Guest guest Posted April 23, 2001 Report Share Posted April 23, 2001 Here's what I have so far. I'd appreciate some input from my learned friends. --------------- While some of your article is accurate, i.e. the starting paragraph, your references to AR activists, Vegans and vegetarians are far from the truth. " Last weekend, there were almost two million farm animals on death row, waiting for their sentences to be carried out, but hardly an animal-rights demonstrator in sight. " And how does that differ from every other normal week? I'm sure you are well aware 650,000 pigs, sheep and cattle are killed every week for food, this figure doesn't even include animals that become poultry in the supermarket shelves, which is far higher. It seems you're doing what the rest of the press is good at, fanning the flames. You don't see AR activists outside slaughter houses because you have to start from the top and work down. I.E. mink farms and un-necessary animal experimentation, are first on the list. In the future we may see AR/AW peoples outside slaughter houses, but our society is not yet at this stage. You put " terrible things " in " " 's. Why? One does not need to go to a slaughter house to know that animals do not realise it's time to die for us to eat them saying " okay, I'll die now " . Animals die struggling and as is well documented, suffering horrific deaths like being skinned or scolded while conscious or semi-conscious. You put the view across that most people who eat animals have an idealistic view of their deaths or push it to the back of you mind. You reference to AR/AW being relaxed about the current situation is both true and false. I, Myself are relaxed in the sense of relief I have that I consume no animal products and therefore somewhat remove myself from this situation. A feeling of less guilt if you like. This plus the fact that AR/AW are more aware of animal suffering. So now the slaughter is not done behind the peoples backs in slaughter houses (why does the media persist in calling them by their French name?), it's hardly surprising the media and the general public are surprised while people who make it their business to know these things (as the saying goes " If slaughter houses had glass walls.... " )! Finally, it's nice to see you're generalising about AR/AW without doing research and backup literature. In my opinion, I think an animal can suffer in the same way a human animal can suffer. I truly doubt what happens in the nations death houses, the public would tolerate in the open fields anyhow. As for animals being killed in sight of each other, people involved in the animal industry would have me believe that animals can't understand death, so therefore it's okay to kill them in front of each other. I think the double standards are astonishing. An animal has more than one sensory perception of death than vision. Sound and especially smell (as most humans aren't good at perceiving the latter) are still present in slaughter houses. > Regards, > > Rowan McCartney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2001 Report Share Posted April 23, 2001 I've italicised some parts of the text which don't make sense (and put them in red, hope you can see it). Also, you might want to give it a quick proofread as there are a few typos. Good reply though and good for you! When we demonstrate we get bad press, when we don't demonstrate we get bad press. How do we win? > ---------- > Mccartney, Rowan (R.N.) > Reply vegan-network > Monday, April 23, 2001 3:57 pm > 'vegan-network ' > Okay, help with the Guardian reply > > Here's what I have so far. I'd appreciate some input from my learned > friends. > > --------------- > > While some of your article is accurate, i.e. the starting paragraph, your > references to AR activists, Vegans and vegetarians are far from the truth. > > > " Last weekend, there > were almost two million farm animals on death row, waiting for their > sentences to be carried out, but hardly an animal-rights demonstrator in > sight. " > > And how does that differ from every other normal week? I'm sure you are > well aware 650,000 pigs, sheep and cattle are killed every week for food, > this figure doesn't even include animals that become poultry in the > supermarket shelves, which is far higher. It seems you're doing what the > rest of the press is good at, fanning the flames. > > You don't see AR activists outside slaughter houses because you have to > start from the top and work down. I.E. mink farms and un-necessary animal > experimentation, are first on the list. In the future we may see AR/AW > peoples outside slaughter houses, but our society is not yet at this > stage. > > You put " terrible things " in " " 's. Why? One does not need to go to a > slaughter house to know that animals do not realise it's time to die for > us > to eat them saying " okay, I'll die now " . Animals die struggling and as is > well documented, suffering horrific deaths like being skinned or scolded > while conscious or semi-conscious. You put the view across that most > people > who eat animals have an idealistic view of their deaths or push it to the > back of you mind. > > You reference to AR/AW being relaxed about the current situation is both > true and false. I, Myself are relaxed in the sense of relief I have that > I > consume no animal products and therefore somewhat remove myself from this > situation. A feeling of less guilt if you like. This plus the fact that > AR/AW are more aware of animal suffering. > So now the slaughter is not done behind the peoples backs in slaughter > houses (why does the media persist in calling them by their French name?), > it's hardly surprising the media and the general public are surprised > while > people who make it their business to know these things (as the saying goes > " If slaughter houses had glass walls.... " )! > Finally, it's nice to see you're generalising