# Animal Rights!!!!!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [July 23, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304 "2003-07-23T03:15:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/61 "2003-07-24T14:30:04Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*_By “humane slaughter”, I mean methods of execution that minimize the suffering of the animal at least to the point that it is less than can be reasonably expected to occur in a state of nature. Lions are not as scrupulous, AFAIK, as a well-run slaughterhouse._
> 
> Actually, they are _more_ scrupulous. They don’t cram their prey inside cages for extended periods before killing and eating them. How is this type of suffering (plus other conditions of a factory farm/slaughterhouse) compatible to your “less than expected in a state of nature” rationalisation of humane treatment?  
> \*\*

It depends (as many of these kind of discussions do) on what you consider “humane”. Is it humane to kill an animal by giving it an electric shock? How about chasing it for a while, then leaping on its back, and clamping your jaws on its throat so that it suffocates?

Which is worse, wandering around a ranch for a while, and then being killed and eaten, or wandering around a prairie for a while, and then being killed and eaten?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> In any case, your example is anthropomorphising (what lions do), which you’ve argued against, and contradictory to another of your previous assertions:
> 
> \***Humans have, or can, bypass to a great degree the “natural order” under which their species evolved. Therefore, we have worked out a different system, which we call “ethics”, which is (at least in theory) how we regulate our behavior.** \*
> 
> Lions are consistent as well as scrupulous in their “natural order” methods. “Ethics”, by definition, need to be scrupulous and consistent too. It doesn’t work out that way in your argument.  
> \*\*

I don’t understand this part.

When I argue against anthropomorphizing animals, I am saying that we cannot condemn what animals do because it would be wrong if people did it. Similarly, we cannot condemn what people do if animals do it.

So it is wrong to condemn lions for practicing infanticide and murder. It is also wrong to condemn humans for eating meat. This is applying an inappropriate standard where it does not belong.

I am applying the standard of “humane slaughter” to humans only insofar as it can be compared to the different standard appropriate to animals. If human “humane slaughter” equals or exceeds the standard of “natural order”, it is appropriate (to humans). But it does not work the other way. Lions cannot be condemned if their “natural order” is a lower standard than human ethics.

This is a lot of what I mean when I say that humans are higher order beings than animals. Animals have no conscious ability to choose one standard or another. People do.

Certainly, lions transgress against the natural order (by overhunting, or by reproducing with sub-optimal members of their species), but they don’t do so consciously, and they do not accrue blame for it.

Unless I misunderstood your point.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> **Certainly abuses exist, but that is not what I mean by “humane slaughter”.**
> 
> We are debating the situation _as it exists_, no? There’s no way to address this contradictory statement except to say: Where abuses exist with certainty, there is no _consistent principle of humane slaughter_ to point to.

\*\* Nonsense. Abuses of every principle exist, but they do not invalidate the principle. Murders happen all the time, but this does not mean that there is no principle of the sanctity of human life. The existence of child abuse does not mean that the family is not important.

Similarly, the undoubted fact that cruelty against animals exists does not establish that there is no consensus that animal abuse is wrong. PETA and the ASPCA rely on this consensus to push for what they want. The question remains whether or not eating meat, wearing leather, etc., is unethical in and of itself, because it has not been established that raising animals for food is cruel _per se_.

It can even amount to a sort of bait-and-switch argument. Animal rights activists have been known to point to some undoubted abuse of animals (such as inhumane slaughter or inhumane conditions) and use this as the argument that raising animals for food is inhumane in and of itself. Which begs the question as to whether raising an animal under humane conditions, killling it at maturity in some humane way, and then using it for food or clothing is cruel. I would argue that it is not.

_Abusus non tollit usum_ is a well-established principle of rational thought.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> _And I would argue that the principle of “humane slaughter” is widely accepted in American society._
> 
> You would be arguing without first proving your own assertions regarding “humane slaughter” thus far (see above). In any case, can you cite anything to verify that claim? (After all, this is GD) What does “widely accepted” mean as a percentage of society? And what exactly are the definitive standards of this widely accepted humane slaughter principle? How can something undefined be widely accepted?\*\*

[This](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/humanemyths.htm) is what I mean by “humane slaughter”. And far from being undefined, it is rather clearly and extensively defined. And is so widely accepted as to have the force of law.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> If you mean in the sense that individuals rationalise what “humane” slaughter means to suit their circumstance (as you are doing), this might be so. But an inconsistent principle is a contradiction of terms (do I need to cite the definition of principle?)._\*

No, not a contradiction of terms, but a violation of the principle. And I am not rationalising “humane slaughter”. The principle exists, and is widely applied.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> \*\*Most people would agree, I suspect, that torturing an animal to death is morally wrong. But far fewer would agree that it is wrong, in principle, to kill an animal in order to eat its flesh.
> 
> You can make a case, I guess, that raising calves for veal is cruel. But it is much more difficult to argue that it is murder to send an electric shock thru a chicken’s head in order to eat it.\*\*
> 
> Perhaps, but how do strawman questions address what we’re actually debating? Okay, the scenarios you mention are some specifics that need to be debated in order to establish consistent principles of humane treatment. But if you’re saying that already exists as a widespread principle, then how can you explain the need for these rhetorical arguments? \*\*

These are not rhetorical arguments. Indeed, the arguments would make no sense unless the principle was agreed to in advance.

