts wouldn't be able to tell between it and what it isn't. Banding cavles f and burning horns off them would seem cruel if you didn't know it's for thier own good. Same with tail docking and snout ringing on pigs. All look cruel but are common things.


You got that right.  I'm an Iowa boy.  I spent some time on farms.  Frankly I havent the stomach for it.  I once saw a farmer pick a squealing piglet up by the foot and I about cried.  BUT, I also learned to trust farmers know what they're doing and to not question them.

I dont think farms or farmers are the problem.  Slaughter houses/Packing plants....thats a different story.

Yogimus: I believe the difference between slaughter and abuse is the "joy" derived by the perpetrator from the act


Thats an interesting take; I'll give that some thought.
 
2013-03-18 06:37:56 AM  
We have to protect our job creators subby.
 
2013-03-18 06:51:26 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: I love crap like

blah blah blah blah blah etc."

Yeah. You're right - abusers are a small minority, and not representative. That's why it stinks that these creeps are trying to make laws that will make it harder to expose them.
 
2013-03-18 06:59:56 AM  

GAT_00: And the California bill is GOP introduced


which means it will never even make to to the floor. which is good. even if passed- jerry will veto it.
 
2013-03-18 07:03:54 AM  
Just a reminder about America's food industry.
According to Center for Disease Control estimates, 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne illnesses every year. In comparison, the entire European Union had roughly 45,000 illnesses and 32 deaths from contaminated food in 2008. That means foodborne illness strikes 15 percent of Americans each year, but only .00009 percent of Europeans.
 
2013-03-18 07:06:35 AM  

jso2897: WhiskeyBoy: I love crap like blah blah blah blah blah etc."

Yeah. You're right - abusers are a small minority, and not representative. That's why it stinks that these creeps are trying to make laws that will make it harder to expose them.




The problem with the undercover cameramen is lack of context. What appears like abuse to a guy in a Portland coffee house may be how it's suppose to be. I've butchered hogs, cattle, goats, chickens etc. Some of it looks cruel if you are clueless to it. Slaughtering livestock is not nice and tidy, nor can it be made that way
 
2013-03-18 07:11:51 AM  

generallyso: Just a reminder about America's food industry.
According to Center for Disease Control estimates, 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne illnesses every year. In comparison, the entire European Union had roughly 45,000 illnesses and 32 deaths from contaminated food in 2008. That means foodborne illness strikes 15 percent of Americans each year, but only .00009 percent of Europeans.


Ok now go do your math for illness per pound of meat consumed, and please make sure you properly separate meat and vegetable/food illnesses for both of your samples..  No, I will not do the work for you.
 
2013-03-18 07:22:13 AM  

whither_apophis: If only cows had guns...

/bad cow pun


how is this funny

the cows are the innocent ones that want to die
the humans are the evil turds with gun fighting fetishes
 
2013-03-18 07:24:15 AM  
Can we grow meat with no brains or pain receptors yet? Come on, science!

I've hunted my own food. I'm okay with killing something else so that I can eat things that are part of the natural diet of humans. But it'd be nice if poor little critters didn't have to suffer so much, just because they make a tasty burger.

I saw a movie a while back with Claire Danes in it. She played some autistic girl who came up with all sorts of ways to make the slaughtering process work better and be less cruel at the same time. I wonder how much success the chick she was portraying had in getting that stuff implemented.

/Could probably wikipedia it
//Won't
 
2013-03-18 07:34:32 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Bumblefark: Gawdzila: feckingmorons: Those who mistreat animals, even the animals we use as food are scumbags.

Yeah, this.
I don't have any moral issue with eating meat as I simply don't believe (no matter how much I love my pets) that animals are equivalent to persons, but I'm certainly not callous enough to think that they don't feel pain.  I don't want my meat tortured before I eat it, and anyone who would do such a thing must have a sense of empathy that is defective on an almost sociopathic level.  It is often mentioned (and it is true) that animal torture is a common behavior for young psycho/sociopaths.

It's also a common behavior for those who have a hand in bringing meat to market. Curiously enough, folks who raise/slaughter livestock for a living aren't so delicate in their sensibilities as the vast majority of people who benefit from their labors...

Sorry to say, your diet hinges on a whole lot of people you'd probably rather not associate with. By necessity...

Pretty much this.

My best friend grew up and worked on his family's dairy farm, and they certainly didn't mistreat their animals. They were valuable economic assets which provided a necessary commodity. But they weren't tucked into comfy beds in a cozy house every night, either. And they raised veal calves (since male calves are pretty useless on a dairy farm). The little guys got raised on 20' chains in little sheds till they were big enough to slaughter.

That said, nobody wants to hand slaughter animals over to people who want to torture them to death. But moving a large number of very unintelligent animals into what is essentially a mechanized assembly line, with attendant loud noises, bright lights, and unpleasant smells, is going to be incredibly stressful on the animals. They're not going to want to go. They'll have to be driven. You can't ask them nicely or wait till they go on their own. So they have to be poked, prodded, hit, and sometimes shocked. It's not a happy-making experience ...


Unfortunately, its hard to tell a 'reluctant' animal from a sick one.

Given diseases such as 'Mad Cow' this is also a serious public health issue.
 
2013-03-18 07:34:33 AM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: Can we grow meat with no brains or pain receptors yet? Come on, science!

I've hunted my own food. I'm okay with killing something else so that I can eat things that are part of the natural diet of humans. But it'd be nice if poor little critters didn't have to suffer so much, just because they make a tasty burger.

I saw a movie a while back with Claire Danes in it. She played some autistic girl who came up with all sorts of ways to make the slaughtering process work better and be less cruel at the same time. I wonder how much success the chick she was portraying had in getting that stuff implemented.

/Could probably wikipedia it
//Won't


THEY DONT farkING SUFFER
BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE HATRED AND OTHER HUMAN EMOTIONS

seriously.  have you EVER TRIED SUFFERING without FEELING HATE
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE because the suffering just disappears as soon as you stop hating
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report