Thursday, December 01, 2005

Both Sides of the Story

The "I love bacon" side

Idiot activists were arrested in New Zealand for chaining themselves to a bacon delivery truck. Look, if you don't think it's nice to eat meat, then don't eat meat. My brother will be happy to refer you to the campaign: if you eat with a vegetarian/vegan, you must eat meat from three animals rather than one. This way it defeats their moral crusade.
Note, too, that the site calls itself "independent news." Yes, it's so independent that it's blatantly biased in favor of the idiot activists.

The "I love animals" side

A terrier chewed through a refrigerator cable, sustaining severe injuries. Her owners now call her "Sparky," and she will recover with some permanent injuries. The disturbing part about this article is that "they took her to the vet's a few days later." Why did they wait? Is it for the same reasons that Black Sabbath hasn't been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame yet?


    I believe this is what you are referring to.

  2. Uhm, why is vegetarianism so threatening to people? And why do you want to go out of your way to undermine the moral stance of a group of people who aren't hurting you? It's one thing to oppose the moral beliefs of a group like, say, NAMBLA, but come on. This is just being a bastard for the sake of being a bastard. =)

    And furthermore, why do you make a distinction between pets and food animals, anyway?

  3. Oh, yes, and while I'm at it, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the news organization is a) claiming to be unbiased, or b) biased in favor of the activists (I also take issue of your characterization of them as "idiot activists," but I won't bother to go there for now...).

  4. Our daughter-in-law is from the Philippines where they are known to eat cats. We keep a close eye on our pussy cat. ;-)

    But on a serious note, if we are going to kill animals and eat them then for heaven's sake let's treat them humanely while they are alive. That is the least we can do in return for their nourishment.

  5. Killing animals and eating them, hmmm.
    We have 2 deer & 1/2 an elk in our freezer, also 30lbs. of lamb my sis sent over. None of these animals came from the supermarket(where animals aren't killed they just magically appear wrapped & ready to go) our meat had to be killed by us. Namely, husband & son. Why kill our meat & not get it at the store?
    1. We are horrible people who like to KILL!!!
    2. We like our protein with blood, range free, red meat.

    The truth is when I saw the stockyards in arizona. Cattle up to their knees in stink'n shit. Packed under tin roofs waiting to be slaughtered, by the hundreds or thousands, the smell so bad it knocked you over. It was pathetic. I'll eat my venison & elk anyday over that.

  6. I don't find vegetarianism threatening. What bothers me is the moral crusade that many of them go on to make omnivores feel guilty. And humans are omnivores. That's why we have canine teeth. Therefore, if someone tries to make you feel guilty for eating meat, you must make them feel guilty for doing so by eating three animals instead of one. (And sometimes maybe I am a bastard for the sake of being a bastard.)

    As for the distinction between pet animals and food animals, that is based on a Darwinistic morality. More of what I said on the subject can be found in the comments to this post.

    The name "independent news" would lead one to believe that they are touting a lack of bias. And simply by reading the article it becomes abundantly clear that it's biased in favor of the activists.

    As for their characterization as "idiot" activists, well, that's pretty obvious to me, but perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am adamantly opposed to Harry Potter, on some kind of bizarre religious grounds. So I go to the factory where they print the DVD's and hijack a truckfull of them, as a protest.

    Doesn't it seem obvious now?

    And finally, I agree with SusieQ that we should treat the animals humanely while they're alive. Refer to the discussion which I linked above if you need more, but it suffices to say that I don't eat veal.

    (P.S. I knew this would get you worked up, Dubiety)

  7. Yeah, veal, ugh! That is a sad story. I do not think it is politically correct to eat veal anymore, is it?
    I grew up on a dirt farm & I know the suffering of calves. Not veal per say (i hate per say, stupid phrase) but little dairy bulls that no one wants. My dad used to buy them because they were cheap.
    Anyway, they are still cheap & now my sister buys them, HaHa!
    Here's a good one for dubiety;
    The conservative has...drum roll...GASP* Rush Limbaugh. Who does the poor liberal have? NPR & PBS. Oh, only the most unbiased news for the liberals.

