Featured Cause
-
End Homelessness
- 2257 Members
- 2122 Actions
- $205 Dollars Raised
Palin and the Fun of Turkey Slaughter
Published November 21, 2008 @ 06:48AM PST
Update: Comments have alerted me that I failed to explain why Palin was at the turkey farm in the first place. Her original purpose in showing up was to "pardon" one of the turkeys--presumably not either of the ones who were subsequently slaughtered in the background while she carried on casual, laughing conversation.
Oh. My. God. Just when I thought I couldn't dislike Sarah Palin any more than I already do--just when I thought she couldn't be any more disrespectful of animal life than she already is--she pulls this idiotic stunt. Change.org's beloved managing editor, Josh Levy, asked me last night if I was going to post about Palin and the turkeys. And at first, I didn't know what he was talking about. I kind of wish I still didn't. If you haven't seen the video yet, here's your chance to see Palin chatting casually and happily with reporters while turkeys are being slaughtered right behind her. Indeed, my favorite part was when she said this:
It's nice to get out and do something to promote a local business and to just participate in something that isn't so heavy-handed politics that it invites criticism. Certainly will [or we'll?] probably invite criticism for even doing this too! But at least this was fun.
She said all this while a turkey behind her was thrashing around, while the life was being drained from him. Yes, such fun! More discussion after the video.
In case you're wondering what you're seeing there at the end--why you can see the turkey kicking and flailing while he's upside down in the cone that hides essentially all but his legs from view--that's him bleeding to death. You'll notice that after the worker thrust the turkey into the cone upside down, he started poking around down at the bottom of the cone--he was cutting the turkey's throat. What you see next is his effort to hold the turkey still while the turkey thrashes in pain and fear, while he fights futilely for life. And as jolting as it is to see that turkey's flailing, terrified responses to the pain of having his throat cut open and the blood drained from his body, most turkeys experience an even more horrifying slaughter. More on this later:
Comments
23 older comments, see the full discussion ^
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst
- St. Louis, MO
-
Stephanie is a vegan, a tree hugger, a freelance editor and writer, and an animal rights advocate. She lives in St. Louis with a motley pack of three dogs and two cats as well as the world's most adorable foster pit bull.
Related Blog Posts
-
- Thanksgiving Roundup II
-
Posted by Stephanie Ernst
Nov 28 @ 08:02AM PST
-
- The Ones You Won't Get to Eat
-
Posted by Stephanie Ernst
Nov 26 @ 01:16PM PST
-
- Turkeys at Poplar Spring: The Luckier Ones
-
Posted by Deb Durant
Nov 19 @ 07:19AM PST
I think it's nonsense to use bible verses as justification for what we do to animals for food. If you are a christian and believe in the new testament and the love that jesus taught... then you should be lstriving for compassion in all you do, whether its in relation to human or non-human animals. To be both a good christian and a meat-eatin', huntin', killin' manly-man is impossible, as the two are contradictory. One shows compassion and love to all creatures, and the second, clearly, does not.
Posted by Lisa R on 11/23/2008 @ 11:24AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Eating turkey sounds so good and is my favorite thing about Thanksgiving. Due to inadequate parenting and feel good public school education people have no clue where their food comes from. Wake up people, we kill the animals put on this planet so we can feed ourselves. Deal with it. We kill plants for the same reason. We also grow plants and breed animals so we can eat them after we kill them. Thats life!
Posted by Gary T on 11/23/2008 @ 03:07PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately, M Vog, the conversation here is about animal slaughter, not abortion. You'd be amazed, though, to know that many AR people feel compassion for all living things - human & animal. For many of us, it's not one or the other - it's not like choosing members of a PhysEd basketball team in middle school - you'll find many of us cared deeply for human issues before we heard the calling to include all living beings in our definition of compassion.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/23/2008 @ 03:42PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lisa, I agree that the conversation here is about animal slaughter--I was just comparing the passion and compassion for the slaughter of animals to the apparent lack of passion and compassion for the slaughter of human beings. You're right, I would be amazed to see a blog on this site showing this much compassion and passion to save human babies as is shown for turkeys.
