Animal rights?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Special_Fred, Sep 14, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Dieting and excercise programs that are the most lucrative tend to also be the one's that offer quick solutions. That's not people taking responsibility for their health, it's people trying to take the easy way out. Making changes in lifestyle can be very challenging and people find it far easier to just keep everything as is.

    I watch my diet very carefully and I realize that my job lacks physical excercise, so I incorporate it into my life with various other activities. No matter what the social climate is, I have to look to myself when determining what to eat. I am certainly not so weak-minded that a simple commercial advertisement or the mere fact that food is available has become a driving factor in my dietary and/or lifestyle decision making.

    However, there is some merit to portions of your argument. People seemingly draw to crappy food like moths to a flame. Whether it's out of stupidity, instinct, or gluttony is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe a *medical offset* tax is in order on foods that are deemed unhealthy and/or excess to sufficient or normal diets?

    In any case, we seem to have jumped clear of the intended topic and my point still stands that as long as our society continues to use cruel methods to contain and slaughter animals in order to continue such a disgustingly morbid diet, then we are cleary doing wrong. Animals shouldn't and don't enjoy the same rights that we do, but that doesn't mean that we should so carelessly and brutally discard their lives as if they were inanimate objects.

    Animals should have rights.
  2. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    ...as long as our society continues to use cruel methods to contain and slaughter animals...

    Is it cruel to force hundreds of animals off their land (killing most, if not all of them) so you can grow tofu? If you are going to eat, something has to die.

    ...in order to continue such a disgustingly morbid diet...

    This has already been mentioned, but not all omnivorous people have "a disgustingly morbid diet". A 600-pound man isn't unhealthy just because he eats meat.
  3. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    The vast majority of land used to grow crops in the United States are there to support the feedlots. You are defeating your own argument. Far more animals are harmed to produce meat both directly and indirectly.

    Farmland can be easily managed in a very responsible manner and more than enough already exists to continually support our species. It is the meat industry that continues to destroy forests and raze land to meet the continually growing demand for more animal foods.

    Trying to compare growing vegetables to a slaughterhouse is utterly ridiculous.

    Regarding your fabricated 600 pound man, it's worthy to note that he's not alone. According to CDC estimates, over 60 of the population shares in the obesity epidemic. Either he's prescribing to a very poor overall diet or he's eating a lot of junk foods that fit within his diet. Basically what you are trying to infer is that if he ate leaner cuts of meat or perhaps moderated his intake of cheese he'd be allright, even though the CDC is calling the current situation an "epidemic". In either case, animals suffer to meet his disgusting diet habits.
  4. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    The vast majority of land used to grow crops in the United States are there to support the feedlots.

    But someone had to clear that land in the first place, and that destroyed the delicate ecosystem there, killing thousands of native plants and animals. But that's not "cruel"...right?

    Trying to compare growing vegetables to a slaughterhouse is utterly ridiculous.

    Is it? Why is it OK to eat plants, but not animals? Oh right, because plants don't feel pain. So does that make it OK to eat animals that are paralyzed and cannot feel pain?

    Regarding your fabricated 600 pound man, it's worthy to note that he's not alone.

    Well, duh...have you been to the mall lately?

    Either he's prescribing to a very poor overall diet or he's eating a lot of junk foods that fit within his diet.

    Probably both.

    Basically what you are trying to infer is that if he ate leaner cuts of meat or perhaps moderated his intake of cheese he'd be allright...

    No. Don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that eating meat has nothing to do with being obese. Sitting around all day eating Krispy Kremes and Cheetos is much more likely...
  5. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Fred: Even if for argument's sake you're correct--in order for us to eat, something has to die--the fact is that a lot less death occurs from eating a vegetarian diet than from eating meat. It has been estimated that the amount of grain, etc. used to make the meat for one eight-ounce steak could be used to feed forty people. A lot more land, animals, etc. are spared for vegetarian diets.
  6. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    Seems to me you're just trading one form of death for another. And I doubt that people would want to eat nothing but grain products.

    Just because we have a little more control over nature than any other animal doesn't mean we have to limit the diets we've evolved to have.


    Mistryl's Paramour
  7. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    We could easily slaughter less animals and in doing so we would not only improve their situation, but also our own health by prescribing to a more moderate diet and lessening the negative impact that agri-business has on the environment.

    The fact of the matter is that the average diet is made more unhealthy due inpart to the inclusion of large quantities of animal products. Excessive consumption of meats and dairy products is a very weighty contributor to obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancers, hypertension, etc. That is medical fact. That simple fact alone should be enough to encourage most people to lessen the amount of animal by-products that they include in their everyday diet plan.

