

Bills seek end to farm animal abuse videos - calebgilbert
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hjvniP8-_PXxQNvTlVa5RILhNyOQ?docId=46e365b1d58743e7b839dcbdcd94b4a9
Now in a pushback led by the meat and poultry industries, state legislators across the country are introducing laws making it harder for animal welfare advocates to investigate cruelty and food safety cases.
======
siglesias
Animal rights is one of the biggest swept under the rug ethical issues of our
day, and one in which I see lots of smart rational people stumble over
themselves to justify their habits (or uncomfortably turn a blind eye).
Recommended listening is Peter Singer's Philosophy Bites interview, which
links animal suffering to utilitarianism:
<http://philosophybites.com/2008/05/peter-singer-on.html>

~~~
dsl
I'm curious where animals get rights from in the first place? Serious
question.

~~~
twentysix
We endowed it upon them.

These rights apply only in human - animal relations and not animal - animal
relations. Carnivorous animals and other plants are free to do as they like to
their fellow beings. But, from what I know animals rarely abuse other animals
for no reason. Usually there is a good reason for them to attack another
animal like food, territory, self defense or if they are ill( elephants in
musth, rabid dogs and wolves).

What am trying to say is that animals get rights from the same place that we
get rights, laws and social norms.

Animals are farmed and killed for us to eat, the least we can do is to treat
them with respect while they are alive.

I am sleepy.

~~~
intended
From what I recall there are definitely cases of animal animal abuse - as in
one animal torturing another for amusement. For the life of me I can't
remember the exact incident. I do know of 1 monkey which decided to tease the
ever living daylights out of a tiger/lion though.

~~~
sxp
Cats have a habit of playing with their food while their prey is still alive.
If that cat was a human, then what they do would probably be classified as
animal abuse.

------
hawkharris
I think United States v. Stevens (2010) provides interesting context for this
story.

The case concerned the constitutionality of a bill banning so-called "crush"
videos: brutal films in which naked women use their high heels to crush small
animals to death.

The Court struck down the bill because it was too broad, banning the sale and
transport of videos that depicted an animal being maimed, tortured or killed.
They cited the fact that such broad language would include hunting videos and
factory protest videos like the ones in question.

Although crush videos are clearly horrifying and wrong, I felt a strong sense
of patriotism when I learned about the Court's verdict. You know that the
First Amendment is strong when the Court will consider freedom-of-speech
issues even in the face of something that is universally despised.

Hopefully, the bills in question now will be challenged and same
constitutional principles will be applied.

~~~
aspensmonster
I'm surprised someone would try to ban such videos. You'd think it more
productive to ban the act of "crushing" itself. That someone recorded the act
just provides evidence for any appropriate legal action (and vigilante justice
too, it seems).

~~~
boon
I would assume that's covered under existing animal cruelty laws. (not that
I'm advocating we ban the speech in this case)

------
theoutlander
I just completed 13 months of being a vegetarian. I wanted to convert since 10
years prior to that, but couldn't get myself to do it because I grew up eating
meat as a treat once to twice a week. It got progressively worse after I moved
to the states as I started eating it three times a day and expanded from
Chicken to all other red meats.I loved it!

Fast forward to last year and we were having a baby and that's when it struck
me - Animals often watch their family being slaughtered. The young ones before
they're even allowed to walk. They scream all along. They're mistreated
extremely inhumanely and the people handling them - let's just say there's a
special place in hell for them! I NEVER watched a single video until I had
converted and people kept asking me if I saw any videos....they're horrible!

We grow up being masked from how animals are killed. If you can't even watch
your meat being slaughtered, you shouldn't be eating it! Luckily, we're
raising our child a vegetarian. We've found great vegetarian alternatives and
yes they don't taste anywhere as great as a steak or smoked ribs, but they're
still very very close and I think I can make that sacrifice because I don't
ever want to see another animal deliberately hurt because of me or my family.
I truly hope our society can make the necessary changes to treat animals
humanely. Granted, there's no humane way to kill anyone, but I'm sure there's
a quick/painless way to do it.

