Entries tagged Stupid Welfarists

The Failure of the Single Issue Campaign
22 October 2008

I can tell when the propaganda machine at PETA has decided that an issue matters, because slowly but surely, it starts to make its way into my consciousness, no matter how much I might wish to avoid the idiocy. Such was the case with the recent Action Alert from PETA which got Zappo’s—the massive online shoe retailer—to stop selling fur.

On their site, PETA says:

Well, it seems that Zappos.com got the message that people hate fur, because yesterday, the company officially adopted a permanent policy never to sell any products containing the fur of an animal!

Like I told the people on Twitter who nagged me about this pointless single issue campaign, this isn’t really a victory in any real sense for several reasons.

First, Zappo’s may have agreed to stop selling fur, but have a look around their site: they still sell leather and wool. And if you can manage to be honest with yourself—something that a lot of animal rights activists seem unwilling to do, or incapable of these days—what is the real difference between leather and fur when it comes to the animal rights issues involved? Leather is simply the hide of a different kind of animal with the hair removed. Unlike the implicit argument in a lot of these anti-fur campaigns, I do not think that fur is worse because it is more expensive, and in any case, I’m really not into comparing wrongs in this regard: if you believe that animal exploitation is wrong, fur is just as bad as leather—period. Yet, to argue that fur is “bad” while implicitly accepting that leather is okay sends an odd message about what we’re demanding. Do we think that all animal products are cruel, or just ones that wealthy people can afford, and/or ones which we somehow view as “frivolous?” Thanks to PETA, there is ample confusion on this front. This campaign reinforces that confusion.

Second, false “victories” like these distract from the actual issue at hand. If you read around Twitter and search on the terms “fur” and “zappos”, you’ll see that people seem genuinely excited about this so-called “victory,” and many have again pledged to shop at Zappo’s after threatening to boycott the store if they did not cave to PETA’s demands. But again, I remain confused by this excitement. The best thing I can come up with to explain it is that people who are supporting this are not thinking clearly about the similarities between leather and fur. The result is that people who ostensibly care about animals are distracted by these pseudo-wins from the actual single thing that can make a real difference in this whole fight: going vegan and getting others to do the same. Veganism is the conscious rejection of all forms of animal cruelty and exploitation in one’s life; it is the only real and all-encompassing solution. If you want to make a difference, don’t bother with Zappo’s and fur; don’t bother with cage-free eggs; don’t bother with organic milk. Go vegan, use your talents to get others to consider veganism, and help build a genuine movement of people who will directly challenge the root causes of animal exploitation. Anything else is ignoring the real problem.

Finally, if this campaign was good for anyone, it was good for the public relations machine that is PETA. Sadly, however, PETA has ceased to be much more than a propagandist for its own brand. That said, I know the predictable reactions from those of you who supported this campaign, or who think it is a good idea. Some of you will say “we have to start somewhere,” or “doing something is better than doing nothing,” and I agree: we do have to start somewhere, and I obviously believe doing something is better than nothing. To be completely clear, I’m not urging inaction, I’m just urging a different kind of action. In a world where time and attention are limited, we need to be especially cautious and thoughtful about what we promote and what it says about our overall message in the long run. The only sensible place to start is to go vegan if you aren’t already and to promote ethical veganism. Anything short of that is forestalling actual awareness of the issues.

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: Stupid Welfarists
I’m with Stupid
13 August 2008

Every so often, kind readers or listeners will forward us particular bits of the news that make me wish that I had nothing to do with the so-called animal “rights” movement (when it comes down to it, it really seems to be a movement that is less about rights and more about humane treatment). Here are 3 things that are not only embarrassing for us as animal rights activists, but damaging to our overall message and potential impact:

1. PETA ad compares Greyhound bus attack to slaughtering animals

Playing off of the heinous stabbing-decapitation death aboard a Greyhound bus in Canada, PETA came up with an ad comparing the suffering of the decapitated passenger to the suffering that animals experience in slaughter. While there is little doubt that animals do suffer significantly during slaughter, the subject of this ad makes PETA not only appear to be completely fucking bonkers, but also insensitive to the plight of human suffering. It drives home the idea that any and all animal rights activists focus on animal suffering to the exclusion of all other suffering. None of this does the animal rights movement on the whole any favors, and PETA gets what PETA always wants: attention. The question is, at what cost?