    The billions of animals are also devestating to our local environments. Not only is there a concern regarding the resources consumed to manufactur our current diet (land, water, fuel, etc.), but one must also consider the massive quantities of fecal matter that are produced by these billions of animals. Do we think it simply dissapates into thin air? What about the antibiotics that are pumped into the animals to keep them living in conditions that would normally be fatal? What about the hormones?

    Of course, both of those arguments focus on the impact that are diets have on ourselves by direct consumption. That alone is enough for me to make dietary changes. Yet added to these detrimental effects is also the impact that we are having upon the billions of animals. I have already listed the numbers realted to animal slaughter in the United States. I would assert that anyone who thinks that animals could be slaughtered in such quantity using humane methods is a fool. Thousands of animals moving down the line every minute and yet they do not feel no pain? Anyone who looks at this information rationally realizes that the vast majority of these animals are not only killed using painful methods, but they also know that the everyday lives of these animals are horribly unnatural. Many are hardly ever allowed to stand or to turn and those that are do so in piles of their own feces. Feedlots are not humane in any way.

    To say that we won't choose to change is because this is the way that things are, or because our taste buds dominate our morality is disgusting. We could make changes that would not only benefit ourselves, but also the animals that we chain and slaughter. Why would we not do so? Culture? Heritage? Taste?

    Somehow, somewhere, we decided to pretend that killing animals in horribly torturous ways was okay. Some of us decide to look at the situation as it really is and some of us try to pretend that everything is okay. That the animals like to be penned. That they don't desire life. That they cannot feel pain. That their social instincts are unimportant. That our health is secondary to our gluttony. That our environment is a trash can. That our God wishes us to brutally and wastefully slaughter billions. That we have every right and everything else has no rights. And we consider ourselves to be superior?
  8. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Maybe we don't consider ourselves to be superior. Maybe we just consider ourselves to be predators. Before all the crows in my neighborhood died of West Nile virus two years ago, I witnessed a crow dive off the roof of my garage, grab a baby bunny out of my backyard, carry it back up to the roof, and tear it apart, bit by bit. The crow didn't care about the baby bunny's feelings. The West Nile virus didn't care about the crow's feelings.

    Just because we have the cognitive ability to be concerned about the welfare of animals, doesn't necessary mean that we need to be concerned.

    Would I be willing to pay an extra $50 cents for a dozen eggs produced from free range chickens? Maybe. Would I be willing to pay twice as much for a hamburger to make certain that the cow lived a carefree comfortable life and died a quick and painless death? Maybe. Would I be willing to give up frequent consumption of ground beef in favor of a healthier diet leaning more toward fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish and poultry. I've already done that.

    Would I be willing to give up all forms of meat because killing animals for food is fundamentally cruel? No way in hell. I strongly disagree with that notion.
  9. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    So I'm supposed to feel like a predator when I'm choking down a thickburger? I think the current methods employed resemble manufacturing far more than they do predation.

    In any case, your argument usually falls apart in most people's minds when domesticated animals come into play. I wonder how many of us would feel comfortable if a hungry person entered the local humane shelter, paid for a dog and proceeded to bludgeoned it into semi-conciousness, skinned it while it wriggled and cried out, and then ate it. One could easily chalk that up to predatory instinct, yet somehow I think many of us would consider that immoral and it would also be a crime in the eyes of the law. How is that different?
  10. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    "paid for a dog and proceeded to bludgeoned it into semi-conciousness, skinned it while it wriggled and cried out, and then ate it. One could easily chalk that up to predatory instinct, yet somehow I think many of us would consider that immoral and it would also be a crime in the eyes of the law. How is that different?"

    In an extreme situation, you would eat your house pet before you starved to death. I know I would feed my dog to my children before I'd let them starve. And the only reason dogs are so far down the list of American menu items is pure arbitrary cultural bias.
  11. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    Excessive consumption of meats and dairy products is a very weighty contributor to obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancers, hypertension, etc. That is medical fact.

    Perhaps...but you don't want us to "lessen" our serving sizes, you want to ban eating meat altogether. I eat a lot of meat and dairy products, but I don't gorge myself on them, and I'm a very healthy person.

    ...one must also consider the massive quantities of fecal matter that are produced by these billions of animals.

    Use it as fertilizer, so we can grow more of those tasty greens.

    Somehow, somewhere, we decided to pretend that killing animals in horribly torturous ways was okay.

    Horribly torturous ways? The most common method of slaughtering animals for food is bludgeoning them over the head or shooting them in the head. This isn't some horrible torture that takes hours to kill the animal. It takes less than a second. Besides, the Federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act requires that animals be insensible to pain before they actually are killed.