  8. Is double posting bad ettiquite? If it is sorry. I was just reading this post over & my comments. I need to explain my seemingly callous response to animal abuse. I'm not callous about it. I've seen lots of it by my father and others. Not all farmers abuse their animals. It is a honerable life-style for the most part by people who love amimals & also love the food they provide.
    Hunting is also enjoyed for the most part by people who love animals & the outdoors.
    Where I live hunting is also a method of controlling populations of deer & elk. We like to call ourselves conservationists when it comes to our envierment(sp) here. Not enviermntalists(sp,Again).

  9. Many meat-eaters do more for the welfare of animals than vegetarians do. You are absolutely correct on that point. Pheasants Forever, anyone?

  10. I'm amused by some of your comments assuming that I hold and mocking me for certain viewpoints; I'm also very confused by some other comments that just don't make any sense. So I'll address each in turn.

    Kelly: I wasn't implying that you were threatened by vegetarianism, just commenting that alot of people ARE. It fascinates me that you can walk around and tout your religion until your tongue falls out of your head and as long as you don't do it in a fire-and-brimstone "you're going to hell unless you love Jesus" kinda way, people are rarely offended (or they just learn to avoid the subject). I, on the other hand, let it slip that I object to the killing and eating of animals (for reasons we can discuss at a later date if necessary) and people jump to explain why I'm stupid or misguided or a host of other adjectives that indicate their contempt and fear of my dietary habits. And they don't let it go. They can't accept that I've made a choice after careful thought and contemplation. I don't get it. Why does anyone CARE if I don't eat meat, anyway? I'm not out to convert anyone (tho it would be nice) and to my knowledge, I've never shoved it down anyone's throat.

    I understand where you're coming from, but I think that you can only make someone feel guilty if they harbor guilt. So if you don't feel guilty about eating meat, it shouldn't bother you that much. And furthermore, I value the First Amendment far more than your personal comfort, and if that means you get to raise a big stink about Harry Potter, so be it. And your analogy isn't quite accurate -- if you were to chain yourself to the front of a delivery truck to prevent it from delivering HP DVDs, it would be a bit more in line with the protestors in NZ. And I genuinely wouldn't have a problem with you doing it. Hijacking implies breaking and entering, and I take issue with that -- but not with standing on the street corner trying to talk to people as they go to purchase something you disagree with, and not with preventing a truck from moving. So, no, I don't think it's obvious why they're "idiot activists" other than it's your gut reaction to a cause in which you don't believe. Would you call them "idiot activists" if they were abortion protesters?

    I still don't get why you think the news source is so biased. True, no news can ever be unbiased because it's inevitably reported by people and, well, we suck at being neutral about anything. But the report stated FACTS. In a factual way. A biased writing would read something like this: "800,000 pigs are farmed for slaughter in NZ each year. 600,000 of these poor creatures are confined in factory farms where they languish with no sunlight, fresh air, or room to move. They are packed into tiny crates or crammed into crowded pens, where they wait for the day that they will be slaughtered." How do you propose to "unbias" the original article? The only way I can see to make it more neutral would be to add "The protesters are protesting because 800,000 pigs are slaughtered each year..." etc.

    SusieQ, they also eat cats in Italy -- they're a wedding delicacy. They eat dog in Korea (I think we all knew that) and...well, I know people who've eaten a range of rather uncommon food animals, including long pork (which supposedly doesn't taste like pork, but few of us will ever know that...unless you go to, that is).

    |>t: I really don't get the point of either of your first two posts. Who said you were bad for killing your own meat? I still don't approve, but I'd rather see you kill it yourself than buy it all nice and sanitized at the grocery store. For god's sake, if you can't stick your hand in it's open belly and wrench out a fistful of guts, you have no business eating it. I choose not to kill it myself, therefore, I choose not to eat it. Period. I have a big problem with all these depersonalizing words we use for meat. It's not dead cow, it's "beef" or "hamburger." It's not a slaughtered pig, it's "pork." You're eating the decaying flesh of another (formerly) living creature.

    It IS pathetic the way they treat food animals in a mass-market industry, and it's ridiculous the lengths that they go to just to get maximum product. Hormones, extra antibiotics, sensory deprivation. Even if people don't give a shit about the animals, you'd think they'd at least be curious what all these chemicals and processes do to the flesh...

    As to your second post, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying that Rush Limbaugh is unbiased, while NPR and PBS aren't? This makes me wonder whether you've ever listened to any of the three. Rush Limbaugh, as many of his fans will tell you, is a conservative shock-jock. His goal is to get people riled up (not unlike our own dear Kelly, apparently). Interestingly, many of my uber-conservative friends also listen to NPR because they feel it's the least biased news available, and it's also not controlled by the Big Media like so many other news sources.

