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?
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.
** 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.
This 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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:
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
The charges you mention were investigated, and not substantiated.
From the article you cited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“Typical American”? You said you read it in Dutch. Did you think that Dutch is a typically American language?
Simply bigotry, no different than jokes about the French.
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
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
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?
*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:
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:
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:
More on “clarity” and “consistency”, from the Oakland Tribune cite:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Yes. 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. 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.
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.
**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 about this investigation:
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:
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:
Here’s a sample check list. 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 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…