    ...we have every right and everything else has no rights. And we consider ourselves to be superior?

    Humans are superior to animals. And in response to your inevitable reply...yes they are.

    ...how many of us would feel comfortable if a hungry person entered the local humane shelter, paid for a dog and proceeded to bludgeoned it into semi-conciousness, skinned it while it wriggled and cried out, and then ate it.

    That's not how animals are slaughtered. They are dead as soon as they've been bludgeoned, not crying out as they're skinned alive. And if somebody is hungry enough to eat their dog...oh well. People have to eat.

    ...I think many of us would consider that immoral and it would also be a crime in the eyes of the law. How is that different?

    Putting the animal through the slow, painful death you described would be immoral. But if you shoot the animal, or crack it over the head with a sledgehammer, or find some other way to instantly put it down, it's dinner.
  12. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    As far back as we know man has eaten flesh, evolution has nothing to do with it.

    Posh! Evolution goes back further than we know. The fact that you give, that man has always eaten meat, implies 1) that there is some extinct relative of man that didn't eat meat or 2) that eating meat spurred the evolution of man from animal. Evolution has everything to do with the ability of the human digestive tract to process both meat and foliage.

    And I refute outright, scientific data because quite often scientific data is wrong. It is also often used to make conclusions that are of a nature that the data doesn't support. Meaning: scientists should not take data from this cultural reality and make conclusions about a reality that doesn't exist. The data doesn't support the well-being of a completely vegetarian population. Such a population doesn't exist! There is no data! Statistical data isn't even science in some cases. Correlation does not imply causation.

    Why is it not concievable that those people that eat meat (those that can eat it without getting sick) do so because they are genetically programmed with a dependancy for meat? Gosh if we outlaw meat, wouldn't all of these people experience an increase in diseases? My point: science is a continually revolutionary thing, especially today in the field of genetics. Correct today, can be incorrect tomorrow.

    As far as animal rights: survival of the fittest and smartest. [rant]I'll even apply this to humans as well. If some superior alien race comes to earth and uses us for food, then they deserve to do so if we can't find a way to defend ourselves or convince them that we have the potential to be equal. Though I still think hunting isn't a sport.[/rant]

    Moral Solution: Reform must come before revolution. If we can painlessly kill a man through lethal injection, why not billions of cows and chickens? Before you can support the prohibition of the slaughter on the ground that it is inherently inhumane, you must first prove that there is no way to kill an animal in a humane fashion.

    Edit:
    ...hungry person entered the local humane shelter, paid for a dog...

    Wouldn't a hungry person, if they have money, buy food from a store? I know I do.
  13. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Special_Fred,

    If slaughterhouse operations ran every hour of the day for every day of the year, over one million animals would have to be slaughtered each hour to meet numbers set in 2002. As I said earlier, that would be 280 every second of every day, morning, noon, and night. Somehow I find it difficult to believe that that many animals could be slaughtered in the most remotely humane way.

    As far as the Humane Slaughter Act is concerned, here is the verbiage:

    "...in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut..."

    Notice that the vast majority of animals slaughtered in terms of population, poultry animals, are excluded completely. Not that it would matter, there are so few federal agents that are assigned to enforce laws such as these that there is no practical way for them to do their job even if they chose to.

    Electocution and chemically induced deaths are very painful and far from rapid. In most cases prods are forced down the animals throat or up it's rectum to administer the shock, which is not instantly lethal. This is why there are a number of slaughterhouse videos clearly showing cows moving down the cut lines not only still moving, but also bellowing as they are skinned and cleaned. In many cases, they are still alive. If you care to see the videos, they can be easily found on google, and I'm sure I can scare up a link for you. The workers that are skinning these living animals are doing it without question, it's simply routine. You should also check out recent legislation in which slaughterhouses were attempting to make it a federal felony to capture images from their slaughterhouses.

    Jabbadabbadoo,

    "And the only reason dogs are so far down the list of American menu items is pure arbitrary cultural bias."

    Plenty of pet owners would not agree with your assessment. Many people think of these animals as companions and friends.

    I'm not saying they are human or that I would sacrifice a human life for that of an animal, but I think you'll agree that far more animals are killed than is neccessary to sustain our society. It's to the point where it's excessive and cruel. Babies aren't at risk, you don't need to kill the family dog, nor do you need to slaughter billions of animals so you can ingest a diet that will likely contribute to an untimely death.

    JediTre11,

    "Wouldn't a hungry person, if they have money, buy food from a store? I know I do."

    Exactly, but your food was prepared (assuming you eat meat) in the same manner simply with a different animal and a different "supply chain".