I'm not trying to change anyone. I just wanted to share my story.

~~~
dmxt
He might start eating meat eventually when he grow up. I don't always follow
my parents rule or tradition when I grow up.

~~~
inoop
I became vegetarian when I was sixteen under the influence of punk rock music
:) The funny thing is that even though I have a much more nuanced opinion on
the topic sixteen years on, I have lost the ability to see meat as a something
separate from the animal itself. When I see slabs of meat in the supermarket,
I don't think about how great it will taste, I just see a part of a cow, pig,
or chicken. In other words, my reaction is much the same as yours would be if
someone would be selling say, cat meat.

There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that is necessary to eat
meat without feelings of guilt or disgust, and at the same time feel
compassionate when animals of other species are hurt or killed. Once people
become vegetarian, whatever the reason, they often lose that ability.

I know a few people who grew up vegetarian and never had the choice as a
child. Because they never learned the difference between 'pig' and 'pork',
'cow' and 'beef', 'calf' and 'veal', it's often harder for them to make a
conscious decision to start eating meat.

------
paulitex
I just watched "Food, Inc" this weekend, it's a very well made documentary.
Much more evidence-based and non-preachy than I expected.

They talk at length about what they call 'veggie libel laws' and other laws
introduced by food producer lobbies that limit free speech and surveillance
about food productions. There's a long history of this, unfortunately it's
nothing new.

If you have amazon prime, you can watch it for free:
[http://www.amazon.com/Food-
Inc/dp/B002VRZEYM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=U...](http://www.amazon.com/Food-
Inc/dp/B002VRZEYM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363576916)

~~~
fasouto
I recommend to everyone the documentary Earthlings, you can see it for free at
<http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32>

~~~
gradstudent
Earthlings is an animal snuff film. Why the hell would you recommend to anyone
such a horrid viewing experience??

~~~
purephase
It's actually pretty spot on. If you go and visit some of the places depicted
in the film, without prior approval and scheduling, and you'll see it first
hand.

I say this as someone who use to work for an organization that sourced and
inspected chicken and beef processing facilities and, I've visited them
regularly.

~~~
gradstudent
You're missing my point: it's a horrid film. I shudder just thinking about it
and I'd certainly never recommend it to anyone.

Besides, I cannot believe that some of the shit in that film, like seals being
skinned alive, is par for the course.

~~~
purephase
Sadly, it is. The types of conditions in processing facilities make a lot of
the employees temporarily insane. They're asked to do inhumane things and thus
become what they do. I even pity the workers. Most of them are illegal
immigrants being paid shit wages to do horrible things to these animals. Do
you honestly believe that if it was not commonplace that this bill would have
even been considered?

Sometimes, the truth is horrible.

------
mark_l_watson
+100 for corporations -1 for consumers

According to the book "Diet for a Small Planet" the beef industry gets $50
billion a year of free water from the federal government. Doesn't sound like
fair market capitalism to me. It does sound like our elected officials can be
easily bribed.

The super rich have won. Hopefully not too far of topic, but a friend just
sent me this video link about income inequality - an eye opener!
[http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&desktop_uri=%...](http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQPKKQnijnsM)

~~~
batgaijin
Ever heard of the term 'bread and circus'?

~~~
mark_l_watson
Exactly right. And there are uncomfortable parallels with our situation and
the last 100 or so years of the Roman Empire.

------
bediger4000
_At the end of the day it's about personal property rights or the individual
right to privacy_ After finding out about Ragtime-A and Ragtime-B, the abuse
of National Security Letters, and seeing the number of surveillance cams that
litter downtown Denver, I no longer believe it when officials (private or
public, federal or state) say things like this. "Personal property rights" and
especially "individual right to privacy" is just duckspeak at this point.

------
fzzzy
Bad things happening? Just make it illegal for anyone to find out about the
bad things! Problem solved. /s

~~~
randomdata
Perhaps some people are creating abuse videos to fill the demand for animal
abuse videos? Putting an end to that seems justifiable, and runs along the
same logic lines that makes child porn illegal.