Posted by M Vog on 11/23/2008 @ 06:52PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
This is to Stephanie Ernst. I grew up in North St. Louis and knew a family well by the names of Virgil and Jackie Ernst. They had about 5 kids I think. Are you any relation???
Posted by M Vog on 11/23/2008 @ 06:54PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
M Vog, Good luck with the "Lets create Heaven on Earth thing". The Garden of Eden is gone. However, the less meat yo eat, the more for me.
Posted by Gary T on 11/24/2008 @ 06:49AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Gary T.------uuuuuuhh, when did I say that?? I'm all for eating meat--it's a gift. Everything in moderation though--and kill them humanely.
Posted by M Vog on 11/24/2008 @ 07:54AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
M Vog, on Change.org there are blogs dedicated to homelessness, peace in the middle east, women's rights, gay rights, etc. The animal rights blog is the only one here dedicated to just animals, but most of us post other places as well. Just surf the web-site and you'll find compassion every where.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/24/2008 @ 08:17AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
This notion of humane slaughter is an oxymoron, and we all know it. There is such a thing as "more humane," but to classify the needless (and mass) murder of sentient beings as humane is ignorant. Let's take the statement, "sometimes cows are slaughtered humanely." The concern here is not about cows, so we can replace that with "people." "Sometimes people are slaughtered humanely." Is this ever true? No. Why? Because it's never humane to murder people. It's never okay to take someone's life unneccesarily. It's never okay to cause unneccesary harm to a being who feels pain. I don't really know how to express this, because to me it seems so damn simple. A kindergartener knows this stuff. Come on, people.
Posted by Lisa R on 11/24/2008 @ 10:10AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lisa Smolen-Jenk--Thanks for the tip. I searched change.org and didn't find a blog for human babies' rights. I did suggest it though so we'll see if it is accepted.
Posted by M Vog on 11/24/2008 @ 10:15AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lisa Rimmert. You have a good point about "humane slaughter". I guess the dividing point then is a distinct difference between the innate value of human life over animal life. I think that's where most of us who do not agree on this issue are divided.
Posted by M Vog on 11/24/2008 @ 10:20AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree. I think it's a sad argument though, to say that it's okay to kill one species and not another, because of (nothing other than) the species they belong to. We use the species argument because we are part of the species it's not okay to kill. "It's not okay to kill 'us' because I am part of that 'us' group." Clearly biased. This brings us into the whole argument about, well, if it's intelligence you're basing the thought on, then I should be allowed to kill human babies, mentally retarded people, etc. And the whole "if aliens who believed themselves superior to humans came to the earth, would you be okay if they wanted to kill us humans" thing. If the religion thing is the reasoning (people have souls and animals don't, so it's okay to kill animals but not humans)... then i'd have to question your understanding of god (from my understanding, he's supposed to have encouraged love and compassion for all, etc). I think that central message would override any instances of animal sacrifices, etc in the bible.
I love doing this instead of working!
Posted by Lisa R on 11/24/2008 @ 12:17PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
>>to me it seems so damn simple. A kindergartener
>>knows this stuff.
I know! I live with a 7-year-old. :)
Lisa, I LOVE the aliens argument, thanks for bringing it up again. Let's face it: humans KNOW they aren't supposed to kill other humans because we are taught this, right? As toddlers, we have to be TAUGHT not to hit or bite or kick, we are a naturally violent species that hurts each other.
On the other hand, look at other animals and their apparent ignorance of "murder" within their own species... Animals kill within their species for reasons like securing their bloodlines, territory, etc., but you don't suddenly see a lion go off the deep end and wipe out his entire pride. Animals fight, they hurt each other, but they don't kill in cold blood or for enjoyment. And think of how SHOCKED we are when we do watch videos on Animal Planet or Discovery Channel of gorillas killing the babies of other gorillas, lions killing cubs, etc.. Why are we shocked? It's simple: we are programmed to think that killing within a species is wrong.