No one who disagreed that humane slaughter was an important principle would care in the least whether or not an animal was being tortured to death. The very fact that animal rights activists can rely on a wide acceptance of the importance of avoiding unnecessary suffering in animals means that the principle is widely established, or no one would care what PETA said.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/62 "2003-07-24T15:04:28Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Shodan \*  
> \*\*…I am saying that we cannot condemn what animals do because it would be wrong if people did it… \*\*

Too right, not least because it would be stupid to do it – animals are not moral entities. Even if they were to act against their own self-interests (by over-hunting or over-populating for instance), or go against our interests (by predating likestock or attacking humans for instance) no censure would be appropriate or useful.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Shodan \*  
> \*\*…Similarly, we cannot condemn what people do if animals do it… \*\*

This is an unworthy _non sequitur_ – even below you concede we must be judged by our own standards (we are the _only_ judges). But here it appears your intention is to imply that because animals hunt and are cruel to each other that we owe them no greater courtesy, this amounts to, “Hey, they’d do it to us. if they had the chance!”, an argument one might expect from a dull adolescent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/63 "2003-07-24T15:57:09Z")

</div>

**Great Unwashed** -

You are correct. I should have said that we cannot condemn people for doing what animals do, if the “natural order” standard and “human ethics” standard coincide.

_I_ knew what I was saying…

As long as I have a minute, I guess I should also expand on what I said about “anthropomorphizing”. I am using this to refer primarily to two factors.

One is the application of abstract human standards to animals. This is generally a mistake.

The other is to assume that animal experience and “thinking” is similar to humans. This is also usually, but not always and not completely, a mistake. It depends much more on the animal.

Some animals - the higher primates mostly, but others as well - demonstrate qualities that are at least similar to those valued in humans. Chimps and so forth can show some signs of abstract thought. It is therefore appropriate to treat them differently, to that degree. Other animals clearly cannot do much in that way.

Therefore, chickens (for instance) can and should be treated differently than bonobos. I had a veterinarian/chicken farmer acquaintance of mine once describe the domestic chicken as basically “a plant with wings”. Therefore, it is a mistake to define ethical behavior towards a chicken based on assumptions about what a human would wish for in the same situation - much more of a mistake, in fact, that would be true for an orangutan or a gorilla (or a dolphin, perhaps - I don’t know much about dolphins).

So I believe the concept of “wouldn’t the chicken be sad because she misses her friends” is inappropriate, since I don’t believe the chicken has any concept of friendship, and would therefore not suffer from its lack. Similarly, cows can thrive under a regimen that would drive a human to psychoneurosis thru boredom, because cows, by and large, do not get bored.

It depends on the species, and this constitutes a great deal of what we mean by referring to “higher” or “lower” animals. It is wrong to casually kill a chimp or an elephant in a way that it is not wrong to swat a mosquito, because the chimp or elephant must have different needs satisfied in order to be described as “humanely treated”.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/64 "2003-07-24T16:25:16Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I had a veterinarian/chicken farmer acquaintance of mine once describe the domestic chicken as basically “a plant with wings”.

That’s where I would disagree.  
Although I agree that it is foolish to ascribe human emotions like friendship to a Cornish Rock Cross, I can guarantee that they are certainly capable of experiencing pain.  
While I don’t pretend to have any idea what a bird in a confinement farm feels, I do know that being unnaturally penned in with other birds in a miniscule cage leads to cannibalism and other aberrant behaviors.  
That’s one of the primary reasons that I believe common factory farming practices should be considered unacceptable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/65 "2003-07-24T19:57:54Z")

</div>

\*\*This is what I mean by “humane slaughter”. \*\*

Your cite was a standard rebuttal of the following charges against the USDA:  
[Inspectors Say USDA **Ignores** Humane Slaughter Act](http://www.westerninspector.com/newsletters/2001/articles/july/slaughter.html)

> [@](#):
>
> The coalition representing **6,700** meat inspectors sent a petition to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman urging broader authority to enforce the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA/June 15,2001).

**No, not a contradiction of terms, but a violation of the principle. And I am not rationalising “humane slaughter”. The principle exists, and is widely applied.**

I will concede that there is a Humane Slaughter Act on record. But widely applied? Here are results from the [USDA’s **internal** survey:](http://www.purefood.org/irrad/insensibility.cfm)

> [@](#):
>
> A 1996 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey found almost two-thirds of slaughter plants were not in compliance with the 1958 Humane Slaughter Act, which requires animals to be rendered “insensible to pain” with one jolt to the head before they are slaughtered.

[‘They Die Piece by Piece’ In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost (Excerpted from Washington Post April 10, 2001)](http://www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/piecebypiece.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis," said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. "I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve talked to other veterinarians. They feel it’s out of control.

Clearly defined?

[**Lack of clarity** with regard to regulatory enforcement authority further impedes inspectors’ ability to enforce the regulations.](http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/usda_petition.html)

> [@](#):
>
> USDA INSPECTOR: Any time an inspector makes a stand, he gets subjected to our own people. Is he right or wrong? The regulations are kind of vague, subject to interpretation. There’s people who’ll say it all depends on how you read it. It’s easy to ignore things.
> 
> USDA INSPECTOR: The last four inspectors that we’ve hired probably don’t even know the Humane Slaughter Act exists.
> 
> INSPECTORS’ UNION OFFICIAL: Ask the inspectors at any plant, “What do you know about humane handling and slaughter at this establishment and tell me how it’s being done.” They’ll tell you that animals are being stunned with a captive bolt or with electrical current. But aside from that, they don’t know anything. If one out of ten inspectors knows about [humane] requirements, I will eat the HSA.

**No one who disagreed that humane slaughter was an important principle would care in the least whether or not an animal was being tortured to death.**

**Shodan** , I spent a lot of time making sure I understood what you were trying to say. I hate to critique your writing style, but is it possible for you to state your points more succinctly? Anyway, assuming you’re saying that (by and large) people claim to care about the humane treatment of animals (yes?), I’ll say: that might be so, but the inconsistencies and the abuses are _equally widespread_. It’s debateable whether or not a chronically violated principle _exists in practice_. Anyone can _say_ they care - I’m addressing the reality of what is being done.