I won't say that there isn't a problem, but having been around many animal
farms in my day, the videos that are out there do not seem very
representative. It does make you wonder how much of it happens for the purpose
of catching it on film.

~~~
glesica
I would consider your argument if it wasn't for the fact that the farm lobby
has been behind similar bills in several states in the past (most recent was
Iowa, last summer IIRC). It isn't animal rights activists behind these bills,
it is farmers who don't want their activities watched closely.

~~~
randomdata
For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally
the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said
videos. They, naturally, have little motive to see an end to the production of
like content being the consumer.

Farmers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose by people being abusive towards
animals. An animal that is sick and hurting produces far less. Margins are
already incredibly slim in agriculture. You cannot afford to have animals in
pain. Not to mention the embarrassment of people thinking you are abusive
towards animals just by being a part of the industry.

Or maybe you are absolutely right, but I don't think it is anywhere near being
clear cut just by looking at the initiator.

~~~
jiggy2011
I think most of these videos are recorded in abattoirs etc with hidden camera.
So they are documenting something that would have happened without the
presence of a camera. It would seem unlikely (though I guess not impossible)
that animal rights activists would seek to increase the abuse of animals
simply to create the videos.

~~~
randomdata
I do not think any animal rights activist would straight up think, "boy, I
wish there were more abuse videos out there." However, by watching the videos
that do exist, an audience is created. Where there is an audience, there are
people looking to gain from that audience.

People do all kinds of crazy things to get hits on their YouTube page, even
without direct monetary incentive. If you just have to hurt a few animals to
do the same, why not? I mean it is not in my nature, but not everyone shares
my (and I assume your) values.

~~~
lilsunnybee
Except that the abusers often go to prison, and there has been no established
link between the perpetrators of these acts and the undercover reporters
before.

Frankly this is silly. Are you suggesting that animal rights activists are
really just people with a secret fetish for watching animal suffering? Maybe
the same way pro-life activists love looking at pictures of mangled fetuses,
and would love for more fetuses to be killed simply so that they can keep
making more signs. This view is really quite disrespectful and insulting
actually.

~~~
randomdata
> Are you suggesting that animal rights activists are really just people with
> a secret fetish for watching animal suffering?

I'm not sure why you got that impression, but of course not. The videos are
typically watched for educational purposes to help better understand the cause
that is being fought for.

However, you do not need to enjoy what you see to open up the market for more
production. As a simple example: If you see a cow being abused, you might be
interested in what grievous things are happening to chickens. Now someone has
to create chicken-based content to fill your wants.

As more people become interested in seeing inside the barn, more content needs
to be created to quench the educational thirst. At some point someone without
scruples will exploit that audience. It is human nature.

~~~
lilsunnybee
Most if not all undercover reporters that operate like this are volunteers.
All animal rights organizations operate as non-profits, with fixed salaries
for employees and leadership. The vast majority of income comes from
donations. Their accounting books should all be open too, and any
discrepancies even more likely to be reported because those working for the
organization are also activists and whistleblowers.

The simplest explanation is that the videos are real, and unless any
discrepancies are noticed, or any evidence to the contrary uncovered, it is
the reasonable thing to believe. That doesn't mean people can't investigate to
try and uncover malfeasance, but any preexisting beliefs that they may hold
that the videos are all fake would be irrational.

~~~
randomdata
I'm not sure profit is relevant here. Creative types (I use that loosely) are
generally interested in wide distribution of their work, not necessarily the
money that may follow.

> any preexisting beliefs that they may hold that the videos are all fake
> would be irrational.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are all fake. The question is that if
the want for the content causes some events to be depicted for the camera. It
is only irrational to think that that could never happen.

