More on the Marauding Minks is over at Snopes.
pinq
Oh, and ANOTHER thing…
I have been present when the mink are killed for their furs. I was there when people were preparing to skin them. Yes, the friends I knew had a small enough operation that they did these things personally.
This is how they die…
They are gassed.
That’s right. They are painlessly put out of their misery via gas. Do you know why? Anything more stressful will affect the pelts in a negative way. Nobody wants to injure the mink, nobody wants to torture them. They are simply put out of their misery, much like a dog in a vet’s office.
Animal rights activists, really REALLY drive me crazy with how utterly stupid they are.
Sorry if there are any ARA that have brains and are offended by this, but you know what? The majority of you ARE stupid and very ignorant.
Animals are animals. People are people. Every day when you get up in the morning and do something based on logic and not on instinct, you are seperating yourself from the animals. Ok? Do you see the fucking difference?
I would beg to differ with Cognito’s claim that most domestic farm animals are raised in cruel conditions.
I work in an Animal Science department at a large university. A big focus of the research is to improve the “production” of farm species. This means maximizing animal product with regard to money spent–animal product being meat, milk, or eggs (or whatever).
Does it make sense to abuse the animals? Poorly treated animals perform and produce less efficiently.
I’m not saying that I would want to be raised for the slaughterhouse by a more dominant species or that there aren’t abuses, but, what is the “quality” of life of a wild animal? It is a day-to-day struggle for existence .
Is an antelope on the African plain that has to suffer through drought and limited food sources more happy than a cow fed ad libitium on a farm? Think about the chances of their manner of death: slow suffocation in a lion’s jaws versus instantaneous death in a slaughterhouse.
I haven’t checked out the PETA links, but I would imagine that they take the rarer cases of abuse and present them as the norm.
Again, it’s about producing marketable products as cheaply as possible. “Happier” animals are better producers. I’m sure there are abuses, but it doesn’t make sense to treat farm animals in a manner that reduces their profitability.
As to not eating meat in general, I personally find that too ridiculous to comment on. Just because humans have the cognitive ability to have morals about eating animals, it doesn’t mean we have to go against nature. And, if you say humans aren’t supposed to eat meat, I would say you need a better background in digestive physiology.
Since I did comment, I should say almost too ridiculous to comment.
elucidator is almost rational when it writes:
It is wrong to inflict needless suffering. It may be wrong to inflict needful suffering; we may analyze a situation, and decide that what must be done is just too cruel to be tolerated, no matter how good and even necessary the result (although, if there is no other way to get the result, we ought not to pretend that we want it).
Now we come to a really stupid, mindless statement, unfortunately by the very same elucidator:
Been listening to that PETA propaganda about how living in a state of nature is inherently vegan, kid? Perhaps you were under the impression that when we speak of “hunting/fishing/gathering cultures”, we were just kidding about the hunting/fishing part?
Jane, you ignorant slut!
Of course, we are omnivorous by nature. Duh! Its one of our better adaptative traits. If meat is available, it is an unbeatable source of protein. My point, which seems to have gone whizzing over your point, is that our natural state has little or no bearing on the issues at hand. We don’t have to go foraging for prehistoric road kill anymore.
If we were utterly determined that no child would go to bed hungry on our world, it would be so! For the first time in history, we can do it.
Meat production is the SUV of agriculture, it is wildly expensive in terms of energy and biomass, and only benefits those who already have enough to eat. It is a self-indulgent luxury, and we oughta be ashamed of ourselves.
Mother Nature made you a monkey. If you’re a greedy uncaring asshole, that’s your achievement.
The idea that meat production is the casue of third world hunger is one of the most disreputable around.
There is no shortage of food. There is no shortage of arable land. There are however people who lack the wealth/ freedom/ opportunity to make enough of a living to buy food.
One of the reasons this is so is arrogant western multinationals like Greenpeace trying to impose their half-baked middle-class squeamishness on them.
Having just seen footage of the PETA pie incident, I am surprised that no-one has remarked on the hilarious phrase used by the woman in question: “meat pimp”. Oh, I did laugh.
picmr
Well, that certainly clarifies that. Jesus wept.
