Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think it is easy to call the farmer a devil for very obvious reasons and he certainly isn't an angel, but I would be inclined to put him in the category of being " morally neutral " and susceptible to both good and bad influences, which is by far the largest category of human beings. Some people have a " good " orientation and some have a " bad " orientation; most people lack their own internal orientation - which comes from having a developed conscience - and tend to go along with wherever the majority wind blows them. Moral progress of civilization occurs when there is an increase in the " good " and a decrease in the " bad. " It is a slow process, and the rate of human population growth tends to outstrip the gains we would otherwise make through humane education and setting personal examples, but there is nothing for us to do but to keep trying. Kim >A momentary spurt of emotions, in which he heard his conscience is not >much of a reason to treat the farmer as an angel, he is still a devil >for all practical reasons. Unless that from that moment he leaves the >business for ever. > >After a week, he would again be confining pigs in crate like >enclosures that will give them no way to turn-around. sows will be >seperated from their babies and both will keep wailing and dying to >meet each other. > >He would have no qualms docking their tails and fattening them till >their legs buckle under their own weight. When they are heavy enough >they will be sent away to remain hungry for last few days as feed >wont convert to meat. And in full view of other pigs he will be >brutally slaughtered, going through an agony of hours. > >Now, if this 'farmer' is a part of the industry that requires all the >above and he happily gains from profits, he deserves no sympathy. He >would not be moved to see the poor animals crying for mercy and asking >for life, but he will let the electric saw cut the animal into pieces. >And the fact is, if he doesn't do the above, he will not survive in >business. > >Education on animal welfare should only be considered for those animal >'owners' who are really illiterate and incapable to thinking about >their animals, and where a little education can change their attitude. >And this will also only work where animal welfare and animal use are >possible at the same time and the 'owner' has a heart and mind that >can be provoked to think and be compassionate. > >Should, an AWO or ARO rescue these animals? Only if they can be >sheltered forever. > >-- >Manoj Oswal, >People for Animals - Pune > -- Kim Bartlett, President of Animal People, Inc. Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A. email <ANPEOPLE web-site: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 None of the many commentators has so far mentioned what appears to me to be the crux of the issue as regards pig farmer Ron Lantz, and probably most people everywhere: the sense of personal responsibility. When Lantz sent pigs off to slaughter by the thousands, his sense of responsibility ended with closing the doors of the trucks. Someone else was going to do the killing. Whatever suffering he inflicted on the pigs in his role as farmer was ignored or denied. In his understanding, the pigs were well-treated if they were of market weight, healthy, and able to walk aboard the trucks. When Lantz himself felt as if he would be directly responsible for the pigs dying miserable deaths, drowning in their pens and farrowing crates, he released them. When Lantz returned to the farm and found 30 survivors, he felt responsible for rounding them up and taking care of them, which to his mind meant raising them and their offspring for slaughter, but the slaughtering would be done by others. He did not feel responsible for that. Analogies can be found in the mental processes of people who surrender puppies and kittens to shelters, yet go to extravagant lengths to treat the infirmities of their favorite pets; or who eat meat, yet donate to humane societies in support of rescues of the same species they eat. Hardly anyone wants to feel responsible for animal suffering, even those who cause the most. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 You rock Azam. That¹s what I am talking about! Forget about the quibbling over ham or puppy burgers. Go to war, but just don¹t kill anything. Fight for life! Use logic and a little bit of elbow grease. Perhaps the fight should be an international court. Bring a case against all those that continue to kill animals and people alike. Ban all killing, full stop. It will take an army to accomplish this. But the establishment has us all divided into little patrols on the look out for stray puppies and drowning pigs. Our mission: waste as much time as possible so that the current machine can continue to feed and prosper off the deaths of others. It¹s so clear now that I am older. We are being taken for a ride. We have always been on that bus, since birth, unable to see in the rear view what real issues follow in the wake of our tailpipes belching. So we watch the landscape flash by thru smeared windows, while wildlife is being devastated and our planet, along with our sensibilities, is being ground under the wheels of the machine on which we ride. But the underdeveloped world is really the last hope for us all. Asia, Africa, South America, are full of peoples not so completely brainwashed as not to see what¹s really going on, as they are people who continue to suffer tremendously at the hands of the privileged few, and still have some fight left in them. These are the people of the world not yet fully anaesthetized., and still looking for a solution. Pockets of people in Europe, Canada, and the Middle East also see the real picture, but it¹s much harder to get of the bus there, as there are few stops left still standing. So for the love of life, stop the bus! But getting off the gravy bus is not the end. There is where the battle