Here's What You're Eating

[Hmm]

Okay, so apparently the one link was not working because you have to signup to Youtube to see it, due to its "graphic content." So, there is another video-equally horrifying-that you can see at this link: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Just click play on the video.

Warning: Very graphic

[Osborn F Enready]

LInk doesn't work for me.

[Crystalina]

Doesn't work for me either.:(

[Hmm]

Put up a different link to a different video, since I couldn't get the original to work.

[Osborn F Enready]

Its pigs.

Its food production.

[Epistemologist]

Thanks for finding the video.

However, I'm often quite put off with animal activists when they make videos like these. It's a very cheap method of gaining support. The loud noises and "oinks" that seem to indicate insanity are quite meaningless is establishing a firmly solid argument in this discussion, just as a long shot of baby pigs nursing or cute pig eyes looking at a camera before they're eliminated; I think that perhaps this unduly appeals too much to the emotion of a seemingly caring, activist audience.

And like Osborn said above, it's simply food production. Systematic methods are just economical, I suppose. I think "massacre" is too strong of a word for this situation.

Regardless, I rarely eat pork, although it's not because I care so much for pig lives.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Epistemologist However, I'm often quite put off with animal activists when they make videos like these.

Really? I, for one, was moved to look into the issue more deeply by videos like these and then changed my lifestyle and become an activist. I geuss they work for some and not work for others. Nothing inciteful about that. That is how it is with everything.

What would you have activists do? Just write text about it? Don`t you believe that a pic is worth a thousand words, or a video a million?

Much of the charity going to New Orleans after Katrina resulted from the scope of the destruction as seen from footage. People are moved to action when more of their senses come into play. Just the other day, was looking at the newspaper and there was a ad for donations for children with cleft lips and a picture of a child with a cleft lip on it. I found the pic powerful.

It's a very cheap method of gaining support.

It is very effective, and because of these videos that have been proliferating on the internet, membership and donations to orgs that fight the abuses have been rising steadily every year.

The loud noises and "oinks" that seem to indicate insanity are quite meaningless is establishing a firmly solid argument in this discussion, just as a long shot of baby pigs nursing or cute pig eyes looking at a camera before they're eliminated; I think that perhaps this unduly appeals too much to the emotion of a seemingly caring, activist audience.

It also appeals to many who are not decided and who are not yet activists. Like I said, it did me. I am suely not the only one.

With your logic, any group wanting to have action taken on something should just text their argument. First off, that is not realistic, second, it is not pragamatic, third history has shown the success of photos and audio in moving people to action.

And like Osborn said above, it's simply food production.

No, it is not. It is cruelty, regardless of what Osborn said.

Systematic methods are just economical, I suppose.

What? You`re not 100% sure, even when after referencing Osborn for support?

Systematic methods surely can be economical and efficient, and they surely can be cruel, too.

I think "massacre" is too strong of a word for this situation.

"Cruelty" will do quite fine.

Regardless, I rarely eat pork, although it's not because I care so much for pig lives.

Would caring a little, even devoid of activist work on their behalf, be too much of a burden and inconvenience added to your life?

[Slevin57]

My problem is where does the line get drawn?

If we stop eating meat (killing animals for), then what do activists have to focus on?

Maybe we should stop harming insects. No more bug lights, no more mosquito spray, who needs to build that hospital those ants need to keep their home.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Slevin57 My problem is where does the line get drawn?

How far can you go before becoming neurotic and forfeiting your life? Are you a reductionist?

[Kamehameha34]

Would caring a little, even devoid of activist work on their behalf, be too much of a burden and inconvenience added to your life?

Until you completely eliminate any 'convenience' you enjoy that depends on the suffering and/or death of animals, your a hypocrite if you criticize others for doing the same.

You can call it reductionist, but that's quite irrelevant. We both make use of convenience at the cost of animal welfare. How much animal cruelty do we need to prevent in order to not be considered "immoral" by your standards?

The fact is, the "line of morality" is arbitrarily drawn, based on how much convenience you are willing to give up.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin How far can you go before becoming neurotic and forfeiting your life?

Giving up all animal products would make me neurotic and would forfeit my life.

I like meat, and convenience of diet. You like convenience of diet, aswell. I don't see where any line is crossed.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin How far can you go before becoming neurotic and forfeiting your life? Are you a reductionist?

And my post brought this on....how?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Slevin57 And my post brought this on....how?

Well, his position is to not cause harm to animals until it becomes "inconvenient". He's attaching the word "neurosis" to it to discourage anyone from pointing out the logical fruition of his position.

[StrongHeartsWin]

You still just don`t get it, Kamehameha.

Do you know what a "reductionist" is? What are the consequences of being a reductionist? These are not rhetorical questions to you. I would like your answer to them.

Eclipse gave you a good example highlighting the absurdity of your reductionism with the example of being pro-energy conservation. One can be an energy conservationist, drive a very small fuel efficient car, speak to others about conservation, encourage them, too, to save energy by purchasing less gas guzzling vehicles, BUT, your reductionist argument would be like saying because you don`t walk every where, use a bicycle, or a small go-cart, then you can`t speak about conserving energy or your argument can`t stand. RIDICULOUS!

That is why your reductionist arguments look so immature. But, you can keep clinging to them until you grow out of them. I understand your situation. You just don`t get it.

[Kamehameha34]

That is why your reductionist arguments look so immature. But, you can keep clinging to them until you grow out of them. I understand your situation. You just don`t get it.

No, you don't understand. I'm fine if you want to cut down on products that cause animal cruelty. Just don't criticize others for doing the same.

There's really no reason for disagreeing with me, unless you just want reserve the right to have an elitist attitude.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Slevin57 And my post brought this on....how?

Hi Slevin. It wasn`t meant to be taken in a hostile tone.

You said:

My problem is where does the line get drawn?

My question responding to you was to merely point out that you can live your life without becoming paralyzed because some life form will die indirectly from your actions. Surely, on the way to my garden to pick a tomato, I may have stepped on some insects. I didn`t become neurotic about that and then that lead me to not being able to walk to my garden. The insects death was an indirect result and not a direct targeting.

If we stop eating meat (killing animals for), then what do activists have to focus on?

Kind of like saying, if we stop having wars and crime, then what do soldiers and police have to focus on? I think the answer to your question is in the question.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's really no reason for disagreeing with me, ...

The immaturity of this statement speaks for itself about your situation, and you still not getting it about how ridiculous reductionism is. I guess that is why you couldn`t answer my questions about it above.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The immaturity of this statement speaks for itself about your situation, and you still not getting it about how ridiculous reductionism is.

Funny how you don't even acknowledge the qualifier. Here's a hint: That's where you can find the point.

I guess that is why you couldn`t answer my questions about it above.

Stop hiding behind my disregard of irrelevant questions.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Its pigs. Its food production.

How observant of you. Thank you Captain Obvious.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Stop hiding behind my disregard of irrelevant questions.

They are quite relevant, for you are a reductionist, and you don`t even know what one is, or are afraid to owning up to being one -- hence your continued avoidance of those simple questions whose answers define you/your philosophical outlook on life.