Of course, meat production isn’t the cause of 3rd world hunger. But your answer implies that if they would simply adopt our attitudes and market policies, they will be instantly transformed! Balderdash, sir, balderdash and tommyrot! I say they have no food, you say they have no money. Tomato,tomato. Then GIVE THEM MONEY! Whaddaya think, the Sermon on the Mount was a motivational lecture? “Buyeth thou cheap, and selleth dear, and verily…”
The road will be long and difficult, and will involve sacrifice. The hungry have nothing to sacrifice.
Of all the forms of torment, probably the only thing worse than being hungry is being hungry and watching your children be hungry. If we turn a deaf ear, we’d better hope there is no God. He may right now be humming that old Beatles tune: "In thier eyes theres something lacking, what they needs a damned good whacking!
If giving up meat production would end hunger worldwide, how many Americans would vote for it?
“Well, I would, of course, but it won’t work. So I won’t. Double cheese on that, and a side of fries”
Actually there is plenty of food. The reasons for hunger are because it is not distributed evenly due to environmental and economic pressures.
Prove to me otherwise fruitcake and I’ll trade in my cheeseburger for a bowl of Soyashit, or whatever it is you veggie dudes eat.
Try to calm down, you seem like you’re about to blow a gasket. Here, have a bite of my burger. It will help.
Of course if we turn over all arable land to grain and vegetable production, no one will go hungry. The amazing abundance of grains and vegetables will drive the price of food down, and so food would be cheaper, and so people who were previously unable to buy food would be able to do so.
Of course, this assumes that history does not repeat itself. Namely, that the serious drop in food prices won’t drive small farms out of business, and that the farmers driven out of business don’t raise one hell of a racket, tear at the heartstrings as John Cougar Mellencamp raises another couple of organizations to help support the small farm, and the government doesn’t just end up shoveling money back at the farmers to keep prices artificially inflated the same way it’s been doing since the Hoover administration.
Howz about, instead of boycotting meat and labelling it ‘evil’, you instead lay pressure on the government to stop spending your money to artificially inflate food prices? That should help the price of food drop dramatically.
Of course, we’re still assuming here that the price of food dropping dramatically will actually make any sort of difference in the amount of people that go hungry. After all, how much of the cost of food in Ethiopia is the actually wage an American or European farmer is paid for the food, and how much is the cost to ship the food to Ethiopia? And if McDonald’s knows that people are willing to pay $5.00 for a Combo Meal, why should they change their price if the cost of the component food drops from 25 cents to 12 cents?
So let’s all abandon meat now, and as the good ol’ Reverend Ike used to say, we’ll get pie in the sky when we die.
I saw the pie-throwing incident replayed on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Its a half-hour mock news program on Comedy Central - basically, they look at real news stories and proceed to take the piss out of them. Do yourselves a favor and check it out.
As for everyone in PETA being freaks and nutters…please don’t judge a whole group by the actions of one or a few people. I’ve never heard my veggie friends support such nonsence as hurling a pie or anything else at another human being just to make a point. PETA might make some good points about dietary needs (recent GI issues show I should have more veggies), but this is no way to express them.
One more thing - Arathi Jayaram (pie-thrower) calling Dan Glickman (target) a “meat pimp” was pretty darn funny.
Patty
As was said before, cool thread. Hard to separate the strands, so I’ll just summarize my sterling, oh-so valuable input. (That’s self-directed mockery, folks!)
-
the PETA pie-throwing thing was counterproductive and ugly. Attention does not equal education or persuasion.
-
ecological awareness is inherently conservative; it always amazes me that it’s politically “spun” otherwise. It’s common sense not to destroy something unless you’re damned sure it isn’t one of those hellishly subtle, Greek tragedy linch-pins.
-
building on the above, it’s stupid, plain stupid to destroy a system unless you’re damned sure you have something better to replace it. Nature’s tricky that way; it’s both durable and fragile.
-
the current political incarnations of intent may be misguided, though some are almost insanely blind, stupid and arrogant. No solution will work if it leaves human realities out of the equation.
-
prissy moralists anywhere on the political spectrum mainly invite ridicule.
-
somewhere along the line, every individual needs to come to their own terms w/ fellow critters. (How many people saw “Babe”–and ate BBQ later?) “Cute” lifeforms vs the emphatically not rank…where?
-
anger, hate and convenient moralizing mainly piss people off and work against the goal; any goal. Truly amazing, the dedicated folks who outdo the wildest dreams of the most (otherwise) dedicated agent provocateurs.