And even the content that is completely genuine is still not very
representative. A friend of mine is an animal rights activist and we took him
out to another friend's dairy farm. He came away saying that he was quite
impressed by the level of care the animals received and it was nothing at all
like he expected.

I also remember a video that made the rounds of the slaughter of a pig that
was pretty horrifying. However, it was slaughtered that way to comply with
religious needs of a certain group and was not indicative of how all pigs are
taken at slaughter. The people distributing the video made no mention of that
fact though. The shock value is all they were concerned with.

The production of this type of content, even when real, is highly cherry
picked at doesn't come anywhere near telling the whole story.

~~~
lilsunnybee
Except that pretty much every video contains additional information about
which facility it took place at, and the company that owns that facility. It
would be pretty easy to falsify if the video was staged.

I imagine your friend's dairy farm _is_ very well run, and the animals are
treated well. That doesn't reflect what happens at larger industrial
operations though.

~~~
randomdata
Actually, my friend's dairy is quite a bit larger than the average herd. It is
not the largest operation that I know of, but its up there. I grew up on a
small dairy operation myself and looking at other herds, the care doesn't
really seem to degrade with scale. If anything, the care has improved because
their scale affords more comfortable amenities that we could not afford.

Today, I have my own _very small_ hobby grain farm. The farm next door is run
by quite possibly the largest producer in the province. Other than the fact
that his tractors have considerably more horsepower, and the implements are
significantly wider, we do everything exactly the same way. With that, I have
to say that I fail to understand what "industrial farming" even means.

With all that said, the media I have been exposed to has all been centred
around the USA. Perhaps the US specifically has a real animal abuse problem on
a grand scale. My exposure to farms in that country is admittedly limited. But
if that is the case, why are we trying to take down the rest of the world with
the faults of one country's policy on the matter?

------
brunorsini
Reminds me of David Foster Wallace's classic "Consider the Lobster" piece on
the morality of eating animals, interesting read -
[http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l...](http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster?printable=true)

~~~
mturmon
A great piece. Who was on crack over at Gourmet when they decided to send
Wallace to a lobster boiling festival? Here's a capsule summary:

He travels to coastal Maine for the annual Lobster Festival. What begins as a
witty, sometimes snooty point-and-laugh swerves into something altogether more
uncomfortable when the author poses the question "Is it all right to boil a
sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?" "Consider the
Lobster" originally appeared in _Gourmet_ magazine, and it was controversial
for all the obvious reasons. Few carnivores were amused by what they perceived
as an attack on their morality.

------
captain_mars
I have never posted comments about whether a particular action has made me
lose my faith in humanity, or whether it restored my faith in humanity.

But after reading the linked article, my faith in humanity is definitely
shaken.

The meat industry's focus is not on ending animal abuse, but on making it more
difficult for animal abuse to be discovered and proven. In other words, they
are determined not to change their ways, because (I imagine) doing so will be
inconvenient, and might cause them to make slightly less money than they make
now.

How can any state legislators support such moves (and introduce these bills)?
Do they have no ability to empathize with another living being? If no, are
they fit to be our leaders?

Edit: Typo.

------
hingisundhorsa
The first amendment exists precisely to protect our ability to publish and
release such information.

------
jayfuerstenberg
Without realizing it I've been sliding towards a vegetarian lifestyle.

This will only drive me further down that path.