Lisa, the religion thing is perfect too: because compassion & love is what the various churches & religions teach & stress. There are many religions out there that encourage followers to avoid meat, certain meat, or fast every week/month. Meat was not a part of the utopia of Eden. I hear people talk about Eden & how it's unrealistic, but they only say "unrealistic" when we remind them that utopia is a vegetarian society, or a peaceful society. People's idea of Utopia recently has come to represent gluttony and entitlement. "MEtopia" in stead of "Utopia".
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/24/2008 @ 02:26PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
My opinions and views are based on the Bible. Because of that, my view is that animals were given to us for food and enjoyment. God took great pleasure in making man "in His own image". He never says that about animals. After He created Adam, he brought all the animals to Adam to name them and He said that there was no suitable helper for Adam among them. That's why he created woman (Eve). They were put in charge of the garden and everything in it. After they sinned, it was God who clothed them in skins from animals. Jesus certainly told us to love and have compassion but I don't find anywhere in His teachings about this that refers to animals. It's for human relationships. It's humans He came to save, not animals. It's humans He wants a personal relationship with, not animals.
This is what I believe and it's based on the Bible and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I would be interested in what the basis of your views is.
Posted by M Vog on 11/24/2008 @ 04:51PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out that God put the animals there to test our ability to be compassionate?
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/24/2008 @ 06:14PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
That would be interesting but that's not why He said He put them there so I'll take His word for it.
Posted by M Vog on 11/24/2008 @ 08:06PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't remember reading that that's not why they were put there, either.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/24/2008 @ 08:14PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
M Vog and others, for a different view on Christianity and vegetarianism, please see the Christian Vegetarian Association's Web site: http://www.all-creatures.org/cva/default.htm
Also see this brief piece titled "The Bible and Vegetarianism": http://www.chai-online.org/en/compassion/christianity/heritage_christianity2.htm
(Also, M Vog, I am not closely related to the Ernsts you mentioned, but likely am distantly related. Many of my grandfather's first cousins and more distant cousins and their families lived or live in the St. Louis area; my family is from a small central/southern Illinois town.)
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 11/24/2008 @ 08:17PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Believing that god condones the way we treat animals to turn them into food is disgusting. That's a perverse view of god. I'm not sure about god, but I definitely believe that what goes around comes around. So, I choose to live my life as a caring, compassionate, nonviolent individual. If others choose cruelty, selfishness, and exclusion, that's their choice. But to say (and to actually BELIEVE) that's how god intended... is, pardon me, but whacko. Or "religulous." Heh. (as a sidenote, more suited for the women's rights blog, but isn't it funny that god plays favorites not only with human animals over non-human animals, but with male humans over female ones). How lucky that male humans discovered the bible!
Posted by Lisa R on 11/25/2008 @ 05:29AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for your response, Stephanie. I wish I knew what happened to that family. I'll look up those links you listed.
Lisa, you have called what I have quoted from the Bible, which I believe to be God's inspired Word, "Whacko" and "Religulous". God is who He says He is and He is NOT just whatever anyone wants to make Him. The Bible also says He does not show favoritism--His rain falls on the just and the unjust. But in the end, He will have His way.
To all--I pray God will bless your Thanksgiving and that you will give Him thanks for all we have to be thankful for. It's all a gift from Him. God is good all the time!
Posted by M Vog on 11/25/2008 @ 06:08AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
What I said, MVog, was that to believe GOD INTENDED us to be cruel, selfish, and exclusive is whacko. If a person wishes to be those things, that is of his own accord and cannot and should not be blamed on god. It seems to me that god wouldn't be too thrilled about people using his name as justification for cruelty.
Instead of a prayer of thanks, I think it's more appropriate to pray for forgiveness for the cruelty that we paid for to get that turkey to our plates.
I don't see the difference (besides a level of directness) between thanking god for turkey and thanking him for a dog you just mutilated and murdered. Does anyone really think god is smiling, thinking, "You're welcome. You enjoy that dog you just mutilated and murdered (or, turkey YOU PAID SOMEONE ELSE to mutilate and murder). I put that dog here for you, and so it is good"?
