“the most recent clincher for me (in regards to not eating factory farmed meat) was the recent video of the cow being chased by and bulldozed by the coward on the forklift thingy ...”
And, sadly so, this is common practice at slaughterhouses across the country. So terribly sad.
And yet- does it surprise you that none of these fellas have bothered to spout their arguments on the BEEF RECALL thread? It doesn’t surprise me- they would find themselves much like downer cows in that argument- not a leg to stand on.
It does, however, surprise me that Kriss is here bragging about his ground beef consumption. Ground beef is the most commonly recalled animal product due to where it comes from and how it is processed- and how all of this easily leads to contamination. Go check it out, Kriss. You don’t have to give a rat’s booty about cows to feel totally turned off of ground beef. Yuck. When meat is ground up, it is because it is of such low quality that it cannot be sold as a cut.
“the utter bewilderment they must feel when we treat them as we do is unimaginable ...”
It is said that, when animals are being subjected to painful experimentation (another topic altogether) they often try to lick the hands of the lab workers, and that they submissive urinate…basically saying “OK- you win- I submit!” Begging for mercy- how sad.
“that’s another reason to hope/believe that we are NOT the highest form of intelligence in this universe”
AshaKasha: Why would I apologize to you? Because you didn’t really call people who eat meat a bunch of slave-trading Nazis, but more alluded to the similarities, and that my reaction to that was somehow inappropriate? Nice bit if justification, but I don’t buy it. It was a cheap and unfair dig, and it was completely fair for you to be called out for it.
I could have gone one worse, and called you an outright hypocrite for being the owner — that is, a PETA-certified slave-holding “massa” — of a dog, but that just seemed shallow and unfair. Likewise, I’m sure that even a cursory examination of your lifestyle would reveal plenty of “vegan” hypocrisy on a number of fronts, and yet you’ve demonstrated nothing so much as consistent denial in your posts and taken a holier-than-thou attitude. And yet, when it comes to those who disagree with you, or even have a different perspective from you, the tack you take is to call them Nazis? What a strange cognitive dissonance you seem to have.
Let’s, just for a moment, examine that claim. Were the Nazi’s killing Jews to eat them? No. Were they killing them to make products? No (although, in fairness, this did happen in a few cases with the Nazis). Why were the Nazi’s doing the awful things? Moral reasons, actually. They thought the Jews were an evil, world-controlling race bent on ruining the “Aryan” predestiny of being the ruling world culture. They were trying to “clean” Germany (and then the world) of this other culture, one that they found repellant because of its morals, language and non-assimilative social structure. For the Nazi party, it was a near-religious belief, founded on an ideal-driven moralism, that fueled their actions.
How’s this for unfair: It would be an easy argument to make that animal-rights activists are driven by that exact same kind of extremist blindly moralistic zeal, and that, ideologically speaking, they are far, far closer to the Nazis than a person eating a Big Mac ever has been, or ever will be. Their destructive actions against factory farms and medical testing labs are the new Krystalnacht — driven by blind hate, dim understanding and zealotry. Their target isn’t Judaism, though; instead, it’s science, choice and common sense. No one is telling you not to be vegan, because no one really cares all that much what you eat, meanwhile the actions of vegan and animal-rights activists can be clearly seen as a semi-religious war — a fundamentalist jihad — on anyone with opposing or differing views. In the vegan movement there is no room for tolerance of other diets: You’re either with the vegans, or you’re against them.
I’m not claiming any of this to be true — it’s just as unfair a comparison as the one you made — but I thought you’d want you to get a little taste of your own medicine, just for the sake of perspective.
now steve ... owning a dog is not enslaving it. every dog i have ever had has been ecstatic to see me, grateful for the love and protection, fiercely protective of me ... they are pack animals and they crave social interaction and “belongingness” ...
tying a dog to a tree for its entire life? entirely different story ... but something tells me that ashakasha’s dog/s are much better treated than most humans ...
you’re debating her debate, rather than her point ... is that a sign of something? ;)
Foreward found in Eternal Treblinka, by Lucy Rosen Kaplan
“In Eternal Treblinka, not only are we shown the
common roots of Nazi genocide and modern society’s
enslavement and slaughter of non-human animals in
unprecedented detail, but for the first time we are
presented with extensive evidence of the profoundly
troubling connections between animal exploitation in the
United States and Hitler’s Final Solution. Dr. Patterson
does not let us forget, moreover, that the practices of
the quintessentially American institution of the
slaughterhouse that served as a model for the slaughter
of human beings during the Nazi Holocaust flourish to
this day.”