    And for the record, I do NOT buy the argument that meat-eaters do more for animals than vegetarians. I've heard this before, and inevitably when I ask the person to explain, they come up with some crap about how the money from their hunting license goes to help Parks and Rec or something. Because money, apparently, is the only way to contribute. And one can judge one's contribution to society or to a cause by how much money you throw at it. And monkeys might fly out of my ass. Furthermore, the preservation of a species so that generations may have something to hunt is NOT "doing something" for animal welfare, and I really resent that argument. It's like saying "we're helping poor people by sterilizing them." Uhm, whose interests are you really serving, here?? (and for the record, no, I haven't checked out Pheasants Forever yet; I'm speaking generally).

    Where do you live, |>t? I can tell you that in certain parts of the country (note I'm limiting this statement), overpopulation of deer and elk is actually encouraged -- nay, engineered -- by the fine folks who issue you your hunting permit, so that you'll have something to kill.

    I also don't buy this "I love animals, that's why I hunt them" crap. I love my mom, but I haven't shot her yet. I have, although, been sorely tempted to shoot certain other people...and I can assure you, it's not out of love. I agree with you that not all farmers abuse their animals. In fact, when it comes to inhumane treatment of animals, it's the large-scale operations that treat the animals as if they're lumber. I think the smaller the farm, the more likely the animals are to be well treated. I've known plenty of farmers who have raised calves as members of the family until it was time to slaughter them.

    The short version is that I'm a vegetarian because I KNOW what's on your plate. I know where it comes from, and what's done to it before it gets there, and I find it morally reprehensible. I do not want to be responsible for the death of another living creature, especially one that's treated inhumanely before it's killed. Because of my stance on animal welfare, it would be absolutely hypocritical of me to eat meat. (There's also some stray religious stuff in there, like believing all animals are equal -- including people -- and no one has the right to subjugate another species merely because we think we're freakin' special, but I digress...)

    (P.S. Don't think you bated me, Kelly -- I knew you were looking for a reaction; I thought it'd be fun to comply!)

  11. I never accused you of being one of those guilt-inspiring vegetarians. I am amused by their moral stance (for some of them), but my amusement is short-lived before mild annoyance takes over.

    The reason it's different from religion, in my mind, is that it seems to me there is a valid measure for relationships between members of different species, and that measure is Darwinism.

    And if they were abortion protesters, I would call them idiot activists if they were doing something comparable, such as completely blocking off access to a clinic, egging an abortion practitioner's car/house, or, at worst, bombing a clinic.

    I think it's biased because of the facts they chose to report and how they presented them. They didn't state their source for that information. If it would have said "The protesters said X and our research verifies it" or something similar, it wouldn't have seemed biased to me. Also, I got the general impression that the site was trying to make them out to be heros.

    "I have a big problem with all these depersonalizing words we use for meat."
    You can thank the Norman invasion for that. Personally, I don't care for anything the French have ever done, with one exception that I will reveal in time.

    And I agree that NPR is probably the least biased news out there. My problem is with the major television networks. Fox is at least honest about their bias (or so blatant that hey don't need to be). The other ones are sneaky.

    Eh. I don't really care what anyone else eats, as long as it's not dog. Korea can fall into the ocean for all I care.

    As for Pheasants Forever and probably other organizations, their goal is to maintain the habitat of animals and to hunt responsibly (not polluting, bagging only the limit, etc.) so that future generations will not be deprived of the animals themselves. I think hunting, in some circumstances, can have a kind of beautiful circle-of-life kind of aura to it, a kind of metaphor for more primitive man. And our culture needs to have rites of passage for our youth, and I think hunting is a lot better than drinking until you pass out. Tattooing and piercing would also be preferable.

    Incidentally, I want to make three observations/statements:

    1. My brother has made it a life-long goal to eat as many different animals as possible, and he has quite the record, including such things as cute fuzzy little bunny, nasty alligator, cute turtle, and I think shark.

    2. If I would have been in charge of developing a mythology for some ancient civilization, the gods would not eat "ambrosia" or "nectar." The gods would eat bacon and drink beer. This is to show their incredible resilience to mortal ailments like cholesterol and liver disease endowed by immortality.

    3. It is now 8:56 and my Real Estate Transactions final begins in approximately 4 minutes.