    And you're not applying you idea regarding "survival of the smartest" to humans. It doesn't have anything to do with fictional alien races. If you were truly applying that mantra, you would be okay with people killing other people based simply on their physical and/or mental superiority.
  14. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    So you are arguing there is a lack of distribution of food. Where some people get an excess of food, meat, and others don't. Not all people in America are able to eat meat regularly while others have all the opportunity in the world to obtain that meat.

    How exactly would you go about obtaining this equal distribution? Any other things you could like to equaly distribute? Property, salaries and jobs?

    But isn't it cruel to dictate what others need for themselves? Who are you to say what I need? You know what that is? Elitism.


    Mistryl's Paramour
  15. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    If you care to see the videos, they can be easily found on google, and I'm sure I can scare up a link for you.

    Please do. And be sure it's recent, don't show me videos from the '70s or something...

    Plenty of pet owners would not agree with your assessment. Many people think of these animals as companions and friends.

    But they're way outnumbered by hungry Chinese people who think of them as food.

    And you're not applying you idea regarding "survival of the smartest" to humans. If you were truly applying that mantra, you would be okay with people killing other people based simply on their physical and/or mental superiority.

    No, because the "survival of the smartest" idea is that humans as a species are superior to other species, not that individual humans are superior to others. So basically, humans are equal in their dominion over animals.
  16. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Here is one from PetaTV.

    Meet your meat.

    To accompany it, here is an article regarding the 2001 investigation of IBP (one of the nation's largest slaughtering companies).

    They Die Piece by Piece.

    Here is one small excerpt"

    It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was ?second-legger,? a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.

    The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren?t.

    ?They blink. They make noises,? he said softly. ?The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around.? Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. ?They die,? said Moreno, ?piece by piece.?
  17. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    400 million animals, not including insects of course, die every year in the U.S. as roadkill. This number is second only to the number of animals killed in meat production. If I were worried about animal life, I think I would start there - at the roadkill problem first, where there is no direct economic benefit for humans other than the benefits of not having to factor in the costs of protecting animals into the cost of driving.

    Obviously, the costs of making our roads safer for pets and wild animals would be enormous, but nothing I think compared to the economic disruption that would be caused by shifting resources away from meat production.

    One solution that would help both causes would simply be to require all roadkill to be used as a food source. This sign would be posted on all state, federal and local roads:

    "IF YOU KILL IT, YOU HAVE TO EAT IT."

    Benefits:

    1) It would ease the pressure on domestic livestock, provide a cheap food source to millions of Americans (yes, there are tasty recipes for squirrel, possum and dog)

    2) It would mitigate the problem of needless waste caused when a wild animal is killed on the road.

    3) It would make sure that roadkill was promptly cleaned up, and that it was eaten while fresh.

    4) It would add a lot of fun to family vacations, where a hungry family traveling by car to the grand canyon might hope for a tasty armadillo, for example, or look for a chance to find out if snake really tastes like chicken.

    5) It could also be an engine for economic growth (e.g. SNL's Bob's Roadkill Bar and Grill - "You Kill It, We Grill It")
  18. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    obhavekenobi78,

    Let's run some math here for a moment, directly from your article that you quoted.

    For 20 years, his post was ?second-legger,? a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour. ... On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious.

    Let's assume an 8-hour workday at 309/hour. That gives us 2472 animals a day.

    Now, he says that on bad days, "dozens" would reach his station alive/concious. Considering that he said bad days, 2-3 dozen would seem a reasonable average for typical days. So we are talking about 24-36 animals a day on average.

    That is 1-1.5% of the animals. Considering that humans give vaying reactions to different forms of sedation, that's a very good response rate. They accept medications for humans with higher failure or reaction rates than that.

    However, I suspect that this is only a red herring for you. Even if there were a 0% fail rate, you would still oppose eating meat, wouldn't you? Your argument does not really rest upon whether 100% of the animals are unconcious before they are slaughtered, but instead on your belief that we shouldn't slaughter any of them, no matter what.

    Kimball Kinnison
  19. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    KK,

    You're making the assumption that the percentage of animals that reach his station are the total sum of all animals that are not rendered unconcious at the first stages of slaughter when it is clearly stated that he is a "second-legger". The primary station is called the "knocker". The knocker is supposed to render the animal unconscious using various methods. After the initial "knock" the animal has to be shackled, hoisted, and "bled". The bleeding process alone takes several minutes. Therefor, your mathematic calcualtions are inherently flawed.