~~~
paulitex
vegetarianism is not the answer. Monsanto is one of the evilest companies on
earth and they control most soy production (I say this because many
vegetarians eat a lot of tofu). It's about understanding the source and making
good choices. Eat grass-fed, antibiotic-free beef (these two things virtually
guarantee you're not supporting the concentrated feedlots) and free range
chicken. Eat non-GMO vegetables that are locally grown and in season. It's
about supporting the right suppliers, which thankfully exist for all parts of
the omnivore spectrum.

~~~
Falling3
First, vegetarianism is not synonymous with soy eating.

Second, the majority of soy is used to feed food animals (even grass-fed,
which generally does not count how the animals are "finished").

Fourth, free range is a joke. Sure there are some farmers that give their
animals a decent life. But labels like free range and cage free are not well
regulated and give you no real guarantee of anything. Please do some research
on what is actually involved in these kinds of claims, which are essentially
marketing.

Finally, jayfuerstenberg said he/she was moving closer to vegetarianism due to
the mistreatment of animals. Don't reply to that by saying vegetarianism is
not the answer because it is in this case.

~~~
Evbn
Free range isn't BS. Current labelling standards are BS.

------
lignuist
I think, visiting a slaughterhouse should be a mandatory part of school
education.

~~~
jonah
And in general understanding where your food comes from.

~~~
tomjen3
Why?

What is special about food, compared to clothing? I don't even know which part
of the world my undies are made in, much less how they are made.

There is a lot of bullshit about food, I want a good, non-emotional reason.

~~~
jonah
Clothes too. And electronics. And everything else too.

I think we'd work to make the world a better place if we had a better
understanding of the paths our things took to get to us.

Some companies share a bit about the origins of their products. For example:
<http://www.apolisglobal.com/global-marketplace/>

------
Ensorceled
The problem with attempting to create ethical arguments against all eating of
meat (even with human slaughter practices) is that it leads inexorably to the
conclusion that we should exterminate all predators to prevent the cruelty
they inflict on herbivores.

While these things are horrific, it's not much more horrific than what
continuously goes on in the animal kingdom.

~~~
jonmrodriguez
> it's not much more horrific than what continuously goes on in the animal
> kingdom.

Where's your evidence for this?

In the animal kingdom, isn't death due to predators rather quick?

In factory farms, the animal's entire lifetime is one of outrageous torture,
e.g. feeding cows a corn diet that shreds their stomach wall, and forcing them
to stay alive through the pain with massive courses of antibotics. Or keeping
chickens in cages so small they can't even turn around.

~~~
Ensorceled
What is your evidence against it? Clearly you know very little about the
matter as all of this is well established and any biologist or TV wildlife
program can set you straight.

Few predators "finish off" their prey though they may often kill it during the
hunt, once the prey animal is disabled they start to feed.

House cats, for instance, will capture, release and recapture the prey animal,
sometimes for hours.

Wolves and Dogs will hunt and not feed, often leaving the prey animal to die
from it's wounds.

Also look into how predators teach their young to hunt. It is very unpleasant.

I'm not saying that factory farming should be allowed. In fact, I think future
generations will correctly judge us harshly for the unnecessary atrocity that
is modern agriculture.

~~~
jonmrodriguez
Ok, sure. But there's a world of difference between hours of suffering at the
hands of a predator vs a decade or two of unpaused suffering in a factory
farm!

------
ck2
I really do not understand how people can stand to eat meat.

I try not to be sanctimonious about it but the idea of eating animals has put
me off since I grew conscious as a teenager. I don't even consider myself
vegetarian, I drink milk and eat products that have eggs (not eggs directly)

Just the smell of meat turns my stomach.

I assure you, it's very possible to live a well-fed life without any meat.

~~~
vacri
Not for everyone. I know of two women who were both long-term vegetarians and
went back to an omnivorous diet because they were always feeling wan and
listless. Both women were foodies (one from a 'foodie' family), and both have
tertiary education in biology and biochemistry, so they were quite aware of
good diets and balancing. This doesn't mean that all women will have this
problem, it just means that not everyone can go meat-free and have no quality-
of-life issues.

~~~
justin66
> This doesn't mean that all women will have this problem, it just means that
> not everyone can go meat-free and have no quality-of-life issues.

What it really means is that anecdotes aren't data.