2. PETA wants to advertise vegan message on border fence

Speaking of PETA’s stupidity, we again see them riding the coattails of another current news item in a desperate attempt to draw attention to themselves. This time around, PETA wants to put up billboards near the US border with Mexico that say “If the Border Patrol doesn’t get you, the chicken and burgers will—go vegan.” In the article linked above, PETA tries to play this off as concern that the undocumented workers from Mexico will be leaving behind a relatively healthier diet in favor of the standard American fast food fare. While there may be something to this on a factual basis, it stretches the bounds of rational comprehension to imagine that PETA actually cares about the well being of undocumented immigrants. As far as I can tell, they care about one thing and one thing only: shamelessly forcing themselves into the spotlight, so much so that any message that they originally had about animals or vegetarianism is lost.

3. Firebombings at Homes of 2 California Researchers

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. — The police and federal authorities are investigating firebombings at the homes of two researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

The attacks, which the university described as “antiscience violence,” occurred nearly simultaneously before dawn on Saturday, just days after the police in Santa Cruz discovered pamphlets in a coffee shop warning of attacks against “animal abusers everywhere.” The pamphlets included the names, addresses and other personal information of several researchers at the university, according to a news release put out on Friday by the university.

In my book Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights, I discuss why violent property destruction is a poor solution to the problem of animal exploitation. First and foremost, it makes animal rights activists look like hypocrites. If we claim to care about “life,” there’s certainly no point in doing things that threaten human life. As I wrote in the book:

Today, most people see the violence and torture done for their palates as absolutely acceptable: animal exploitation is the norm, despite the contradictions inherent in it. Given how overwhelmingly strong the societal currents run against treating animals as anything more than commodities and property, the kind of change we need will require more than violence, more than property destruction, and certainly more than a re-creation of the exploitative dynamics that got us here to begin with. If we are to ever win or advance, we must do so by changing the social relations that are at the heart of the problems we face. If we re-create those damaging social relations by relying on the dominance and oppression of violence, we are essentially doing nothing but deepening the problem we are, more often than not, claiming to fight.

In short, we can’t force people to make decisions about morality while they’re staring down the barrel of a gun (or on the receiving end of a bomb). We have to do the hard and often inglorious work of creating a broad-based social movement that will call into question the speciesist dynamics that underlie our social and cultural norms. Bombs or guns or violence or completely shameless attention whoring cannot achieve this, ever.

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: Hell Is Other PeopleNewsStupid Welfarists
PETA is advertising for KFC now
24 July 2008

PETA’s Sexy Lettuce Ladies Give Away KFC’s New Faux-Chicken Sandwiches:

“Quebec City, Quebec--Wearing nothing but skimpy bikinis made of vegetable leaves, PETA’s lovely Lettuce Ladies will hand out delicious samples of the new Classic Vegetarian Sandwich, which is now available at KFC restaurants in Quebec City.”

PETA obviously has never been afraid to use sexism to sell their own campaigns and to promote their own brand, but now they’re out on the streets using sex to promote their own brand plus the brand of a multinational fast food chain that, last I checked, still sells dead animals. On top of it all, I’m sure the samples the “lettuce ladies” are handing out are not actually vegan.

But you know, times are changing. Expecting an animal rights organization to promote veganism is almost like expecting the United States to stick to the Geneva Conventions. Both are apparently artifacts of a more “quaint” time when we could actually have ideals and principles.


Thanks to the Vegan Wookiee for passing this along to us.

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: Stupid Welfarists
3 Ways to be the Revolution
20 July 2008

We’re a movement dominated by professional activists — paid by large organizations — to do the bidding of those organizations. This is fine if you think that dressing up in chicken costumes makes sense, or if you believe the latest animal gassing scheme is a good thing, or if you happen to agree that Wayne Pacelle actually deserves a compensation package worth more than $230,000 annually. (The previous link is a PDF. I got the Pacelle number from Statement 71 on page 94.) But if, like me, you have doubts about highly paid activists, about so-called “victories” that still leave animals as commodities and property, and forms of activism that use one form of exploitation (sexism) to combat another (speciesism), there’s only one solution: be your own activist. (Plus, do you really think that throwing more money at PETA to put up half a million naked Alicia Silverstone ads will accomplish anything? Do you really think that the people masturbating to these ads are actually thinking “wow, I should go vegan?” My guess is that they’re not.)

