Earthlings

[Krynn72]

I believe your thinking of squirrels. Cats are too stupid and cuddly to be evil... squirrels on the other hand... they just need need to be exterminated.

 

[Gray Fox]

Bingo. The film is made to convince you into adopting a particular political standpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, but Earthlings' reasoning just doesn't add up, assuming it's trying to go anywhere at all beyond "Animal abuse happens". It doesn't provide hard data or even much of an argument. It shows graphic images in order to dupe people by exploiting their sympathy.

This is nothing short of wisdom of repugnance. This kind of appeal to emotion is fallacious and manipulative. Appeals to emotion are superficial and lacking deeper reasoning. It's the exact same thing that homophobes employ when they talk about how disgusting same sex relations are, or when pro-life groups show videos of fetuses getting destroyed in an abortion. It may not be a pretty sight, and it may very well inspire some strong emotional reactions from you. But basing entire arguments on whether or not they make you feel good or bad is very narrow-minded and shortsighted.

Promoting awareness is just a byproduct of the movie. The intent behind it is to convince you that a world of bloody horror exists behind every kitchen door. It's done well, and it can certainly be a blow to the gut. But the core message is still "meat is murder". It just hopes that you'll be quicker to adopt that stance after watching it, without applying critical thought. That's why appeals to emotion are so common and effective: Strong emotions are damn good at overriding reason.

It clearly works. In this very topic, the slaughter of animals has been compared to the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide. The chicken nugget factory is being compared to the gas chamber. What an offensive, stupid, and ignorant trivialization of real tragedies. Animals are not people. They are not equal to us.

The last paragraph was not necessary, I was not elevating animal abuse to the level of genocide, the point of comparison was to show that appeal to emotion is not necessarily wrong.

Now even if I did, explain why that would be so offensive, stupid, ignorant? I can understand if you think it is not right, but I really want to know what makes it offensive stupid and ignorant.

Does a human have infinitely more value, and why?

Animals may not be people, and I'm not for giving them right to vote, to drive a car. But I'm defiantly for their right to live, right to have a life without torture. Their lack of intelligence prohibits them from ever receiving the same rights as us, but it does not prohibit them in any way from the basic rights.

It was mentioned in the movie several times, but the abuse of animals is a lot of the times caused by the economic gain. Slitting throats is still the cheapest way to kill pigs. Turning a cow upside down is still the most convenient way for the butcher to kill it. Transporting them in overcrowded conditions is still the cheapest way to transport him. Cutting of beaks is a common practice, small cages for animals also make the most economic sense.
Hell pretty much the majority of what I saw there was happening because it was the cheapest way to do it. Giving humans or animals the most human conditions to live and quick death have never throughout history been cheaper, why would I assume it is any different now.

Finally again I disagree on the emotion thing. We have been hearing and reading reports of the shitty living conditions of animals for along time. We have ignored them because of the pleasure we receive trough cheap meat, and cheap leather clothing. And it was easy to do because we we were never directly exposed to it.

But Telling is not as powerful as showing, and what they are doing in this movie is showing it to us. Which makes it that much harder to ignore. And while you are right about the lack of statistics, you are wrong imo about it just being a cheap kneejerk shock doc, because they do mention the reasoning behind their view. And the images are their to support it, not the other way around.

 

[Absinthe]

The last paragraph was not necessary, I was not elevating animal abuse to the level of genocide, the point of comparison was to show that appeal to emotion is not necessarily wrong.

Appeals to emotion are not valid arguments. That's why they are considered logical fallacies. Emotions are subjective and also frequently irrational. If something prompts an emotional reaction from you, you shouldn't accept it at face value. You should look for a rationale or a reason as to what made you feel that way.

Now even if I did, explain why that would be so offensive, stupid, ignorant? I can understand if you think it is not right, but I really want to know what makes it offensive stupid and ignorant.

Does a human have infinitely more value, and why?

Animals may not be people, and I'm not for giving them right to vote, to drive a car. But I'm defiantly for their right to live, right to have a life without torture. Their lack of intelligence prohibits them from ever receiving the same rights as us, but it does not prohibit them in any way from the basic rights.

The comparison trivializes the systematic murder of an entire ethnic group. The Holocaust wasn't some freak occurence. It was a directed, organized effort to exterminate a part of the world's population. It's ignorant because it supposes that animals are to be considered equal to humans, and therefore the suffering and pain in concentration camps was akin to that which chicken's experience. I'm sorry, but that is absurd. How is it offensive? I'd say that demeaning one of the most viciously genocidal events in the last century is sure to step on a few toes.

When it comes to value, you could also ask if a snake has more value than a field mouse. The answer is that it doesn't matter, and it may not even apply. Animals kill and eat other animals. Man had to hunt and kill his food before the entire process was commercialized and inserted the middle man. So now that most people in the West can afford a little excess meat, these animals have their value rating increased as a consequence? That doesn't even take into account areas where starvation is a real problem. Following this reasoning, a cow in the United States has more rights than a cow in Ethiopia. It doesn't make sense when you start extending it beyond your borders.

I know that I value human life more than animal life. Humans are more intelligent, more complex, and more meaningful in their output. Domesticated animals almost totally dependent on us. Animals bred on farms for the sole purpose of being turned into food are often incapable of surviving in a natural environment. And the fact is that we do have to sometimes suspend what you call basic rights for animals. Medical and biological science as we know them would not exist if it weren't for extensive animal testing. It sucks, and I don't like thinking about it. But I accept it whenever I go and get a vaccination.