Kidding! What it REALLY means is that "tertiary education in biology" causes
listlessness.

~~~
vacri
Usually when I tell that story, almost always the first response is "she just
doesn't understand food/how to balance a diet". It's tedious.

As for 'anecdotes aren't data' - when blanket statements are made, you only
need anecdotes to show that there are exceptions. I also notice you never
bothered with the mocking 'anecdotes aren't data' against the parent comment,
which is all anecdote and triggered much more in the way of reply.

~~~
justin66
The closest the person you were responding to came to making a blanket
assertion was "I assure you, it's very possible to live a well-fed life
without any meat." Which is kind of trivially true, since many people live
"well-fed" (whatever that means) lives without meat.

If the person had made the stronger claim "all people can live a well-fed life
without any meat" your objection might be more compelling. Although still
wrong.

> Usually when I tell that story, almost always the first response is "she
> just doesn't understand food/how to balance a diet". It's tedious.

And, if her "listlessness" was corrected by changing her diet, that statement
was kind of trivially true, in addition to being tedious, no? (By the way,
this would be a better story if you knew more about why the change caused the
improvement.)

The claim that whatever dietary deficiency these women were (possibly)
suffering as vegetarians could only be corrected by eating meat is a pretty
bold one, since there aren't any known vitamins, minerals, aminos, etc. that
aren't available without eating meat. Since you haven't even identified the
deficiency it's not even worth arguing about.

Also, food for thought, it's certainly possible the dietary change to eating a
meat-based diet REMOVED something they shouldn't have been getting. If they
were eating too much wheat as vegetarians and had gluten intolerance, for
example.

~~~
vacri
So, you are saying that because the original poster said 'possibly', it's not
worth an 'anecdotes aren't data', despite me also saying that my stories
aren't universally representative. You're providing a textbook case of
confirmation bias.

 _since there aren't any known vitamins, minerals, aminos, etc. that aren't
available without eating meat_

Diet is considerably more complex than "X number of atoms enter the body
through the oral cavity". You're right that it's not worth arguing about,
because you're yet another person who says "they just didn't do it right" -
something of a No True Scotsman.

~~~
justin66
> So, you are saying that because the original poster said 'possibly', it's
> not worth an 'anecdotes aren't data'

What's to argue with about the OP's post? This is genuinely weird. He hates
meat an awful lot, doesn't eat it, is doing fine. I didn't comment on it
because, you know, who cares?

> Diet is considerably more complex than "X number of atoms enter the body
> through the oral cavity". You're right that it's not worth arguing about,
> because you're yet another person who says "they just didn't do it right" -
> something of a No True Scotsman.

Nobody doubts that a dietary deficiency can cause illness, but a dietary
deficiency that can only be addressed by eating meat would be a genuinely
strange thing, and you haven't even tried to identify it. This is absolutely
not about the women you are interested in, it's about the science of human
nutrition.

~~~
vacri
Firstly, you can drop the white-knighting for the maligned discipline of
dietary science. You're not remotely interested in being scientific - your
first foray here was flat-out abuse, which is profoundly unscientific.

Secondly, you are saying that because I didn't directly identified the
mechanism to begin with, that my experience is useless. You must be fun at
parties - should anyone pipe up about the higgs boson, you will abuse them
into silence if they don't start out by mentioning the detailed workings.

Finally, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that there was
something in meat that isn't in other food. I said that an omnivorous diet was
required for these two women to lead a 'well-fed life'. I know less of the
details of one of the women, but I've shared a house long-term with the other,
the one from the 'foodie' family, and she's very conscious and aware of what
she puts in her body and is constantly tweaking her diet to improve things,
both when vegetarian and omnivore. The mental overhead for her to stay healthy
was much greater as a vegetarian, and it was affecting her quality of life -
she could spend a lot of mental effort getting shit together and keeping it
tuned (as often as not failing and slipping back to being listless), or she
could relax a bit, enjoy a greater variety of interesting foods, and go
omnivore. Similarly, the bioavailability of iron in meat is much greater than
in vegetables, so it's much easier to plan. She tried iron supplements for a
while, but they all tasted like arse. These are _quality of life_ issues,
which you're utterly papering over.

Another example of diet going beyond the literal molecules that go in your
mouth is cultural availability. Dog meat might be nutritious, but western
cultures wouldn't eat it, for example. Hell, if all you're concerned about is
getting the right nutrition, you can get food pastes that provide all needs,
commercial ones that are similar to the homemade stuff that the guy in the
recent article 'this man thinks he never needs to eat again'. Only most people
wouldn't go for that, because of quality of life issues. But it is a 'complete
diet'!

So, back to my original point: for some people, 'living a well-fed life' is
better served by an omnivorous diet. But congratulations, I said that it was
tedious when people respond with the same old arguments, and there you were,
first with the abuse (how very scientific you are!), then the belief that the
whole makeup of a diet is the literal things that go into your mouth and
nothing else.