**The very fact that animal rights activists can rely on a wide acceptance of the importance of avoiding unnecessary suffering in animals means that the principle is widely established, or no one would care what PETA said.**

AFAIK, a lot of people _don’t_ care what PETA says - except as fodder for remarks about ‘wackos’ (read the OP and OP sympathisers). For the record: I’m not a PETA member. I’m not even a vegetarian. I’m not arguing this as a bait and switch for the purposes of proselytising ‘meat is murder’, or any other ‘extremist’ view. I’ve never heard a compelling argument for that view either.

Where we disagree, perhaps, is on what the levels of ignorance, complacency, and inconsistency are regarding this issue. Some examples in this thread speak to that.

**Unless I misunderstood your point.**

I think so, but **The Great Unwashed** already pointed out the _non sequitur_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/66 "2003-07-25T19:22:07Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \*  
> **Other species don’t hold humans hostage and in caves in order to make them reproduce for their profit, food, whatever.**

[http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/entomology/topics/societies.htm:](http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/entomology/topics/societies.htm:)

“Most ant battles you see are actually slave raids. […]  
Slave making ants[ul][li]Capture larvae and pupae of another species.[/li][li]Carry them back to there own nest where:[/li]\*They acquire the nest odor.  
\*Develop into adults and act as workers for their new colony.[/ul]Some slave making ant species are incapable of surviving without slave workers. They are no longer able to collect food or feed their immatures or themselves.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/67 "2003-07-26T02:17:40Z")

</div>

tracer,

I referred to the fact that ants don’t hold humans in cages or as reproducing things in order to make profit.

On a side note: It would be interesting to see a study done about where the idea to keep slaves came from when first practiced by humans. Someone had to come to the idea first. Which in my opinion came from observation of the animal world, as so many so called human inventions and developments were.

And take notice that the categorising of these ants as “slaves” is the human one. For the ants it is a question of following instincts in order to survive.  
Salaam. A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/68 "2003-07-26T02:39:10Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Shodan \*  
> I would assume you say the same about human hunters. They are just playing, and therefore their behavior is moral. Right?

If humans hunt for food it is hunting for food. Which is then a necessity in order to survive, just like animals hunt for food in order to survive.  
Humans who depend on hunting for food will train their offspring in this, just like animals do. Which is not a play, not making fun, but a necessity.  
If humans hunt for play and fun, that is not for food but by dumbness and immoral cruelty.

> [@](#):
>
> And I disbelieve what you claim about Marily vos Savant saying that learning more than one language is “ridiculous”. I think you either made that up, or misunderstood it.
> 
> Unless you would like to break your own policy and produce a cite.

I have that book in a Dutch translation. Which I don’t have here right now, since it is in Belgium. If you have read it - as you claim by the contenance of your post since you say I’m wrong - then you must read it again because what I say it contains is written in it. It may be that the exact word “ridiculous” isn’t used. I even think it was even a more harsh ridiculizing of people who want to learn more then one language, describing it as a complete unnecessary waist of time and energy.

> [@](#):
>
> Gee, that reminds me of a certain poster here on the SDMB. No wonder you found it offensive.

Why should I find it offensive? Do you presume that if someone categorizes something “typical American” that person must be offended by it? If so, why?

I find that book ridiculous and a waist of the time I spend to see what it was about. And typical American in its language and structure. The remark of the “knowing one language is enough” being one of those typical American ideas.

Salaam. A.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/69 "2003-07-26T12:01:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*\*\*This is what I mean by “humane slaughter”. \*\*
> 
> Your cite was a standard rebuttal of the following charges against the USDA:  
> [Inspectors Say USDA **Ignores** Humane Slaughter Act](http://www.westerninspector.com/newsletters/2001/articles/july/slaughter.html)  
> \*\*

The charges you mention were investigated, and not substantiated.  
From the article you cited:

> [@](#):
>
> USDA officials said the department has bimonthly meetings with the union of meat inspectors and complaints over humane slaughter has never been discussed.
> 
> …a recent state investigation on livestock mishandling at the Wallula plant resulted in no charges.
> 
> IBP and the state of Washington announced in April a cooperative agreement that allows state officials to continuously verify the plant is properly handling livestock, Mickelson said.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> **No, not a contradiction of terms, but a violation of the principle. And I am not rationalising “humane slaughter”. The principle exists, and is widely applied.**
> 
> I will concede that there is a Humane Slaughter Act on record. But widely applied? Here are results from the [USDA’s **internal** survey:](http://www.purefood.org/irrad/insensibility.cfm)\*\*

I don’t think this cites exactly means that two thirds of all animals are not humanely slaughtered. “Being in violation” can mean anything from skinning animals alive to not filling out the proper paperwork.

I would argue that having a system of inspectors in place to enforce the regulations, and sanctioning companies who violate the regulations, means that the act is widely applied.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> **Clearly defined?**

> [@](#):
>
> They’ll tell you that animals are being stunned with a captive bolt or with electrical current. But aside from that, they don’t know anything. If one out of ten inspectors knows about [humane] requirements, I will eat the HSA.

This seems contradictory to me. Clearly the inspectors know about humane slaughter, since they can accurately describe what is supposed to happen. But “aside from that”, they don’t know about humane slaughter.

Unless the word “humane” in brackets is an interpolation of the interviewer, and the inspector was really talking about some other provisions of the Act beside human slaughter.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> **Shodan** , I spent a lot of time making sure I understood what you were trying to say. I hate to critique your writing style, but is it possible for you to state your points more succinctly?  
> \*\*

Probably not. Sorry - the more succinct I am, the more I am likely to misstate myself, as you and **The Great Unwashed** have pointed out.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> Anyway, assuming you’re saying that (by and large) people claim to care about the humane treatment of animals (yes?), I’ll say: that might be so, but the inconsistencies and the abuses are equally widespread. It’s debateable whether or not a chronically violated principle exists in practice. Anyone can say they care - I’m addressing the reality of what is being done._\*

Inconsistencies and abuses certainly occur, as I stipulated earlier. I do not think they are so common as to invalidate the principle of humane slaughter.