will begin. The naysayers will begin to bleat: the task is too great. It can¹t be done. We must focus on what we ³can² do. We have to save the drowning pig. In other words, don¹t get radical around here buddy. But unless a fundamental and radical change takes place, we will continue to quibble over puppy burgers and farm relief until the end of days. Jigs in Nepal, so where do we enlist? AZAM SIDDIQUI <azam24x7 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:36:09 +0530 Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl Cc: <aapn > Re: Hogs, heroism, hypocrisy, & high water Maybe PETA can distribute some tons of their Bumper stickers < " IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS " > to the following WEALTHY and EDUCATED nuts: the Iowa farmer, his truckers, the butchers and those sitting at the dining table. There are two more options: 1. Prove in the court of law that the Iowa farmer and his mates are guilty of abuse and murder of innocent beings, and hundreds of Ron Lantzs and their companions shall learn what they are supposed to be doing. OR 2. Send the guys to school which may teach them what they should have learnt as children: MORAL SCIENCE. But then this science is something they would soon claim to have forgotten. > When Lantz himself felt as if he would be directly responsible for the pigs dying miserable deaths, drowning in their pens and farrowing crates, he released them.< I would presume that Lantz instead realized that he was nearing death as well due to drowning, and there are cases of even the hardcore atheist looking up to the heavens with folded hands. It was therefore because of the fear of God almighty that he may have decided to let go the pigs to wash away his some of his sins and seek blessings. His actions were certainly not out of compassion or kindness. Coz he was rearing animals for food. < When Lantz returned to the farm and found 30 survivors, he felt responsible for rounding them up and taking care of them, which to his mind meant raising them and their offspring for slaughter, but the slaughtering would be done by others. He did not feel responsible for that.< In a crisis that is experience by most of the humans, their ethics, responsibilities and compassionate attitude etc goes for a toss. And here we are speaking of a farmer who rears animals for food, can he be different? Why are wars fought at the cost of the lives of the innocent, do we mean to say that our leaders who rule the world are not smart enough to see that responsibility of thousands of children being massacred. Yes once the war is over they do cry crocodile tears, lay wreaths, build memorials, and do all sort of tamashas just to fool some of us as to how caring and responsible they are. If this is the treatment meted out to the destitute human beings, imagine what would be the case of animals. > Analogies can be found in the mental processes of people who surrender puppies and kittens to shelters, yet go to extravagant lengths to treat the infirmities of their favorite pets; or who eat meat, yet donate to humane societies in support of rescues of the same species they eat.< Why analyze them? Would be a wastage of time and energy. Just identify them, blacklist them in the society, NEVER accept their money (but they definitely will). > Hardly anyone wants to feel responsible for animal suffering, even those who cause the most. < Again, awareness should be limited for school children or at the most till they are juvenile. For adults you have the law, the punishments, penalties etc. We should use them to reform the society and deal with the evils. The others would automatically follow the examples and move ahead in the right path. We need to build the FEAR FACTOR and add more FIRE to our passion of animal welfare rather than analyze the mentality of the humans. We animal people got to work like an ARMY and not POLICE. It is a Do or Die situation which requires a full scale operation on war footing. Azam On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > wrote: > None of the many commentators has so far mentioned what > appears to me to be the crux of the issue as regards pig farmer Ron > Lantz, and probably most people everywhere: the sense of personal > responsibility. > > When Lantz sent pigs off to slaughter by the thousands, his > sense of responsibility ended with closing the doors of the trucks. > Someone else was going to do the killing. Whatever suffering he > inflicted on the pigs in his role as farmer was ignored or denied. > In his understanding, the pigs were well-treated if they were of > market weight, healthy, and able to walk aboard the trucks. > > When Lantz himself felt as if he would be directly > responsible for the pigs dying miserable deaths, drowning in their > pens and farrowing crates, he released them. > > When Lantz returned to the farm and found 30 survivors, he > felt responsible for rounding them up and taking care of them, which > to his mind meant raising them and their offspring for slaughter, > but the slaughtering would be done by others. He did not feel > responsible for that. > > Analogies can be found in the mental processes of people who > surrender puppies and kittens to shelters, yet go to extravagant > lengths to treat the infirmities of their favorite pets; or who eat > meat, yet donate to humane societies in support of rescues of the > same species they eat. > > Hardly anyone wants to feel responsible for animal suffering, > even those who cause the most. > > -- > Merritt Clifton > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE > P.O. Box 960 > Clinton, WA 98236 > > Telephone: 360-579-2505 > Fax: 360-579-2575 > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org > > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; > for free sample, send address.] > > -- United against elephant polo http://www.stopelephantpolo.com http://www.freewebs.com/azamsiddiqui 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.