Activism should not be left as the mere province of paid, professional activists. If we are to have the effect that we’re hoping for, we need to make the movement for veganism a genuine, grassroots social movement, driven by everyday people like you and me, working in our communities and in our lives to help create a base of vegan education and outreach. Only by working in our lives and in the spaces that we know best can we hope to affect real change and build a genuine movement built of people who genuinely wish to change the essential relationship of domination that humans have over animals. Without a genuine pool of social activists, without people who are willing to put their own talents and skills to use, we are going to be stuck with the so-called “victories” of PETA and HSUS, victories that celebrate killing more gently. Shouldn’t we be celebrating not killing at all? Shouldn’t we be celebrating veganism?

In her book The Dispossessed, Ursula LeGuin has a quote that sums up my feelings perfectly about activism. She writes:

You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.

The revolution is in your spirit — I know it is. If you’re vegan, something got you to go vegan, to decide that you would not have a part in the human domination of animals. You knew it was wrong, and you decided to have no part of it. Find that original fire and use it! You must be the revolution if it is to mean anything or change anything in the long run. You have to do it; no one will do it for you. Considering that, here are three things that you can do to be the revolution:

0. Yeah, 0. If you’re not vegan, go vegan now. ‘nuf said.

1. Use your talents and skills to educate people about veganism
We’ve talked about this at length various times on our podcast, but we’ll repeat it again: every single one of you has some kind of talent that you can use to support this cause. You are a unique and special snowflake! We’re so used to beating ourselves down and to accepting that we don’t have much to offer that we often forget how we can be of use. You may think you have no skills to offer, but that’s impossible. We need everyone. We need people who can write and speak and cook and organize. We need people who can hand out literature. We need people who can sew and sing and entertain. In short, we need everyone. Get creative: use your skills to raise awareness or in support of others who are raising awareness or educating others. Which brings me to point two:

2. Work in small, consensus-based affinity groups
Find a group of people who share your vision, get together, and make some change. Leverage each other’s strengths to promote veganism and to be vegan educators. For example, one of you may be an excellent public speaker, one of you may be a quiet person but a fantastic cook, and one of you may have excellent organizational skills. Why not get together, get a room at your local library, give a talk on veganism or vegan cooking, and bring some food along to convince people that eating vegan isn’t as horrendously subpar as everyone imagines? There are a million different possibilities here and a million different talents. The point is to use your creativity and your understanding of the world to make the most impact.

3. Start asking questions
Why would an organization ostensibly opposed to animal suffering give an award to a slaughterhouse designer? Why would the so-called “father” of the animal rights movement say it was okay to eat animal products? Seems to induce a bit of what the psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” doesn’t it? It is time that we all start asking questions and stop assuming that because PETA or HSUS or Peter Singer (or anyone, including me) says that something is good, it is. Think. Examine the issues. Ask hard questions. Consider the situation and the context, and think about the issues. I know that thinking is often scorned within this movement as a “luxury,” but you have to stop and think before you can act wisely. Don’t skimp on thinking: it is the most important thing you can do.

Effecting change is never easy and is often inglorious, but it doesn’t have to be onerous; you can work little by little to educate others, and you can work with others to deepen your impact. We need to build a vital movement of people doing genuine, abolitionist vegan education. We don’t need another set of stupid stunts, sexist ads full of naked people, or overcompensated suits declaring yet another false victory. 

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: OpinionStupid Welfarists
All we have is means
09 June 2008

I love Ursula LeGuin’s science fiction. The work of hers that I’ve read almost always contemplates some aspect of the human character, and of our nature as social creatures. Most recently, I’ve begun working my way through The Lathe of Heaven, which has an enticing premise. George Orr is your average guy, except that he has what he calls “effective dreams:” dreams that change reality. Caught by the government for using prescriptions illegally, Orr is put in the care of a doctor who specializes in sleep disorders. Realizing that Orr has the ability to change reality, the doctor induces in Orr particular kinds of dream states which he uses to change the world. Set in the not-so-distant future, the world is rife with war and hunger following a global collapse of the human population. Wishing for a better world, and with wholly honest intentions, Orr’s doctor uses the “effective” dreams to change the world, willing into existence new circumstances that he feels are for the better.

The problem, of course, is that it becomes more and more difficult for the doctor to account for all of the potential issues that spin off of his relatively simple prescriptions for the way the world should be. When the doctor urges Orr to dream of the earth at peace with itself, Orr dreams into reality a humanity forced into a peaceful unity by its need to fight off an alien race.