There are literally billions of animals killed for food and other uses in the US every year. Certainly there are going to be a certain percent of those kills that are deplorable. I would argue that the majority - even the vast majority - are clean and humane kills. And a system exists to address the violations. We could argue about how much, if anything, needs to be done to reduce the violations, but by and large, most of the animals killed for food are killed in a humane way.

If by “equally widespread” you mean that 50% of all animals are being cut up alive, I find that difficult to believe. This is based on some research I did previously on chicken slaughtering for another thread, and my father’s experiences. He is a retired veterinarian, and was involved in several accusations of animal mistreatment during his tenure as head of his state veterinary licensing department.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> AFAIK, a lot of people _don’t_ care what PETA says - except as fodder for remarks about ‘wackos’ (read the OP and OP sympathisers). For the record: I’m not a PETA member. I’m not even a vegetarian. I’m not arguing this as a bait and switch for the purposes of proselytising ‘meat is murder’, or any other ‘extremist’ view. I’ve never heard a compelling argument for that view either.  
> \*\*

I am not limiting my example to PETA, whose position is widely dismissed as extremist.

What I meant was that unless there was a consensus that “animals should not suffer unnecessarily”, no one would care about the accusations made against the IBP plant, and there would be no Humane Slaughter act or inspection system to enforce it.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \*  
> \*\*  
> If humans hunt for food it is hunting for food. Which is then a necessity in order to survive, just like animals hunt for food in order to survive.  
> Humans who depend on hunting for food will train their offspring in this, just like animals do. Which is not a play, not making fun, but a necessity.  
> If humans hunt for play and fun, that is not for food but by dumbness and immoral cruelty.  
> \*\*

Sorry, you are contradicting yourself.

The example was of a domestic cat, who played with a mouse before eating it. A domestic cat does not need to hunt for food, since its owner feeds it. Therefore, the motive for the cat must be other than hunting for survival.

Similarly, hunters in the US and Europe do not need to hunt for their food, which is easily obtainable thru markets and farms. Therefore, their motive must be recreation, same as the domesticated cat.

But the one is dumb and immoral, and the other is not. Why the different standards?

> [@](#):
>
> ## \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* \*\* quote:
> 
> And I disbelieve what you claim about Marily vos Savant saying that learning more than one language is “ridiculous”. I think you either made that up, or misunderstood it.
> 
> ## Unless you would like to break your own policy and produce a cite.
> 
> I have that book in a Dutch translation. Which I don’t have here right now, since it is in Belgium. If you have read it - as you claim by the contenance of your post since you say I’m wrong - then you must read it again because what I say it contains is written in it.  
> \*\*

No, I haven’t read it. I have read your other posts, and I have learned not to accept your claims at face value.

I don’t believe what you say without evidence.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \*  
> \*\*
> 
> ## quote:
> 
> ## Gee, that reminds me of a certain poster here on the SDMB. No wonder you found it offensive.
> 
> Why should I find it offensive? Do you presume that if someone categorizes something “typical American” that person must be offended by it? If so, why?  
> \*\*

Because you said that you found it offensive.

I have more than a little trouble understanding what you say. If you don’t understand it either, the situation is nearly hopeless.

You claimed that the book was offensive because it talked down to you, that is, was written as if its intended audience was stupid. Which pretty well describes most of your posts on the SDMB. You found the book offensive; many posters here find your writings offensive, and for the same reasons. Because you assume yourself to be far more intelligent than those you address.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \*  
> \*\*  
> I find that book ridiculous and a waist of the time I spend to see what it was about. And typical American in its language and structure.  
> \*\*

“Typical American”? You said you read it in Dutch. Did you think that Dutch is a typically American language?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \*  
> \*\*  
> The remark of the “knowing one language is enough” being one of those typical American ideas.  
> \*\*

Simply bigotry, no different than jokes about the French.

Or Belgians and _pommes frites_.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/70 "2003-07-26T17:25:57Z")

</div>

Shodan,

As soon as you are able to disfigure my writing without giving them your own wrong interpretation and without by doing this adding words, intentions, ideas who aren’t there, please let me know. Thank you.

If you aren’t able to do so, then we better don’t discuss with eachother, since I’m not going to repeat like a parrot over and over again what I write in order to prove to you that what you make of it is completely wrong.  
Salaam. A

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/71 "2003-07-26T17:52:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> If you aren’t able to do so, then we better don’t discuss with eachother, since I’m not going to repeat like a parrot over and over again what I write in order to prove to you that what you make of it is completely wrong.

Good thing, because simply repeating your nonsense is not going to prove anything.

You are talking out your ass, contradicting yourself, and making unsupported statements. If it bothers you when people point this out, you can either [ul][li]STFU, [_]Stop doing it, or [_]Back up what you allege with logic or with cites.[/ul] I have a preference for which of these you pick, but the choice is yours.[/li]  
Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/72 "2003-07-27T06:45:28Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \*  
> **And take notice that the categorising of these ants as “slaves” is the human one. For the ants it is a question of following instincts in order to survive.**

Instincts that just happen to systematically oppress other ant populations.

Considering that the practice of slavery existed in nearly every human culture until the last few centuries or so, I’d hazard a guess that there’s something endemic to human psychology that causes people to press other people into slavery. One might even go so far as to call such a psychological drive an … instinct.