    Your assumption regarding my beliefs is noted, however it does not illegitimize the point as you try to assert. My beliefs make little difference regarding how the meat industry treats it's animals. In fact, it is you who are using a "red herring" by attempting to move the conversation away from facts and instead choosing to focus on my motivation for presenting the other side of the issue.
  20. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Your assumption regarding my beliefs is noted, however it does not illegitimize the point as you try to assert. My beliefs make little difference regarding how the meat industry treats it's animals. In fact, it is you who are using a "red herring" by attempting to move the conversation away from facts and instead choosing to focus on my motivation for presenting the other side of the issue.

    Actually, you are making one other fallacy by trying to play on peoples' emotions here.

    How animals are slaughtered (and whether they are concious or not at the time) has no bearing whatsoever on whether they have rights or not. Just because you find something horrible does not mean that someone's rights are infringed.

    For example, if the bank has to foreclose on a family's house, and they have nowhere else to go, I would consider that a pretty horrible occurance. However, is it violating anyone's rights? No, it isn't. There is no legal right to housing.

    Facts? Your entire argument is an emotional one, not a factual one. Yes, you have facts on the actual process, but those have nothing to do whith whether they have rights in the first place. Those facts would only come into play once you have established that such animals either have or should have rights.

    You're jumping the gun quite a bit on this one.

    From a factual standpoint, those animals that are slaughtered do not have any legal rights that are being violated. If we're going to discuss animal rights, then you need to build your foundation of why they should have rights in the first place before you claim that such rights are being violated.

    Kimball Kinnison
  21. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    PETA TV? PETA TV??? That's the best you can do? Wow...no political bias there. The information provided in that piece of crap is about as reliable as "Bowling for Columbine".
  22. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    KK,

    You would be right barring the fact that you negelect to realize that I wasn't formulating an argument for animal rights based upon inhumane slaughter, but rather I was responding to a post in which it was claimed that the slaughter was done very humanely. I believe it was Special_Fred that made the post.

    Special_Fred,

    Why does the source matter? Even if you completely discount that video based solely on the provider of the content (even though the evidence is plain to see) you still haven't addressed the article I presented which cleary refutes your statement earlier that animals take less than a second and are killed using humane methods.

    They did at one point have a video along with the article on the Washington Post's website that was far more gruesome than the PETA expose, but as the article is from 2001, the media has been removed.
  23. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    "Wouldn't a hungry person, if they have money, buy food from a store? I know I do."

    Exactly, but your food was prepared (assuming you eat meat) in the same manner simply with a different animal and a different "supply chain".


    Perhaps. But if dogs were to only food source, which is what your example assumes, and that I was pointing out in the above quote of a quote, is that there is no alternative to eating mans best friend. In such a culture where dogs are acceptable food there would be no moral conflict of interests. Except of course for the veggies.

    If you were truly applying that mantra, you would be okay with people killing other people based simply on their physical and/or mental superiority.

    But I am applying that. If there was no established method of feeding billions of people and the only fod source was another human then the physically and mentally dissabled would be the first to be eaten. I find it barbaric, yet perfectly justified. Although this does seem really extreme to me, yeah me, the person that just said it. That is because there is a certain communal value that we assign to eachother simply because we are all human. In survival of the fittest, there is no such motivation and no such value. I'm confident that if I had to, then I would eat less able minded/bodied humans. And I'm certainly aware that I infact might become food myself. The fictional alien race was emplyed on my part to aviod the eventual implications of elitism in iterating this line of thought. Commence the slander and libel!
  24. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Regardless of any superiority that you feel over other animals (and I'm not saying that it isn't justified), ruling out all rights based upon that alone is unfair. I haven't suggested that animals enjoy the same rights that we allow ourselves, but certain basic rights should be applied if merely out of compassion and respect.
  25. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    certain basic rights should be applied if merely out of compassion and respect.

    And should in no way infringe upon the rights of humans or in any way reflect the views of one group of humans about another. Which means the rules should not include banning the meat industry which would almost certainly be an option if the committee was made up of vegans and such. In this heavily industrialized capitalist society outright killing such a huge industry is a pipe dream. Tobacco for example, is a very profitable industry esspecially for the government, politically and financially. It will always be there even though it markets one of the most disgusting and unhealthy products.

    For the sake of disclosure I think those slaughter houses are deplorable, however the only immediate change that I as a consumer can hope for is the increase choice within the market. Perhaps a certified "Humane processing" label. Such things will cost money and if people won't fork it out then the last resort is legislation, even then enforcement and evaluation will cost taxes. I however could see paying 15 cents more per pound for food. I've already cut milk out of my diet, and things like fish or chicken or beef, well I can't afford to eat those things everynight, I'm lucky to get meat twice a week. My dog gets more meat than I do.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.