Posted by Lisa R on 11/25/2008 @ 06:41AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I can never believe, for a second, that God sits back and watches what goes on down here and thinks, "Yup, this is exactly what I intended for behavior in humans."
>>God is who He says He is and He is NOT just whatever
>>anyone wants to make Him.
That's funny, because every time I say I believe that God speaks to each of us, or that God resides in all of us, or God is compassion, I'm told I'm wrong. Why? Because my interpretation isn't the same as someone else's? M Vog, you need to take your own advice here.
I was raised a Catholic and I was told plenty of times that my beliefs didn't "conform" to those of the church. Blindly following or having the audacity that *I* somehow "KNOW" God's intentions is blasphemous in my mind. Living a good life, not harming others, not eating the flesh of the dead, loving all my neighbors, seems like a good start in the HOPE of pleasing a God that I can't possibly presume to know. I don't speak FOR God, I listen for Him. He speaks, but we have to be quiet to hear him.
>>How lucky that male humans discovered the bible!
Lisa, you're my favorite. :)
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/25/2008 @ 07:47AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
You only like me because we have the same name. :)
Posted by Lisa R on 11/25/2008 @ 08:03AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I can't take credit for anything I have said that I have taken from God's Word. I'm not speaking for "religion", or a denomination or a "church". I can only share what I have learned from studying the Bible and from the personal relationship I have with Jesus Christ since I was saved. Those are the foundations for my views and He has changed my life. I know that He sees me and all other humans differently than He sees a turkey and I am so very grateful for that. I am not a proponent of cruelty, mutilation or murder but I still thank God for giving me that turkey for food.
Question. Would you deny a human food if all you had to give them was a turkey or some other animal? That's the impression you give me.
By the way, I still haven't seen a blog for the cause of rights for unborn human babies on this site or any of the animal rights type sites I've looked at. Hmmmm.
Posted by M Vog on 11/25/2008 @ 08:36AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Emotions run high on both sides on the topic of religion. So please do remember to be polite and respectful of each other, dear readers. It's easy for all sides to get defensive, exasperated, and sarcastic, I know, but let's be careful about going too far in those directions. Also, posts more directly related to religion will definitely come up in the future, and the conversation about religion can surely continue, respectfully, there.
M Vog, I appreciate that you feel strongly about your religious beliefs and that you have strong views on the issue of abortion, but this is neither a blog about Christianity nor a blog about abortion. Please refrain from trying to steer the conversation to abortion. The fact that you haven't found posts on abortion on other "animal rights type sites" either shouldn't be surprising--they're animal rights sites, not abortion sites.
For the record, M Vog, not a single person has implied what you state--that if the only sustenance a person had available was flesh from an animal, animal rights advocates would rather see the person starve. Animal rights advocates believe in eliminating the exploitation and suffering of animals as much as possible. When you have a choice about whether or not to eat animals--when you have other options, as the majority of humans do--and you choose to kill and eat them, we see that as an unnecessary act, an act that perpetuates suffering without good reason. I doubt you'll find many, if any, animal rights advocates who would criticize the choice to eat an animal when literal survival is at stake. But the vast majority of people don't need to eat animals to survive; they eat animals because they want to. I do hope you'll read through the Web sites I linked to earlier. I think you'll find the Christian perspectives there informative and helpful.
http://www.chai-online.org/en/compassion/christianity/heritage_christianity2.htm; http://www.all-creatures.org/cva/default.htm
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 11/25/2008 @ 08:58AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Just because we are too clumsy and insensitive to be able to detect a plants' sufferring. Vegans must understand that they also end life while preparing meals. I wish I could remember the source, but many years ago I read a study that measured what Ibelieve was electomagnetic signals from plants. The scientist proved that there was a drastic change when plants across the room had their leaves burned.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 11/25/2008 @ 12:29PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry about my last post, I left out that the resulting hypothesis was that possibly the hurt plants communicated their pain to the unhurt plants
Posted by Charlie Reed on 11/25/2008 @ 12:31PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Stephanie, I'm glad to hear your clarification and answer to my question. I didn't state it as a fact or say anyone implied it. It was just the impression I was getting and that's why I asked the question. I didn't want to assume.