So, how are we different from the slaver ants again?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/73 "2003-07-27T10:53:48Z")

</div>

\*Originally posted by Shodan: \*  
**The charges you mention were investigated, and not substantiated.**

Not quite. First, how does a “rebuttal” equal “unsubstantiated”? Here’s more info, from _your_ cite:

> [@](#):
>
> FACT: A team of Federal and Washington State officials conducted an investigation and concluded that HFA deleted footage showing corrective actions taking place if an animal is not properly stunned. Furthermore, a prosecuting attorney, who was asked to review the investigation results to determine if any criminal charges should be filed, “was particularly concerned that the unedited videotape demonstrated HFA’s intent to promote a particular agenda through the edited tape, such that all evidence developed by HFA was discredited.”

What the HSA did was exceptionally stupid, but this does not prove in any way that the _inspectors’ charges_ were “unsubstantiated”.  
Second, there could also be political and/or other reasons behind a DA deciding not to press charges - again, this doesn’t unsubstantiate _all_ of the evidence against the party originally being charged. [An example:](http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1498482,00.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Oakland Tribune (AP): The owners of a Southern California egg farm insist they did not do anything wrong when they slaughtered 30,000 unproductive chickens by throwing them into wood chippers.  
> State authorities agreed, deciding in May not to file animal cruelty charges.  
> In the wood chipper case, the USDA did not approve the slaughter method, said Ed Lloyd, a USDA spokesman. The decision on filing charges, however, was up to the San Diego County district attorney’s office, which declined after determining there was no criminal intent by the owners of the farm, Arie and Bill Wilgenburg.

**I don’t think this cites exactly means that two thirds of all animals are not humanely slaughtered. “Being in violation” can mean anything from skinning animals alive to not filling out the proper paperwork.**

Speculation. _I_ could speculate that the USDA would be eager to point out that a certain amount of the violations were minor and/or not directly related to abuse - _if_ that percentage would bolster their image. Funny that the spin doctors never mentioned it in their fact v. myth rebuttal, no?

**I would argue that having a system of inspectors in place to enforce the regulations, and sanctioning companies who violate the regulations, means that the act is widely applied.**

Yes, a system of inspectors in place, wherein **6,700** of them asserted that the Act is _not_ being widely and/or consistently applied. BTW, this number is more than the currently active roster of inspectors employed _nationwide_ as of this month (6,500 - see cite above).

\*\*This seems contradictory to me. Clearly the inspectors know about humane slaughter, since they can accurately describe what is supposed to happen. But “aside from that”, they don’t know about humane slaughter.

Unless the word “humane” in brackets is an interpolation of the interviewer, and the inspector was really talking about some other provisions of the Act beside human slaughter.\*\*

I would say, other provisions that apply to _humane_ (as set forth by the Act) in addition to the _stun_ regulation (ie prior handling) - or possibly even the rationale behind the effectiveness of the stun procedure. How can it be _clear_ to you that they know about humane slaughter when these inspectors are stating directly that they _don’t_? Your reply here is illustrative of one of those alluded to in the quote you _didn’t_ address, regarding clarity:

> [@](#):
>
> USDA INSPECTOR: Any time an inspector makes a stand, he gets subjected to our own people. Is he right or wrong? The regulations are kind of vague, subject to interpretation. There’s people who’ll say it all depends on how you read it. It’s easy to ignore things.

More on “clarity” and “consistency”, from the Oakland Tribune cite:

> [@](#):
>
> “One of the problems with the way the law is written is that it’s very vague,” said Temple Grandin, a Colorado State University professor of animal science and a pioneer in the science of animal welfare. “A lot of it gets into the inspector’s judgment and interpretation.”
> 
> The 45-year-old federal Humane Slaughter Act offers guidelines on slaughter methods but only requires that animals be rendered “insensible to pain” before being killed. It excludes poultry from that requirement. State laws vary on cruelty to animals.

**Probably not. Sorry - the more succinct I am, the more I am likely to misstate myself, as you and The Great Unwashed have pointed out.**

The non sequitur was a separate instance. Speaking for myself, in that quote I was referring to (difficulty in reading) your convoluted phrasing specifically (as per my example), and more generally, the frequent use of rhetorical analogies/questions that didn’t quite address the particulars of what we were debating. Why mention extremist opinion analogies in your replies _to me_? IMO, that’s strawman argument - however unintentional - and it’s unfair to point to them since I’d never argued _for_ them in my posts. This unfairness is the only reason I mentioned it - I never intended to critique your style of writing as a personal dig of any kind. Apologies if it came off that way.

**We could argue about how much, if anything, needs to be done to reduce the violations, but by and large, most of the animals killed for food are killed in a humane way.**

It appears this is exactly the point we’re arguing. Why would you use the term “if anything” in this instance? Are you saying your opinion might be that _nothing_ should be done to reduce the violations? IMO, this would be an _anti_-animal welfare view. Why would you argue against reducing the violations? (and obviously, I mean short of the extremist position of not slaughtering at all)

**This is based on some research I did previously on chicken slaughtering for another thread, and my father’s experiences. He is a retired veterinarian, and was involved in several accusations of animal mistreatment during his tenure as head of his state veterinary licensing department.**

I’m (sincerely) interested in your research and experience (through your father). I’m not arguing that all my cite examples come from an unbiased source, but I consider the USDA cite to be biased as well. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any truly _unbiased source_ studies or research to consider. In this case, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, for the simple reason that the potential “victims” in this issue can’t speak for or defend themselves, and those being accused have powerful political lobbies behind them.

Based on your replies so far, it seems you are biased towards accepting the USDA’s rebuttals without question. Again, can I ask you why? Does any of it have to do with your father’s former position with the govt? I’d rather not argue against a bias that exists for personal reasons (ie I’m not interested in engaging in personal attacks).