It was mentioned in the movie several times, but the abuse of animals is a lot of the times caused by the economic gain. Slitting throats is still the cheapest way to kill pigs. Turning a cow upside down is still the most convenient way for the butcher to kill it. Transporting them in overcrowded conditions is still the cheapest way to transport him. Cutting of beaks is a common practice, small cages for animals also make the most economic sense.
Hell pretty much the majority of what I saw there was happening because it was the cheapest way to do it. Giving humans or animals the most human conditions to live and quick death have never throughout history been cheaper, why would I assume it is any different now.

Well, to be honest, I don't expect painless meat processing. I can tell you, however, that what you described is not the standard slaughterhouse practice, or at least as far as I know. For the most part, animals receive trauma to the head either with bolts or electric shock. They are either dead or remain unconscious, excusing accidents. Yes, cows are hung upside down, but rarely are they letting out their last moos of death as their arteries are severed. The economic explanation is obvious: Slaughtering incapacitated or dead animals is easier and more efficient than live ones.

The one thing I'll grant is the issue of overcrowding and some of the devious practices that come into that. But once again we come back to the problem of selective footage. There is still no case that this kind of practice is common. And even if it was, the issue wouldn't be with the fundamental rights of animals, but with weak government regulation.

Finally again I disagree on the emotion thing. We have been hearing and reading reports of the shitty living conditions of animals for along time. We have ignored them because of the pleasure we receive trough cheap meat, and cheap leather clothing. And it was easy to do because we we were never directly exposed to it.

But Telling is not as powerful as showing, and what they are doing in this movie is showing it to us. Which makes it that much harder to ignore. And while you are right about the lack of statistics, you are wrong imo about it just being a cheap kneejerk shock doc, because they do mention the reasoning behind their view. And the images are their to support it, not the other way around.

The only thing their images support is that sometimes in some places some animals get abused. I think everybody has a fairly good idea of where their steaks come from, so it's not like the meat-eating population is totally ignorant as to what happens. Because of that, I think its educational value is pretty limited. Chances are that the animal I ate last night got an electric shock through his head, died, got carved up, and was then cooked. So I fail to see how I or others are in any way tacit supporters of animal cruelty.

I guess the argument could be made that by simply eating meat, I have enabled animal abuse to take place in some slaughterhouses. If that's the biggest moral contention that can be stuck on me, then I accept it. Because it's better than Mr. Phoenix and PETA's ideal world, which would by necessity have to entail far more loss of human life. And I prioritize human life above any other animal's.

ADDED: For the record, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of being stupid, and it's not my intention to get hostile. But I did find the comparison to be very broken.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well I do not agree that a comparison between the genocide of humans and what we do animals trivializes those tragedies. A large reason for that is because I am not comparing the killing of 500.000 animals to 500.000 human, or 8 million animals to 8 million humans. I'm comparing the killing of 20.000.000.000 animals per year to 8.000.000 million humans in a 5 year span, or 500.000 in a year span. And I still think those( human genocides)are worse. But are animals that much less worth, that 20.000.000.000 per year is just Ok.

I also do think it's worse for us to kill a cow for food then someone in Ethiopia. Simply because we have the money and power to be get a healthy diet by other means. So your not killing for survival, your killing for convenience and pleasure. It's not that a cow is worth more in the US then In Ethiopia. It's that it's more morally deplorable to do it for pleasure and taste then for survival. To quote Peter Singer:

The benefits to humans are negligible compared to the amount of animal suffering they necessarily entail, and because I feel the same benefits can be obtained in ways that do not involve the same degree of suffering.

Plus the logic behind allowing this can be used to justify social Darwinism. Now I do not care if rape is just the strong conquering the weak, I want it to be illegal. Societies allow us to break from the tyranny of nature.



I also do not see why slaughtering incapacitated animals is easier and cheaper. The animals are in a cage in which they can barely move, or are held by a restraint. Then you just slit their throat and let it be. Going out of your way to minimize their pain is more expensive. I mean we see that even if animals are resisting, are moving, they still can't do anything about being boiled alive. So why incapacitate them?

Overcrowding is a common practice, it has been discussed regularly on TV at least here in Holland, and economics dictate that our meat would not be so cheap if it wasn't common. The fact that meat from free roam chickens and cows get a special stamp just tells us how rare it is. But you are right that it's a matter of government regulation, and not necessarily a reason to give animals more rights.
But seeing this shocking video may lead to though government regulations. Not because it makes us that much less ignorant, because we know animals get killed for our food, we know they do suffer abuse. But knowing is not the same as understanding, and this video helped me at least to better understand.

You are right about the emotions I guess. But I still can't shake the feeling that emotions do more to help me understand then to obstruct me from understanding and seeing things in their proper light. But I have no logical way of supporting that believe so you're right.

 

[The Monkey]

That's a very powerful movie.

 

[AKIRA]

was anyone else thinking how much pain those cows (mostly at the "kosher" slaughter house) are in pain? I mean did you see them when they were on that hook, then got their throat slit with like 10 gallons of blooding pouring out, then had their windpipes left hanging out all while being alive.

Like it didn't change me enough to become a vegetarian and i'll probably forget about this video in like a week, but still seeing those cows at that part really opened my eyes. I mean the amount of pain and agony is probably just unbeleivable..