FWIW, I come down on the side of the conservationists, etc. They are frequently wrong-headed, maddening and smug, but they also serve as brakes on the juggernaut.
Cleared that one right up, hmmm?
Veb
Tveblen:
You make a good point. I strongly agree that the environment needs protecting. It’s environmentalists that I have a problem with.
The radical, smug, self-serving and ignorant seem to have taken over. Even the once august and respectable Sierra Club seems to have become overinundated with the granola eaters.
I truly beleive that Peta and the rest of these eco-freaks do more damage than good to their cause. They have become so common, and most people are so used to regarding anything the say with derision and contempt, that the legitimate science and concerns over the environment get lumped in with their childish stunts and pseudo-science and become ignored as well.
Nobody needed to get pied in the face to ban ddt.
The bottom line is that a diet that includes a moderate amount of meat IS better for you than one that doesn’t.
BTW I’ve eaten chicken that I’ve killed, and pork chops from a pig I helped slaughter. Both tasted better because they were so fresh.
I also ate a deer that I killed. Unlike those other wimpy hunters that use guns, I chose the ultimate weapon. A Chrysler.
I would like to point out something from what Drain Bead wrote in his/her Point A regarding turning over pasture land to crop land and thus being able to produce more food…
Pasture land is usually pasture land for a good reason, it would make piss-poor crop land… Typically because of the lack of water. Even irrigation isn’t a solution in most areas because the water shed is already over-taxed.
Water is scarce in the crop lands as it is…want to see a good fight, check out two farmers having a water dispute, it’s what family fueds are all about here in South Dakota.
PETA is a foul word out here and is best known for their attempt at putting up billboards that said impotence was caused by eating meat…makes ya wonder how the human race survived all these years…
Well, Lucy, this makes twice that you’ve backed down from an indefensible position and tried to take refuge in righteous indignation.
So, just so that you don’t miss the point of my position:
[ul]
[li]The majority of PETA members are worthless, subhuman scum who matter less than the animals that they pretend to favor.[/li][li]The members of PETA who do not fall into the above category may wish to consider whether they want to continue to be associated with an organization that contains worthless, subhuman scum.[/li][li]Hunger has absolutely nothing to do with the keeping of animals for meat or for their secondary products (wool, milk, traction, etc.). It has largely to do with the domination of other countries (abetted by spoiled, rich, white, urban-dwelling university graduates who love to cheer on tyranny and oppression as long as they’re not suffering it) by worthless, subhuman scum (such as Stalin, Mao, and Mengistu) who are perfectly willing to condemn their subjects to starvation in order to gain a transient political advantage.[/li][li]The proper way to treat the aforementioned scum is to hang them (it’s much easier to reuse a rope than a bullet).[/li][li]The way to treat spoiled, rich, white, urban-dwelling university graduates who whine that this is not the proper way to handle authentic progressive native leaders is to take everything they own and give it to starving Third Worlders.[/li][li]The way to treat spoiled, rich, white, urban-dwelling university graduates who whine that industrial agriculture is ruining the enovironment is to strip them naked, put them in chains, and make them dig irrigation ditches in Sierra Leone at gunpoint.[/li][/ul]
Any questions?
Akatsukami:
I like you. A lot.
I can’t believe no one jumped on this! PETA actually stands for People who Enjoy Tasty Animals! Everyone relax!
Just how far are humans willing to go to protect the oppressed lesser species of this planet? I submit the following link:
Cogitoergosum said:
I think you might be very well qualified on the subject of moronic comments.
Akatsukami, you ignorant slut.
[QUOTE]
**
[li]Hunger has absolutely nothing to do with the keeping of animals for meat or for their secondary products (wool, milk, traction, etc.). [/li][/quote]
**
Numbers? Facts? Support of any kind?
Did you attend Pol Pot University? Your political program smacks of his breathtaking simplicity.
The aforementioned “white, rich,…” Are you talking about Birkenstocked, pony-tailed, Volvo-driving, organic dipshits? Or Archers Daniels Midland. Or Republicans. Nuke Orange County!
Let me break this down into terms you can grasp:
The real problem with world hunger is: people without enough food.
The real solution is: give them something to eat.
The best way to achieve this is: ahhh, there’s the rub!
Oh, and Scylla likes you. That should give you pause.