Orr realizes that he’s being used to change the world, and in this realization, he comes to the point that, for me, is interesting in the context of social movements, including the animal rights movement. Each time Orr’s doctor uses him, he creates unintended results, even with completely beneficent intentions. As Orr says:

The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.

And this is the essential point: all we have is means. In other words, we can dream of alternate realities, and plan for them, and even work towards them, but if we’re going to work towards them, the way that we work towards them must be consistent with our principles. As I wrote in Making A Killing, we cannot sacrifice what we think is right in a principled trade-off for a better world in some distant tomorrow that may never come.

In the animal rights movement, we’ve largely lost sight of the importance of this kind of thinking. The bulk of the movement is preoccupied with negotiating with the industry for better treatment of exploited animals, keeping in place the essential relations of property and commodification that condemn animals to be mere instruments to human want and profit (and indeed, many of the arguments made for welfare reforms highlight the cost-effictiveness of the reforms for producers). As long as the agricultural industry can hold animals as property, it can exploit them effectively for profit. Welfare regulations may modify the way that property owners treat their animal property, but ultimately, as long as animals can be treated as property, they will never gain equal consideration.

The problem is this: fighting for welfare reform doesn’t significantly reduce the desire for animal foods, nor does it significantly impact the productive relation at the heart of animal exploitation. It is thinking in which the presumed end justifies the means. Yet, as Orr points out, all we have is means. Every day that we live, we remake the world. The question is, are we remaking the world in the way that we really want it to be? Would we prefer that animals be nicely treated commodities, still exploited, albeit more gently, or would we prefer that the world be vegan, and recognize the inherent worth of animals as beings with their own subjective experience of the world?

If we want a vegan world, we have to work to produce one, and the only way to produce one is by living one uncompromisingly on a daily basis. Vegan education works to effectively remodel social relations, and to hit at the heart of the problem with animal exploitation. For this reason, our work should focus on the inglorious, quotidian work that’s required for creating a broad-based movement of people who live abolition in their daily life, who work to change the conditions that condemn animals to being mere instruments and property, and who work to educate others about the importance of veganism as a lived form of protest. No amount of negotiating with KFC or McDonald’s or whatever fast food restaurant will have such an impact; no amount of banning gestation crates, or producing cage free eggs will get us there. Only veganism can bring the kind of world we’re after, and only veganism can be the means if we are truly serious about respecting the inherent needs of animals to live free of exploitation and suffering. 

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: OpinionStupid Welfarists
I’m vegan except…..
09 March 2008

Lots of people seem to think that veganism is hard. It isn’t. At first, it may be a bit overwhelming, but that fades fast. In a few weeks, it is like second nature, and it is easy. It doesn’t require a huge amount of will power, all that much discipline, or any kind of elaborate rituals. Yet, I think people make it more complicated than it needs to be by not just stepping up and simply making the commitment to do it, and do it fully.

Every so often, I get email correspondence from people who tell me that they’re vegan, but for one exception. One of the most common things that I hear and read is “I’m vegan, except when I eat out.” This perplexes me, in all honesty. People who are on the verge of going vegan like this clearly have a pretty good handle on why one would go vegan. They clearly want to do it. And they understand the ethical reasons involved. So, I’m left wondering....do the animals that produce dairy and eggs for restaurants not suffer as much as animals that produce them for your home? When you break it down, the same dynamics of production are still involved, the exploitation is the same, and the suffering is the same. There’s no ethical reason to eat non-vegan foods when you’re out of the home.

The only reason that people do it is convenience.

Yet, for someone who has decided that the suffering of animals matters, convenience is not a solid justification. I realize that this may seem radical, or fundamentalist, or divisive, or whatever, especially when we have people like Peter Singer advocating for the “Paris exception” of eating just about whatever the hell anyone wants every so often. What I’m advocating is not radical: it is simply recognizing that some ethical principles matter, and that living by those principles is important, even when it is inconvenient. This may mean that on occasion, you don’t have as many choices, or that you have to appear “weird” in front of friends and waitstaff. But so what? Living your life as a vegan matters, because you’re standing in for the animal. You’re the living witness at the table, the lone objector who says, by their actions, “Exploiting animals isn’t right, and I won’t do it.” By failing to do this, you fail not only to live up to your own principles, but you fail to make as big an impact as you could. You fail to introduce the necessary cognitive dissonance into the lives of those around you. In short, the visceral protest of veganism becomes limp and falls flat if you can’t actually be bothered to go to the trouble to be vegan.

