[Muckraker]

Quote by: tivodan1116 What's wrong with that? The vast majority of people who are "for" curbside trash pickup don't take their trash to the dump themselves - does that mean they don't get trash pickup? People don't need to have a complete knowledge of something in order to appreciate or properly use it.

Funny how people who don't have any have any knowledge of the process so adamantly defend it because the products "taste good."

Unsupported conjecture.

It's not unsupported at all. It's a logical conclusion. If people partake of a voluntary and unnecessary activity and that activity becomes considerably less convenient then the number of people choosing to do said activity will decrease. Do you think the number of vehicle owners would go up or down if we suddenly all had to refine our own gasoline in our basements?

I don't know who "they" are, but my school did, in fact, go on tours of things like that.

Unless you are 80 years old or went to school in a small farming community, I find this statement highly questionable.

Because that would be a lie. They do not, and you are making the classic animals rights mistake/fraud of anthropomorphizing our food - chickens are "Big Bird", venison is "Bambi," pork is "Arnold from Green Acres"... Using these fictional representations of animals to represent the animals we kill for food is dishonest - it does not come even close to accurately portraying the animals. The chickens I eat do not live on Sesame Street, they don't have friends that sing songs, they cannot reason, they don't cry when Mr. Hooper dies, etc.

I was not making a connection between the anthropomorphization of children's programming and meat. I was pointing out that children are inundated with images of happy farm animals and they receive their neatly packaged hamburgers in a way that does not provide any connection to where it came from. Many young children are not aware meat requires the death of an animal and by the time they find that out they are too brainwashed to make a decision about the matter.

Also, it is not a stretch to say that many animals experience the world in a similar way that we do. They have eyes that see, ears that hear, and skin that feels. They communicate amongst themselves, bear and raise young, and have complicated communities. It is quite hippocritical for us to literally police the "abuse" of an animal like a cat or dog and yet consider other animals to be no different than a carrot that a farmer grows in the field.

Those people do, in fact, know they are getting stolen stereos and don't care. So why would you think food would be any different?

The key is that they don't ask questions. My example was not only a stolen stereo. It was stolen and the owner was murdered in the process. If the purchaser received this information at the time of purchase wouldn't it be logical to surmise that a percentage of buyers would be turned off by that?

Someone is eating a burger and "it tastes great." I inform them the burger is actually Poodle meat. Wouldn't a large percentage of people stop eating it and perhaps vomit? All that changed is the knowledge of what they were eating.

More unsupported conjectures. Do try to support your arguments with facts, please.

This is my least supported statement but I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. If people were exposed to the complete process would more people that didn't eat meat start eating meat after getting that information or vice versa?

Meat is highly available, extremely inexpensive, and convenient to eat in the United States at least. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Indoctrination from youth is a standard way of propagating culture. You can't argue against the impressionable nature of the young and the difficulty adults have going against what they were taught their whole lives. If it weren't for indoctrination of the young do you really think major religions would exist in the same manner they do today?

I think you have an incredibly warped sense of what actually goes on in food production.

Please explain it to me then. What I think happens is that companies will do whatever they need to do to increase profits and the meat industry is just that - industrialized. Companies trying to get cheap products to consumers quickly often result in more negative shockers than positive surprises. You find some great new shoes. Turns out those shoes are made by slaves in another country. Still like the shoes and the company?