~~~
justin66
Given that specific definition of "quality of life" I really have no problem
with what you said.

One is tempted to say something contrary just to see if the size of your posts
will continue to double. :)

~~~
vacri
You have a weird definition of 'doubling', and I have had my suspicions
confirmed that you were just trolling. Shame on me.

~~~
justin66
Nonsense. I gave you enough room to backpedal away from what looked like a
very silly position (or, more generously, to clarify your position) and, to a
limited extent and to a reader who is willing to filter out the goofy bits in
the interests of parsimony, you did.

I believe the women about whom, strangely, only enough information is known to
support your position (I name this argumentum ad snuffleupagus - see,
something productive came out of this thread!) would be proud.

------
brador
If only their was a way of finding out who votes yes on these bills and voting
them out.

------
BUGHUNTER
wow, 215 comments for now - and I can not find the word censorship... have no
time reading, what people are actually discussing here, but if the word
censorship is missing, something goes wrong.

------
aaron695
Lets be clear, if you don't like animal abuse don't eat animals.

Murder is worse than abuse.

These videos in essence are propaganda tools and I see little value in the so
called animal rights movement that promotes clean killing as an ethical good.

But at the end of the day there should be free speech no matter whether it's
right or wrong or for good or evil.

~~~
glesica
So if you eat meat you can't be against pit bull-fighting? That seems like a
pretty bad philosophy to me. Extrapolate it further, we shouldn't, then, be
more appalled by a gruesome murder (of a human) than a gunshot to the back of
the head. Since that is untrue for virtually everyone, you either have to
claim that nearly every human on earth is a logically inconsistent dunce, or
perhaps there is, in fact, a violence gradient of some sort.

~~~
k88
The issue is, is that you can't really kill anything humanely if you intend on
consuming it. These animals aren't "put down" they are usually given a bolt
gun to the head, hung by a leg and then have their throats slit so the blood
drains out. Lets not forget that the animal is alive during this horrific
process because their heart has to keep beating to pump out all the blood that
they have. These animals experience this so that you can have meat that tastes
better. Do you really feel good about that?

Lets take the "bacon fad" for a ride down fallacy lane. So everyone loves
their dog, right? Nobody in the US would ever dream of eating dog, its even
used as a racial stigma against other cultures that have a history for eating
them. However, "lesser animals" something that you would think isn't as
intelligent as a dog it's ok to slaughter mercilessly for the sole purpose of
mass consumption. But the fact of the matter is a pig is smarter than your pet
dog. So think if it was your dog going through this, being born, raised in
horrible conditions and then slaughtered. It bothers most people to think
about that, so why does killing a pig not?

Dont even get me started on the environmental issues that we all pretend to
care about. Given that factory farming is a main source of pollution.....

~~~
Evbn
Blood can be removed completely painlessly from an unconscious creature. For
example, human surgery is painless.

~~~
k88
Right, because thats how it happens. /troll.