I live in a extremely rural area. People around here have no clue what a vegan is, yet I’m able to get vegan food when I go out to eat, simply by asking nicely for it, and being clear about my needs. It isn’t complex.

I’m not trying to argue that I’m an exceptional model of veganism. I’m not. I’m just another guy trying to live as a vegan as best I can. But in the end, if your principles mean anything to you, they should mean something even when they’re inconvenient. When it comes down to it, people make going vegan harder than it is. I see a lot of people pity themselves for their “sacrifice” as a vegan, which is absurdly misplaced pity. The pity shouldn’t be for yourself, it should be for the animals that you claim to be caring about when you decide to make this commitment. Ultimately, going vegan isn’t that hard for most of us, and the sooner that people recognize that it is doing the right thing by their ethics, step up, and begin living by the principles that they say are important, the sooner we’ll actually begin to make changes in the world.

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: OpinionStupid Welfarists
More on Bittman
11 February 2008

I wanted to add to Bob’s critique of Mark Bittman’s response to his vegan critics. Bittman also relies on this tired argument against veganism and abolition:

Humans do not tread lightly on this planet (understatement of the year, I know). Many of us agree we need to minimize our footprint. I’d rather argue against unnecessary cruelty, against overconsumption, for better human and planetary health, than for a strict regimen that the majority of the earth’s citizens will reject outright. I think people can hear “eat less meat,” and I can say it. But “eat no meat?” Few people are listening, nor will they.

I’m sure the welfarists are loving this part of Bittman’s article, because it legitimizes their approach to reform: call for nicer methods of production and reducing animal consumption, but don’t you dare mention not eating animals at all, because people won’t listen. While vegan education might not be easy because of the societal and psychological blocks it has to overcome to be successful, it is the only way to be morally and logically consistent if you claim to care about animal rights. Bittman’s (and the welfarist) arguments make veganism sound completely untenable, unsustainable, and unnecessary, which is great if you want to keep convincing yourself that humans have to eat meat to be happy and healthy. After all, it tastes good and it’s our tradition!

But those of us who lead happy, healthy lives without consuming animal products know that veganism is doable, and necessary. We’ve listened to the arguments for and against veganism, and we’ve make the choice for living our ethics. There are many, many more people out there who will change if they are given information and support. Our radio show is proof positive of that - I can’t tell you how many emails and voicemails we get from people who, once they heard all the arguments for veganism, decided to make the leap. Yes, change is difficult, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t try. We owe it to ourselves and to the future of the planet to do so.

  Posted by Jenna Torres    Permalink    Filed under: Hell Is Other PeopleNewsStupid Welfarists
Eating Meat is Only Human?
10 February 2008

Last week, on Vegan Freak Radio, we discussed an article by Mark Bittman in the New York Times. In the article, Bittman made a compelling case against the mass consumption of meat, linking its production and consumption to concerns about the environment, human health, and animal welfare. In our estimation, the article was a good mainstream treatment of the subject, but we discussed on our show, Bittman stopped short. Our reasoning was plain: if meat is troubling on so many levels, why continue to eat it? Why not just go vegan? After all, no one can honestly maintain—in the face of such overwhelming evidence—that eating meat is in any way necessary for human well-being.

If we don’t need to eat meat for our health, then why do we eat it? The reasons are multiple and obvious: tradition, taste, and convenience. We justify what we do to animals—at the tune of 10 billion lives a year in the US alone—simply by referring back to the old adage that “this is how we’ve always done it.” Collapsing into this odd logic of “might makes right,” when pushed, most people who eat meat cannot really justify it much beyond this simplistic thinking. Like the privilege of any other form of domination, those who benefit from the privilege are hesitant to see the relationship of their benefits to the exploitation of others. Men are often hesitant to see the domination of sexism; white people are often hesitant to see the wages of racism. Similarly, those of us that enjoy species privilege are hesitant to honestly acknowledge how our privilege benefits us at the expense of the freedom of others.

Sadly, Bittman falls into this trap in his blog at the Times when he responds to some of his vegan critics. In his piece, Bittman treats meat like any other resource when he writes:

Maybe I’m thick, but I don’t get it. If I write a piece about Americans driving too much, do I get trashed for owning a car? For using too much electricity, do I become a bad person for turning on the lights? This would seem to counter 90 percent of the arguments about continuing to eat meat: I choose to; it’s part of my life and my work; in general, I eat the most conscientiously raised meat I can find; and — relatively — I don’t eat much of it.