However, Eternal Treblinka does not stop there. By
exploring the entrenched racism in mainstream American
culture that Hitler often cited as exemplary, the book
details American support for human eugenics and forced
sterilization and the role that their advocates played
in contributing to the the Final Solution. This
examination is long overdue, for without it, American
culture is unlikely ever to reconsider the values that
still make it the most animal-exploiting civilization in
history.
” As disturbing as Eternal Treblinka’s revelations are
to read, the book’s message is one of hope. The last
part of the book takes pains to tell the stories of
individuals whose links to the Holocaust, both as
victims and perpetrators, helped steer them into animal
liberation advocacy. If the experience of suffering can
generate some good, then the work of those whose memory
of suffering moves them to alleviate the suffering of
others is that good.”
“In his thoughts, Herman spoke a eulogy for the mouse
who had shared a portion of her life with him and who,
because of him, had left this earth. “What do they
know—all these scholars, all these philosophers, all
the leaders of the world—about such as you? They have
convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor
of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other
creatures were created merely to provide him with food,
pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to
them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an
eternal Treblinka.”
“As for compassion and gentleness, these were anathama to
Hitler, who believed that might makes right and the strong
deserved to inherit the earth. He had utter contempt for the
nonviolent philosophy of strict vegetarians and ridiculed
Gandhi. Hitler’s most basic belief was that nature is ruled by
the law of struggle and only the strong prevailed. He wanted
young Germans to be brutal, authoritarian, fearless, and cruel
(“The youth that will grow up in my fortresses will frighten
the world.”). They must not be weak or gentle. “The light of
the free, marvelous beast of prey must once again shine from
their eyes. I want my youth to be strong and beautiful.”
Hitler once summarized his worldview in a single sentence: “He
who does not possess power loses the right to life.”
now steve ... owning a dog is not enslaving it. every dog i have ever had has been ecstatic to see me, grateful for the love and protection, fiercely protective of me ... they are pack animals and they crave social interaction and “belongingness” ...
tying a dog to a tree for its entire life? entirely different story ... but something tells me that ashakasha’s dog/s are much better treated than most humans ...
you’re debating her debate, rather than her point ... is that a sign of something? ;)
It’s not my view, it’s PETA’s. I think it’s rubbish, but that’s an only slightly exaggerated version of their party line on pets. Here’s the straight dope: http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp
As far as the rest, I’m just trying to make it very clear that it’s a cheap shot to start calling people Nazis. It’s a debate killer, and it casts one party as the automatic villain, and the other as the de facto hero. I just wanted to put AK’s argument in perspective. Since she has now resorted to just quoting other people who already agree with her rather than respond personally, I’d gather that my point was very well made indeed.
Well, there were some folks who thought mass-murdering (how many) jews based on the belief of some that they were vermin was wrong and kicked some seroius ass to liberate them (thank goodness).
There were also an annoying few who thought keeping africans (also at one point considered lesser beings) as slaves wasn’t cool- and we all know the ruckus they brought on by supporting them in their fight to freedom (some didn’t even want to be free and fought against those trying to liberate them). Some folks thought it was worth it to keep slaves, even if they felt badly for them. Oh heavens…who else would work the fields in the hot summer?
If you discover that another being, whom you consider equally deserving of respect for their life as yourself, being brutalized by others, should you ignore their plight out of respect for the brutalizers “freedom of choice” or to avoid “annoying” them, or should you try to help?
read it again, steve. she wasn’t comparing nazis to meat-eaters, she was comparing ACTIVISM, social reaction to it and its results in response to those behavioral phenomena. the point you seem to have missed is that she was saying that walking the plank and standing up for what one deems to be morally defensible is what gets things changed. she’s comparing the passion of the belief set. nowhere did she say that the persons involved were committing similarly immoral acts. you’re a man-of-words ... you see the difference, don’t you?
and since you’re talking about being put on the defensive, didn’t the tone of the TITLE and the first post of this thread seem a bit ... aggressive? mean spirited? any of the regulars here know exactly who that was meant for. that ashakasha was as civil in her participation as she has been seems to me to be a sign of her wanting to “play nice” ...