If this is the case, I’d say it’s better to agree to disagree.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![elfje](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@elfje](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfje)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/74 "2003-07-27T11:02:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by PoorYorick \*  
> \*\*Actually, scientists pretty much agree now that the linear view of evolution isn’t valid. Picture all species alive today as leaves on a bush. Humans would be one of those leaves. Not to be pendantic, but this rules out the _noblesse oblige_ argument for the ethical treatment of animals.
> 
> I guess you _could_ make the argument, though, that we’re at the “top” of the food chain, but I’m not sure what that would have to do with anything. \*\*

I know humans didn’t evolve in a linear way. That wasn’t my point. My point is that we are the strongest and most influential species **now**.  
We’re the ones changing the world, mainly through pollution. In fact, we are the only species that changes the world around us to suit us, than adapt ourselves to our environment. What we do, has an impact not only on us, but also on our habitat, and therefor the habitat of animals around us.  
If we have a big brain, we better start using it and take responsability for our actions.  
I’m not a vegetarian (I was, at some stage in my life), but the way the western world treats animals, especially domesticated animals, is appalling.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/75 "2003-07-27T12:09:05Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*\*Originally posted by Shodan: \*  
> **The charges you mention were investigated, and not substantiated.**
> 
> ## Not quite. First, how does a “rebuttal” equal “unsubstantiated”? Here’s more info, from _your_ cite: quote:
> 
> ## FACT: A team of Federal and Washington State officials conducted an investigation and concluded that HFA deleted footage showing corrective actions taking place if an animal is not properly stunned. Furthermore, a prosecuting attorney, who was asked to review the investigation results to determine if any criminal charges should be filed, “was particularly concerned that the unedited videotape demonstrated HFA’s intent to promote a particular agenda through the edited tape, such that all evidence developed by HFA was discredited.”
> 
> What the HSA did was exceptionally stupid, but this does not prove in any way that the _inspectors’ charges_ were “unsubstantiated”. \*\*

Actually, I think it does.

The cite is talking about a video tape taken at an IBP plant, which was the source of many of the allegations of cruelty. What the team found was that the video had been edited to remove “corrective actions taking place if an animal is not properly stunned”. In other word, HFA doctored the tape to imply that animals were being butchered alive, and removed the evidence that “corrective actions” had been taken - another knock-out shot, for instance, which demonstrated that they were _not_ being butchered alive, but had been properly stunned.

And the independent prosecutor found that this dishonest editing was such that it was clear the HFA could not be trusted on any of their other allegations either.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> Second, there could also be political and/or other reasons behind a DA deciding not to press charges - again, this doesn’t unsubstantiate _all_ of the evidence against the party originally being charged.  
> \*\*

This is darn close to “guilty until proven innocent”. Both the government and the independent prosecuting attorney found that some of the evidence had been doctored, and none of the allegations were enough to establish probable cause. This looks like a lack of substantiation to me.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> [An example:](http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1498482,00.html) **I don’t think this cites exactly means that two thirds of all animals are not humanely slaughtered. “Being in violation” can mean anything from skinning animals alive to not filling out the proper paperwork.**
> 
> Speculation. _I_ could speculate that the USDA would be eager to point out that a certain amount of the violations were minor and/or not directly related to abuse - _if_ that percentage would bolster their image. Funny that the spin doctors never mentioned it in their fact v. myth rebuttal, no?  
> \*\*

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Certainly speculation both from you and from me. But I have seen this kind of accusation before from groups with an agenda. The headline reads “Investigation finds that two thirds of \<despised industry here\> violated the National Health and Safety Act! How Bad Is the Risk?” Then the article mentions on page 17 that most of the violations involved filling out form 10935/A in duplicate instead of triplicate, or something like that.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> Yes, a system of inspectors in place, wherein **6,700** of them asserted that the Act is _not_ being widely and/or consistently applied. BTW, this number is more than the currently active roster of inspectors employed _nationwide_ as of this month (6,500 - see cite above). \*\*

I don’t understand this. How can there be more inspectors than there are inspectors employed? How did the 200 extra know what was going on in the industry if they didn’t actually work there?

I am going to take a guess here - was there some kind of union dispute going on while this assertion was made? It sounds very much like something the representative of a union would say to try to pressure an industry to hire more of its members.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*I would say, other provisions that apply to _humane_ (as set forth by the Act) in addition to the _stun_ regulation (ie prior handling) - or possibly even the rationale behind the effectiveness of the stun procedure. How can it be _clear_ to you that they know about humane slaughter when these inspectors are stating directly that they _don’t_?  
> \*\*

Well, we were talking about humane slaughter, and the cite mentioned that the inspectors did know that animals needed to be stunned before they were killed. So the relevant part of “humane slaughter”, and the basis for all the accusations, was certainly clear to the inspectors.

I would not be surprised to learn that the inspectors could not name off the top of their heads all the paperwork involved in slaughterhouse inspections. And I suppose we could agree that the inspectors might be better equipped for their jobs if they knew all about the paperwork. But this is a far cry from “Oh, the poor cow was butchered alive”.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> The non sequitur was a separate instance. Speaking for myself, in that quote I was referring to (difficulty in reading) your convoluted phrasing specifically (as per my example), and more generally, the frequent use of rhetorical analogies/questions that didn’t quite address the particulars of what we were debating. Why mention extremist opinion analogies in your replies _to me_? IMO, that’s strawman argument - however unintentional - and it’s unfair to point to them since I’d never argued _for_ them in my posts. This unfairness is the only reason I mentioned it - I never intended to critique your style of writing as a personal dig of any kind. Apologies if it came off that way.  
> \*\*

No problem - I can be both long-winded, and abstruse.

I mention extremist groups like PETA simply as examples of animal rights activists, who are basing their arguments on a consensus that animals should be treated humanely. I certainly don’t want to imply that anyone who is concerned about animal suffering is an extremist or a vegetarian.