about AR/AW without doing > research and backup literature. In my opinion, I think an animal can > suffer > in the same way a human animal can suffer. I truly doubt what happens in > the nations death houses, the public would tolerate in the open fields > anyhow. As for animals being killed in sight of each other, people > involved > in the animal industry would have me believe that animals can't understand > death, so therefore it's okay to kill them in front of each other. I > think > the double standards are astonishing. An animal has more than one sensory > perception of death than vision. Sound and especially smell (as most > humans > aren't good at perceiving the latter) are still present in slaughter > houses. > > > Regards, > > > > Rowan McCartney > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2001 Report Share Posted April 23, 2001 > You don't see AR activists outside slaughter houses because you have to > start from the top and work down. I.E. mink farms and un-necessary animal > experimentation, are first on the list. Are you actually justifying some animal experiments here? Even if animal experiments have possibly helped humans, we still couldn't justify them, if we support animal rights. It is also a fact that some of the Nazi experiments on humans have led to useful discoveries (probably more so than animal experiments, due to human experiments being more accurate because of not having the problem of species difference), but no decent human being would say or imply that some human vivisection was necessary. To take a differing attitude to animal experimentation is simply speciesist. Meat-eating is no more necessary than wearing mink in our society. I really don't see the difference, and we must get this message across. Of course it is wrong and speciesist to prioritise mink over food animals, and we need to make this understood. Clothes in cold climates are just as necessary as food, so why is fur considered less necessary than meat? I've never accepted this, because there are alternatives to both, so I would never go along with this idea. Either both are needed or both are not needed. I'd be careful about the above couple of sentences which run the risk of perpetuating some of the anti-vegan and anti-animal rights prejudices put about by meat-eating society. > In the future we may see AR/AW > peoples outside slaughter houses, but our society is not yet at this stage. I disagree, and I have always believed, ever since I first became vegetarian, that we need to adopt the same attitude to slaughter houses as we do to laboratories and fur farms. We are well past the stage when we should have been doing this. If we don't start now, the public will continue to believe that slaughter houses can't be all that bad, or will continue to consider us hypocrites!! I otherwise really agreed with everything else you wrote, but I feel that it is so important not to appear as if we are taking on board and perpetuating the illogical opinions of speciesist meat-eating society. Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 A.R people often demonstrate outside factory farms ,but there are so many farms and not so many of us .Chickens get liberated also.At the moment lots of people are doing Huntingdon because it is so weak.We cant do it allI dont do enoughh there are only so many hours in the day.Some vegans do nothing Perhaps they could try to get more involved???{dependind of course on family commitments. Angie - " Lesley Dove " <100706.3632 <vegan-network > Monday, April 23, 2001 4:48 PM Re: Okay, help with the Guardian reply > > > You don't see AR activists outside slaughter houses because you > have to > > start from the top and work down. I.E. mink farms and un-necessary > animal > > experimentation, are first on the list. > > Are you actually justifying some animal experiments here? > Even if animal experiments have possibly helped humans, we still > couldn't justify them, if we support animal rights. > It is also a fact that some of the Nazi experiments on humans have > led to useful discoveries (probably more so than animal experiments, > due to human experiments being more accurate because of not having > the problem of species difference), but no decent human being would > say or imply that some human vivisection was necessary. To take a > differing attitude to animal experimentation is simply speciesist. > > Meat-eating is no more necessary than wearing mink in our society. I > really don't see the difference, and we must get this message across. > Of course it is wrong and speciesist to prioritise mink over food > animals, and we need to make this understood. > Clothes in cold climates are just as necessary as food, so why is fur > considered less necessary than meat? I've never accepted this, > because there are alternatives to both, so I would never go along > with this idea. Either both are needed or both are not needed. > > I'd be careful about the above couple of sentences which run the risk > of perpetuating some of the anti-vegan and anti-animal rights > prejudices put about by meat-eating society. > > > In the future we may see AR/AW > > peoples outside slaughter houses, but our society is not yet at > this stage. > > I disagree, and I have always believed, ever since I first became > vegetarian, that we need to adopt the same attitude to slaughter > houses as we do to laboratories and fur farms. We are well past the > stage when we should have been doing this. If we don't start now, the > public will continue to believe that slaughter houses can't be all > that bad, or will continue to consider us hypocrites!! > > I otherwise really agreed with everything else you wrote, but I feel > that it is so important not to appear as if we are taking on board > and perpetuating the illogical opinions of speciesist meat-eating > society. > > Lesley > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.