“My awareness of the scope of our society’s
exploitation and slaughter of animals has been a more
recent development. I grew up and spent most of my adult
life oblivious to the extent to which our society is
built on institutionalized violence against animals. For
a long time it never occurred to me to challenge or even
question the practice or the attitude behind it. The
late AIDS and animal activist Steven Simmons described
the attitude: “Animals are innocent casualties of the
world view that asserts that some lives are more
valuable than others, that the powerful are entitled to
exploit the powerless, and that the weak must be
sacrificed for the greater good.” Once I realized this
was the same attitude behind the Holocaust, I began to
see the connections that are the subject of this book.”
read it again, steve. she wasn’t comparing nazis to meat-eaters, she was comparing ACTIVISM, social reaction to it and its results in response to those behavioral phenomena. the point you seem to have missed is that she was saying that walking the plank and standing up for what one deems to be morally defensible is what gets things changed. she’s comparing the passion of the belief set. nowhere did she say that the persons involved were committing similarly immoral acts. you’re a man-of-words ... you see the difference, don’t you?
and since you’re talking about being put on the defensive, didn’t the tone of the TITLE and the first post of this thread seem a bit ... aggressive? mean spirited? any of the regulars here know exactly who that was meant for. that ashakasha was as civil in her participation as she has been seems to me to be a sign of her wanting to “play nice” ...
I disagree, but the point is kind of moot. Thanks to another post in another thread, it has been brought to my attention that I’m being a major killjoy to people who aren’t interested in debating. That’s probably true, and I’m rapidly heading towards becoming less a moderator and more an instigator. No one wants that, so I’m shutting up and handing the discussion over to the forum users.
If you want to debate with me privately, PM me, but otherwise I’m dropping out of the discussion. (And please, no “You quit! That means vegans are heroes and you’re a loser!” posts, as it’s not the motivation. I’d gladly argue all day, but the overall concerns as to my role as a mod are pretty valid, and something I’ve been thinking about myself for some time.)
Shoot me a PM if someone gets out of line, otherwise enjoy the discussion.
i don’t know how to say this exactly ... you seem to be in a fragile state ... but ... you’re getting kind of steve-of-arc on us. i’m not trying to call you out, swar to gawd, but you needn’t take it all so personally ...
i don’t know how to say this exactly ... you seem to be in a fragile state ... but ... you’re getting kind of steve-of-arc on us. i’m not trying to call you out, swar to gawd, but you needn’t take it all so personally ...
I’m not taking it personally, and I’m actually quite glad you mentioned it. You made a good, fair point about my personal tendency towards debate overtaking my role as a mod. I’m being a killjoy, and I’m acting more than a little like an intellectual bully. It’s bad for the forums, and it’s not all that much fun for me either.
I’ll still be around, and I’ll still weigh in on stuff, but there’s no point in hammering every little point into the ground like a jacked-up science thug. I’ll just, on this forum at least, agree to disagree on vegetarianism, animal rights, psychic powers and ghosts.
It does, however, surprise me that Kriss is here bragging about his ground beef consumption. Ground beef is the most commonly recalled animal product due to where it comes from and how it is processed- and how all of this easily leads to contamination. Go check it out, Kriss…
I didn’t intend that to come across as bragging - just a response to Brebro’s humorous post - and it was not something I made up. It really happened the night before. My wife had made strawberry shortcake, and I had eaten so many tacos I was unable to eat dessert and felt badly about that. As to ground beef being commonly subject to recall, I’m sure it is. But you know, there’s risk in everything we do in life. Each individual must decide for himself/herself what risks are acceptable and what aren’t. I could be killed the next time I get on the road in my truck - I’m sure there’s a much greater chance of that happening than getting sick from the chance eating of beef that may be contaminated - but I’m still going to drive. Btw, I rarely eat beef anyway; I mostly eat fish.
I actually admire your zealousness on this topic, though I obviously don’t agree with most of your views.
Kriss: just so you know, Fantastic Foods makes a good taco meat substitute. It does seem to cause those around me to have incredible gas (not me, as my husband, son, and maybe my dog have been trained to agree to- I NEVER fart…snicker snicker). Geeez…before I met my husband, I never even used the “F” word.
Anyhow- I just think if one chooses to eat meat, the last thing they would want to eat is ground beef. Just nasty. Now, THAT is “disturbing behavior” ;0)