And, to clarify, the reason I said what I did about finding a blog for human baby's rights is that I was referred back to change.org to find one. I suggested it as a cause but no one has answered me. Most of the animal rights groups I find are closely linked with liberal thinking groups and the pro human baby life groups are usually found connected to conservative thinking groups. Seems odd to me.
As a Christian, I believe I am to be a good steward of this earth and all that is in it. I believe I am. In eating meat, I also believe I am using animals for food as God said they were given for food. (Refer back to Genesis passage to Noah). I don't like the inference that anyone who eats meat is a cruel, tortuous, slaughterer. I'm none of those. Again my views are founded in the Bible. I still haven't heard what the foundation for others' views are except just personal feelings and opinions. And I am reading the websites you suggested, Stephanie. Thank you.
Posted by M Vog on 11/25/2008 @ 12:46PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the change seen in the plants when other plants' leaves were burned may have something to do with the smoke/chemicals entering the air. I don't know though, and I know that people judge vegans for thinking (er.. knowing) that animals feel pain, boredom, frustration, etc. Therefore, I won't judge you for what you think of plants. ...If that is what you truly think. Now, if you are just arguing that plants feel pain to justify cruelty to animals for food, I think it's a pretty weak argument. Interesting info though-- If you find the study, let us know.
Posted by Lisa R on 11/25/2008 @ 12:50PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
>>I don't like the inference that anyone who eats
>>meat is a cruel, tortuous, slaughterer
I also don't like the inference that people who don't eat meat some how advocate the killing of babies instead.
Also, M Vog, I told you that I was Catholic. I think that's a pretty sturdy foundation.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/25/2008 @ 12:53PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie....seriously???? I don't think you'll find anyone here to argue with you, without even citing any reviewed scientific literature, that plants and trees have some incredible behaviors and physical characteristics. They can communicate with chemicals. They are living things, so of course they respond to outside stimuli (or "being hurt"). BUT THEY DON'T HAVE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS!
Good argument though...plants hurt so eat meat.
Posted by Brandi Higgins on 11/25/2008 @ 01:01PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Quote:
"Just because we are too clumsy and insensitive to be able to detect a plants' sufferring. Vegans must understand that they also end life while preparing meals. I wish I could remember the source, but many years ago I read a study that measured what Ibelieve was electomagnetic signals from plants. The scientist proved that there was a drastic change when plants across the room had their leaves burned."
Charlie,
Even if you are correct, given that it takes anywhere between 5-15 pounds of plant protein to create one edible pound of flesh protein, we are preventing a lot of suffering by consuming the plant protein directly. Therefore, far being a conclusive rebuke of veganism, your argument merely re-affirms it.
Quote:
"I still haven't heard what the foundation for others' views are except just personal feelings and opinions."
M Vog,
No, not personal feelings - the god of my sacred text. Why? Because I believe it's true. There's my solid foundation for challenging you. I feel like we have gone a long way here.
In response to the abortion issue. It's not related therefore it is superfluous to the matter at hand. Your question is derived from a defensive posture: Its an attempt to prove what you believe to be hypocrisy.