On the other hand, it was the finding of the independent prosecuting attorney above that HFA doctored its evidence, so I think it is fair game to criticize HFA. If their videotape is going to be brought forward as evidence, it is not unfair (IMO) to point out the flaws in that evidence.

I don’t mean to lump you in with the extremists, and I apologize if I came off that way.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*It appears this is exactly the point we’re arguing. Why would you use the term “if anything” in this instance? Are you saying your opinion might be that _nothing_ should be done to reduce the violations?  
> \*\*

Yes. It might be true that no changes need to be made.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> IMO, this would be an _anti_-animal welfare view. Why would you argue against reducing the violations? (and obviously, I mean short of the extremist position of not slaughtering at all)  
> \*\*

Because it might not be reasonably possible to reduce the violations beyond some point. There are many millions of animals slaughtered every year in the US. Mistakes are always going to happen. Those mistakes are regrettable, but short (as you and I agree) of outlawing the use of animals for food altogether, the number can never be reduced to zero.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \*  
> \*\*  
> **This is based on some research I did previously on chicken slaughtering for another thread, and my father’s experiences. He is a retired veterinarian, and was involved in several accusations of animal mistreatment during his tenure as head of his state veterinary licensing department.**
> 
> I’m (sincerely) interested in your research and experience (through your father). I’m not arguing that all my cite examples come from an unbiased source, but I consider the USDA cite to be biased as well. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any truly _unbiased source_ studies or research to consider. In this case, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, for the simple reason that the potential “victims” in this issue can’t speak for or defend themselves, and those being accused have powerful political lobbies behind them.
> 
> Based on your replies so far, it seems you are biased towards accepting the USDA’s rebuttals without question. Again, can I ask you why? Does any of it have to do with your father’s former position with the govt? I’d rather not argue against a bias that exists for personal reasons (ie I’m not interested in engaging in personal attacks).
> 
> If this is the case, I’d say it’s better to agree to disagree. \*\*

I guess your characterization of my position is close to accurate.

I _do_ base my position at least in part on my experiences with my father’s involvement in the work against animal cruelty. Neither he nor any of his colleagues would callously dismiss allegations of cruelty to animals as insignificant, and none of them were under the thumb of any industry. I don’t necessarily think that the government agencies are always right or that whistle-blowers should automatically be assumed to be evil.

But my father and his colleagues did uncover some genuine instances of cruelty to animals. And there was never any hint that they should cover it up or ignore it, even when it would tend to bring his profession into disrepute. They did their jobs without hesitation, and actually shut down the business responsible for the abuses (in the instance I am thinking of).

Of course, this is one person’s experience. But based on that experience, I think the case for an industry that simply ignores any consideration of suffering in a greedy quest for profits is badly overstated.

Certainly there are exceptions, and some of them are horribly offensive. But I believe there is a consensus in favor of treating animals humanely, and, by and large, that consensus is enforced.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\
**Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304/76 "2003-07-30T09:53:26Z")

</div>

_Originally posted by Shodan_:

\*\*In other word, HFA doctored the tape to imply that animals were being butchered alive, and removed the evidence that “corrective actions” had been taken - another knock-out shot, for instance, which demonstrated that they were not being butchered alive, but had been properly stunned.

And the independent prosecutor found that this dishonest editing was such that it was clear the HFA could not be trusted on any of their other allegations either.\*\*

I don’t expect you to give up your pro-business/govt stance, **Shodan** , but in the interest of _fighting ignorance_ (on the off chance that anyone else ever reads this long drawn out hijack, or needs the info), let’s read what the independent prosecutor (Jim Nagle) [_ **actually said** _](http://www.slaughterhousecam.com/ibp.html) about this investigation:

> [@](#):
>
> ``The biggest problem is, even though there is good evidence of improper slaughtering practices by the employees, there’s nothing to impute that activity to the corporate level,’’ he said.

Your version of events implies that the improper practices didn’t occur, which is _completely false_. The animals were _not_ properly stunned. As per my previous example (the chickens in the wood chipper), the _real problem_ was in linking the violations to _criminal intent_ on the corporate level. I’ll let that distinction speak for itself. Here’s [**more info**](http://planet.wwu.edu/spring02/spring02_slaughter.htm):

> [@](#):
>
> The biggest problem I had with this investigation was the concept of corporate criminal liability, Nagle said. Proving corporate criminal liability isn’t as easy as people think.
> 
> Nagle said IBP supervisors may have put untrained workers on the line, but he couldn’t hold the corporation liable for the supervisors’ mistakes.
> 
> Eisnitz (HFA) said that workers went to their supervisors time and time again asking them to slow the line down. Nagle said IBP is a difficult corporation to work with, and that it intimidates its employees.
> 
> Workers’ affidavits of IBP’s wrongdoing and HFA’s petition did not establish corporate liability, Nagle said. He said HFA ruined the state’s chances to do an undercover investigation by going to the media with the tape, essentially _warning IBP an investigation was going to take place_.
> 
> HFA’s just mad that I didn’t do what they wanted me to do, Nagle said. **I don’t like IBP any more than they do.**

> [@](#):
>
> Washington state officials launched a probe in May that included an unannounced plant inspection. The investigators say they were detained outside the facility for an hour while their identities were checked. They saw no acts of animal cruelty once permitted inside.
> 
> Grandin, the Colorado State professor, also inspected IBP’s plant, at the company’s request; that inspection was announced. Although she observed no live cattle being butchered, she concluded that the plant’s older-style equipment was “overloaded.” Grandin reviewed parts of the workers’ videotape and said there was no mistaking what she saw. “There were fully alive beef on that rail,” Grandin said. [Cite.](http://www.rmad.org/slaughterhouse.html)

> [@](#):
>
> From National Radio’s [“Making Contact with Stephanie Welsh” July 2001 (transcript)](http://www.radioproject.org/archive/2001/2701.html):  
> Stephanie Welch: The lead prosecutor in the Washington state investigation concluded that although the videotape revealed criminal violations of the Humane Slaughter Act took place at the IBP plant, he would not prosecute the company itself because he didn’t consider it liable for what individual workers were doing. But Miller (HFA) says IBP should be held responsible.
> 
> Brad Miller (HFA): The point that we’ve been making all along is that the workers are not committing animal cruelty for their own sake, they are being told to process these animals at such a rate of speed that they cannot render them unconscious. So the company is legally culpable for these crimes because it’s the supervisors that are instructing the workers to carry out this activity.
> 
> Stephanie Welch: IBP did not respond to our request for comment.