In this clever little comparison, Bittman ignores one central point: animals are unlike other resources in so far as they are sentient and feel pain. Clearly, driving too much has horrible impacts that have ethical implications, but it isn’t like driving your car makes it suffer. Similarly, using electricity depletes natural resources, but no one would really ever argue that electricity can feel pain, or have a continuous mental existence. Thus, while we do treat animals like resources—indeed, this is the central problem of animal exploitation—animals are sentient beings, which changes our obligations towards them. In this regard, the moral wrong of consuming animals is one that cannot be mitigated by doing less of it. Simply put, either consuming animals is a moral wrong or it isn’t. If it is a moral wrong, doing less of it or doing it more nicely does not mitigate that moral wrong. Analogously, several hundred years ago, Bittman could have argued the same thing about slavery: he chooses to treat his slaves well; they’re part of his life and work; and really, he only has a few slaves. Most of us (I hope) would find this logic objectionable concerning humans. The only reason we can stomach it for animals is that we are conditioned to view animals as somethings and not as someones.

Bittman continues on with his justification for eating meat, writing:

It’s traditional. It’s mainstream, and almost everyone alive who can eat meat does so.

Traditional “values” have been used throughout time immemorial to justify all manner of exploitation. Women should be most sensitive to this particular line of reasoning, for “tradition” has often been used as an argument to keep women in positions of domination within patriarchy.

In the end, what we get from Bittman is another weak justification for eating “happy meat” (and sadly, this is a position most of the animal rights movement is happy with, too). By falling back on the old, unexamined arguments about tradition, Bittman does little to really challenge the central dynamic of animal exploitation. In doing so, Bittman will only help to drive the creation of a niche market for the consumption of “happy meat” for the wealthy “ethical consumer,” the “conscientious omnivore.” Bittman sees animals as just another commodity; this mistaken logic undercuts his own arguments on welfare, and will ultimately condemn many more animals to a life of pointless suffering. 

  Posted by Jenna Torres    Permalink    Filed under: Hell Is Other PeopleNewsStupid Welfarists
Animal Welfare
15 July 2005

I just got done reading George Will’s weekly column in Newsweek about Matthew Scully’s work (the author of Dominion and of an article in a conservative magazine about how we need to be less cruel to animals). The first thing I have to say is kudos to George for even writing about it – most people just ignore these arguments and avoid thinking about these issues.

And I’m not going to critique or analyze his essay (that’s Bob's department, since he does it so well), but reading it did make me think more about my own thoughts on animal welfare, which I’d like to talk about.

I’m all for more humanely treating animals – let’s start there. I think factory farming is abysmal and needs to be improved.

But, I have a real problem with those who advocate for animal welfare over the abolition of animal agriculture altogether, for several reasons.

If someone asked me “if we got rid of all factory farming practices and the animals lived a wonderful life and were killed completely painlessly and humanely, would you then eat meat?” – my answer would be NO. I do not believe that animals should be killed for my use at all. Killing them is making their normal lifespan shorter than it would be. Do I want healthy, young humans euthanized so they can be used for some purpose? No, so I don’t want animals to be either. (I can get all Star Trek or Twilight Zone on you here. Say an alien race came to earth and wanted to use humans for food. We are allowed to live in our houses and go about our normal daily business, but occasionally the aliens would come harvest a family and you’d be euthanized and eaten. Not fun. Who says the animals still don’t feel fear upon watching others of their kind being put to death?)

My other argument against the animal welfare position is that it just makes people feel better about eating meat, and MORE people would be willing to do it. We may be treating them better, but then we’d be killing even more of them. Peta’s new campaign is to get chickens killed by gassing them rather than cutting their throats. Yes, it’s a more humane way of killing them, but they still live miserable lives confined in their crates and you’re still killing them. All of that kind of reminds me of Auschwitz.

This is a tough issue for me, since I absolutely hate thinking about the animals being tortured in today’s factory farming practices. But, I think the way to deal with is for more people to become vegans, not to have them feel better about eating their chicken. Will says in his article not to worry, since Scully’s not trying to take away your BLT. Well, in my opinion, he should be.

Humane slavery is still slavery.

  Posted by Jenna Torres    Permalink    Filed under: Stupid Welfarists