Why intelligent people continuously bring this issue up when debating animal rights astounds me; even more so than the "plant's suffer" response.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/25/2008 @ 01:43PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
In passing M Vog, you still haven't challenged those Christian vegans who believe that we ought to stop unnecessarily exploiting nonhuman animals because from our "Genesis," god intended it to be that way. At creation, we were vegans for an ethical reason. It was our fundamental failure as a species that altered the situation. Therefore, as was suggested above, perhaps this is in fact a "test." Appealing to the effects of "original sin" (e.g., suffering because we enjoy the taste) isn't a defense at all. It merely re-states the problem: Why did god create us as vegans if he didn't believe it was the ethical ideal? You celebrate Man's fundamental error by relying on our broken covenant to justify eating flesh.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/25/2008 @ 01:48PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I read that study some 30 years ago. I am not trying to use it as justification for eating meat. I do not need any. I am merely trying to point out that all living things came from the same source, either evolution or God. And vegans need to be a lot less "holier than thou". Actually only eat for two meals per week for health reasons. This does not make me feel superior, Hitler ate no meat!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 11/26/2008 @ 06:05AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
"Hitler ad infinitum," Charlie. That's a fallacy.
Vegans aim to reduce suffering to the greatest extent possible because suffering is bad and any beings' interests in not suffering ought to be considered. That isn't "holier than thou," it is a simple ethical statement. Just like, "The suffering of nonhuman animals should be trumped because I like how they taste," is an ethical statement.
From your position as the majority, our minority challenges appear to be taking the moral high ground because we are making moral claims against the dominant paradigm. However, these challenges go both ways. Your arguments here are taking the moral high ground as well; however, you're in a dominant position and so it doesn't seem like you are making moral claims. But you are; we are rebutting them. It's called a conversation, not preaching from on high.
Charlie, you do need a defense of forcing another to suffer. The one's you have proffered simply are valid.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/26/2008 @ 06:29AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I often find I am called plenty of names because I choose to challenge the status quo with my ethical choices. I believe certain things, so I live accordingly. I also believe that being kind to people is important, but I don't hear people criticizing me for that choice...?
Also, like Alex, I don't preach from on-high. I answer criticism often.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/26/2008 @ 06:38AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I respect the decision to be vegan, as I said I only eat meat two meals per week myself. (chicken saturday, fish sunday)My fear is that the left frequently trys to turn their opinion into law. Just because you are the minority does not mean you are morally superior. I'm pretty sure cannibals are in the minority also. We need to be far more tolerant of other peoples' decision.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 11/26/2008 @ 07:18AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alex, what is a fallacy? Was hitler not a vegan?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 11/26/2008 @ 07:19AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Article about Hitler clarifying his dietary practices.
http://veg.ca/content/view/171/113/
Also, I don't proclaim to be morally superior. Just living the way I see fit for me. If you don't want to hear about my diet, then don't ask, criticize or post on a blog where people are vegan.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/26/2008 @ 12:03PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie,
The fallacy is in the irrelevance of citing Hitler's alleged vegetarianism; it is superfluous to the issue at hand. Most non-vegans appeal to this fallacy as a subtle (or not-so-subtle) attack on ethical veganism ("Well Hitler was a vegetarian so...), which is, of course, like an ad hominom argument, having no barring on the merits of the argument itself. Perhaps you were simply making a statement. If yes, the fallacy is still real, but you may not have fallen into it.
Now, to the substance of your comment.
Quote:
"My fear is that the left frequently trys to turn their opinion into law. Just because you are the minority does not mean you are morally superior."
As I argued before, which you seem to have missed, the political message goes both ways. Therefore, if your claim is that ethical veganism (which isn't Left or Right, consider Mathew Scully, former Bush speechwriter, e.g.) is a "viewpoint" that we are trying to "push on others," then the opposite also follows: Non-veganism is a "viewpoint" that has been forced on the minority (including nonhuman animals) by the majority - it has become your opinion turned into law. Therefore, our efforts to challenge this paradigm and the laws that it engenders are perfectly reasonable, which make's your fear either unreasonable or irrationally prejudiced.
It's funny how majorities always claim, pejoratively, that minorities are "forcing their views on them," which doesn't make sense given that it has been the majority forcing their views on the minority until that moment of change. That is a proper process, I believe. However, the illogical nature of majoritarianism is stunning to me.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/26/2008 @ 12:37PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
It's been great chatting with you. I think I have clearly stated my viewpoints and the foundations upon which they are built. While I would love to continue this conversation, I need to put my time and efforts into working for the betterment of humans. I'll leave the saving of turkeys and the like to all of you.