The HFA was guilty of _releasing an edited version of the tape to the media_, thereby “promoting their agenda” - not quite the same thing as “illegal doctoring of evidence”. The evidence was, in Nagle’s own words “good” (as in credible) - _not_ “clearly untrustworthy” or “completely discredited”, as you (and the USDA) assert. And yet this “sound bite” assertion isn’t dishonest, or “doctoring”, right?

**But I have seen this kind of accusation before from groups with an agenda. The headline reads “Investigation finds that two thirds of \<despised industry here\> violated the National Health and Safety Act! How Bad Is the Risk?” Then the article mentions on page 17 that most of the violations involved filling out form 10935/A in duplicate instead of triplicate, or something like that.**

Speaking of speculation and agendas again - please. Are you still trying to imply that big business and big govt _don’t_ have an agenda? Or don’t chronically engage in spin, evasion, and sound bite tactics?

\*\*I don’t understand this. How can there be more inspectors than there are inspectors employed? How did the 200 extra know what was going on in the industry if they didn’t actually work there?

I am going to take a guess here - was there some kind of union dispute going on while this assertion was made? It sounds very much like something the representative of a union would say to try to pressure an industry to hire more of its members.\*\*

Why “guess” when the facts are at hand? The inspectors’ petition was lodged in 2001 (in support of the HFA charges, but separately). The active roster is the _current_ figure. Apparently, there are _less_ inspectors _now_.

What _is_ difficult to understand, is that even after a 50 million dollar budget allocation to hire more inspectors was released to the USDA in February 2003, as of July 2003 they have yet to hire a single new inspector…

**Well, we were talking about humane slaughter, and the cite mentioned that the inspectors did know that animals needed to be stunned before they were killed. So the relevant part of “humane slaughter”, and the basis for all the accusations, was certainly clear to the inspectors.**

It’s actually more complex than you’d like to let on here. Note that proper _handling_, pre and post stun, is also a “relevant” part of the regulated _slaughter_ process. An excerpt from a [detailed study](http://www.grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html):

> [@](#):
>
> _Electrical stunning_ of cattle requires a two-phase stun whereas pigs and sheep are electrically stunned by use of a single-phase application of current. Due to the large size of cattle, a current must first be applied across the head to render the animal insensible before a second current is applied from the head to body to induce cardiac arrest (Gregory, 1993).
> 
> For all species, electrodes must be cleaned frequently to insure that a good electrical connection occurs between stunner and animal.
> 
> The most common cause of low efficacy scores for use of _captive-bolt_ stunning in the USDA Survey was poor maintenance of the captive-bolt stunner (Grandin, 1998b). Captive-bolt stunners must be cleaned and serviced, following the manufacturer’s recommendations, to maintain maximum hitting power and to prevent misfiring or partial-firing.
> 
> Aversive methods of restraint which cause 3% or more of the cattle or pigs to vocalize must not be used as a substitute for improvements in ergonomics of captive-bolt stunners. Electrical immobilization must never be used as a method for restraining sensible animals prior to or during stunning.
> 
> A major cause of failure to render animals insensible with one captive-bolt shot is poor ergonomic design (some pneumatic stunners are so bulky it is very difficult to achieve correct stunner placement on the animal’s forehead). Ergonomics can sometimes be improved by use of a handle extension and improved balancers.
> 
> A third cause of missed captive-bolt stunner shots is an overloaded or fatigued operator.

Here’s a [sample check list](http://www.grandin.com/cattle.audit.form.html). Also note this must be monitored during high speed line kills (1 kill every 12 to 15 _seconds_).

**…I think the case for an industry that simply ignores any consideration of suffering in a greedy quest for profits is badly overstated.**

Badly overstated by whom? (besides me, obviously) And _to_ whom? How many people are familiar with the IBF case we’ve been debating? The edited tape was released to the media, and very briefly, people were “appalled”. But how many people bothered to follow the story afterwards? How many would likely accept your version of the outcome at face value, and not research the “full story”?

**Certainly there are exceptions, and some of them are horribly offensive… It might be true that no changes need to be made. Because it might not be reasonably possible to reduce the violations beyond some point.**

What about reducing kill speeds? Guidelines that are less vague? Better conditions for both plant workers and livestock? Funny, but you never really addressed my original assertions of the need for clarity and consistency, in spite of the numerous cites and examples I’ve supplied since.

**But I believe there is a consensus in favor of treating animals humanely, and, by and large, that consensus is enforced.**

Results of a [Gallup poll](http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13497) from May 2003. You’ll be happy to know that 63% are in favor of strict laws concerning the treatment of farm animals. And yet Gallup titles the poll: “Public _Lukewarm_ On Animal Rights”. Why? Well, there appears to be some “confusion” as to what these “rights” are. It seems that the people who think animals should have the _same_ rights as people, are also _opposed_ to hunting _bans_, or bans on animal testing. Huh? So much for the validity of statistics…

And so much for clarity, consistency, and consensus…

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/animal-rights/190304.md?page=3)