Posted by M Vog on 11/26/2008 @ 02:57PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alex, great points! You got me thinking today: the USA was founded by people who dared to break free from the majority religion & government & social class system. If they hadn't challenged the status quo, we wouldn't be here. It's ironic that at Thanksgiving we won't honor their courage in breaking the mold by breaking in our own traditions.
I'm also always amazed at how people are frustrated that they can't convince me that going back to eating meat is ok. I don't eat oranges, either, but no one ever seems upset about that...
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/26/2008 @ 04:07PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Quote:
"While I would love to continue this conversation, I need to put my time and efforts into working for the betterment of humans."
M Vog,
As though there is a dichotomy between working for the betterment of both turkeys and humans. They are both animals, therefore, ethical veganism avoids the prejudice you desperately endorse and accepts the idea that bettering the lives of all those who care about their lives is a good, Christian, end.
I will accept your non-answer to my premise regarding "Eden" as an ethical ideal to suggest your inability to provide one that doesn't flatly contradict your own argument.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/26/2008 @ 05:05PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
M Vog: Where in the bible is abortion specifically addressed?
I would agree that the human fetus is alive, but there is no indication that it is conscious before a certain developmental stage. So, essentially, it is more like killing a plant than a conscious animal. Even if it is human, before a certain stage, it does not experience fear and suffering. I think yours is an argument better suited for late-term abortion. Let's work to reduce the need for abortions through education and access to birth control--surely almost all can agree on that.
If all pregnancies in the world were allowed to come to term, there would be more suffering in the world simply because the population would be unsustainable.
An interesting thing I read about the impossibility of avoiding taking lives to live: Even if you eat only organic vegetables or grains, the harvesting of these plants usually results in the deaths of millions of lives of the invertebrates and small animals (birds, mammals) that reside in the ag fields. I'm not supporting meat eating, but it does give a different perspective to the holier-than-thou arguments. It helps to be respectful of all life, although I don't include plants as sentient beings myself.
Finally, the best argument against eating red meat is the recent finding that it causes cancer. Enjoy!
Posted by Angela Percival on 11/27/2008 @ 02:56PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Angela,
Quote:
"An interesting thing I read about the impossibility of avoiding taking lives to live: Even if you eat only organic vegetables or grains, the harvesting of these plants usually results in the deaths of millions of lives of the invertebrates and small animals (birds, mammals) that reside in the ag fields."
This rebuttal is typical of "straw man" arguments. You assume things about one side of the debate - like the ridiculous premise that veganism = never taking any lives, or "perfection" - and when these premises are easily countered (because they're set-up that way) it seems like you have articulated an effective criticism. When, in fact, you are arguing against premises that aren't being proffered by the other side.
If I drive down the road and hit a deer, I am still a vegan. Unintentional harm, which is what occurs in crop production, is not reasonably challenged in any moral theory or else perfection would be a maxim thus rendering the theory itself irrational.
Undoubtedly, farmers could process food with better care for the lives that they are affecting (which, interestingly enough, in a vegan world is precisely what would happen!). However, if nonhuman animals suffer in the process it is indirect. Veganism aims for non-interference, but this must be tempered by realism; just like human ethics.
Interestingly enough, your argument actually goes the other way. Plants are fed to animals during flesh production, which means that you condone double-harm when you eat flesh: the animals that suffer during crop production and the animals that must unnecessarily suffer and die because we enjoy how they taste. Therefore, it follows, if you believe that suffering is bad, that we ought to consume the plants directly and take great care when crops are produced.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/27/2008 @ 07:35PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alex, you sound a bit hostile ;) I just thought it was an interesting observation about humans not being able to avoid taking lives no matter what diet we choose, but I did not mean it to defend meat eating--that is your straw man. I am very much an active proponent of ending the entire meat industry and I regularly donate to animal welfare causes. I am very informed about the impacts of eating meat. I wasn't trying to criticize veganism at all, or saying that vegans think of themselves as perfect or as not taking lives. My personal creed is to have compassion for all beings and do my best to refrain from doing harm.
so...peace out ;)
Posted by Angela Percival on 11/27/2008 @ 07:47PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Angela, I saw your point - we have a friend who helps his father during harvest time on their farm in Montana. Last year, he ran over a fawn in the field while cutting hay. He was so distraught that he stopped the machinery, and walked away from the field. He did not intentionally run over the fawn, but the guilt he felt was too much to even continue cutting hay. I see that as a great example of respecting the unintended deaths.
I am thankful for all life that sustains mine. This is what defines *my* veganism.
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/27/2008 @ 09:57PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
That would be pretty devastating to anyone I would think--to see such a thing. Many birds also nest in hayfields. I read a horrible story from a birder of seeing someone mowing over a whole colony of white-faced ibis nests and young, while the adults called and swirled around the mower.
I was thinking more about this issue and I guess I was talking more about large-scale/corporate farming. I would love it if people would/could go back to being able to grow vegetable gardens at home, but the way our society is structured, it's not feasible for everyone. Neighborhood and community gardens are most excellent though, and small-scale farming just tends to be easier on the planet and the critters overall than monoculture. Sort of in the same vein, it doesn't bother me that two of my girlfriends who live in fairly remote western places both hunt for their meat, killing only one deer or pronghorn a year. An animal living free and then dying a quick death does not bother me. I couldn't do it though--I'm a bunny hugger.
I think if people are just more aware of where their food comes from and it's consequences, they can make better choices. I'm actually amazed that the public IS becoming so informed these days about environmental issues and farming. I haven't really seen that in my lifetime before, so it gives me a lot of hope!
Posted by Angela Percival on 11/27/2008 @ 10:46PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree, Angela, the real issue is the large scale farming AND the fact that most people don't even realize where their food comes from!!
Or, even worse, people think that large scale farming is the only way because they don't realize what "organic" or "local" actually means on the labels.
Sometimes, just talking to someone (calmly!) about what's out there will turn their expectations around. My mom (not vegan) is starting to understand why I am vegan because she has seen some of the HSUS investigation videos on t.v. which really upset her. "I don't want to think of animals suffering like that, and I don't want to eat that, either." It has spurred her to choose more carefully where she buys her food & where that food has come from. I think that's the key: just helping people to understand that there are choices out there.
I was initially upset by the videos posted here on this entry but I discovered that by showing the "small farmer" vs. Butterball, I was able to demonstrate what it is that concerned consumers have been talking about all these years. This was a driving force in my mother decided to buy a local organic turkey this year...
baby steps....
Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/28/2008 @ 08:03AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Everyone bragging on eating turkeys and cows and chickens slaughtered by the conventional and outofsight-outofmind methods.... beware that the fear and horror and adrenaline flowing through that terrified animal's body is trapped in their muscle at the moment of death.... and you are injesting the same into your body when you eat their flesh.
I am not a vegetarian, though I will get there someday. I have made the move to only eat free range eggs and chickens and beef and farm raised fish (NO pork, but that is another story). What I do know for sure is that when my husband totally stopped eating red meat - you know, those big thick steaks and juicy fatty hamburgers - his health problems and attitude towards his family and his anger control issues underwent such a great improvement that the entire family quickly noticed - a quite dramatic change in just over a month! I need no further proof that injesting terror and fear and adrenaline, as well as the multiple medications - is not good for us humans! So for the good of our own bodies as well as our souls, every thinking person should totally turn away from eating the flesh of animals tortured during their death. What moral person, who believes in a God that sees the smallest sparrow fall, can fail to be disgusted at the horrors that go on in a factory farm type slaughterhouse of any kind? If you think your God smiles down upon you, when you continue to turn your back on the truth about what you are injesting into your physical body - that God has told us is the temple of our souls - you might want to rethink your attitude towards suffering again. Think long and hard about what you don't want to go through - namely pain and terror - at your own death.
Posted by nanci little on 11/28/2008 @ 10:47AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.