Animal Writings

"We belittle the activists with their radical agenda, scarcely noticing the radical cruelty they seek to redress"

Right. Yet more deceptive AR speak from Mr. Scully. Has he stopped to consider the reason WHY activists are belittled and maligned? Could it be because of the irrational, unsupportable belief that humans and animals are moral equivalents? Could it have something to do with their unsavory tactics such as the following:

-indoctrinating children with their propaganda without their parents' consent

-engaging in criminal/terrorist acts that are documented to include all of the following: intimidation, burglary, arson, fraud, grave desecration, assault, and threats of murder ( Dr. Jerry Vlasac's imfamous advocation of assasinating scientists)

-the unwilligness of AR leaders to denounce said criminal/terrorist activity

-the use of outrageous, offensive, vile propaganda that at times has involved the use of the following: comparing Jews murdered in the Holocaust to farm animals, comparing Jesus Christ to a pig, and using a porn star to promote their anti-fur campaign

-Their unsatiable need to regulate other people's lives

-And who can forget simple hypocrisy? PETA alone has euthanized more than 10,000 homeless pets in the past 6 years ( documented by the State of Virginia ). Hypocrisy is indeed the king of all public relations nightmares

No, Gary, Mr. Scully is utterly clueless. The reason that activists are maligned, ridiculed, mocked, criticized, and condemned is because of THEIR OWN ACTIONS. I think it's time they took responsibility for their behavior ( and so does the FBI who have made ALF the number one domestic terrorism priority). Instead of engaging in these behaviors, the way we decide things in our society is through the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Propose legislation, run AR activists for public office, etc. If people believe your agenda is as right, noble and good as you say it is, it will survive the scrutiny of public debate. But as long as you continue to terrorize, propagandize, and substitute emotionalism for rational thought and logic, you will continue to fail, period.
 

"We belittle the activists with their radical agenda, scarcely noticing the radical cruelty they seek to redress"

Right. Yet more deceptive AR speak from Mr. Scully. Has he stopped to consider the reason WHY activists are belittled and maligned? Could it be because of the irrational, unsupportable belief that humans and animals are moral equivalents? Could it have something to do with their unsavory tactics such as the following:

-indoctrinating children with their propaganda without their parents' consent

-engaging in criminal/terrorist acts that are documented to include all of the following: intimidation, burglary, arson, fraud, grave desecration, assault, and threats of murder ( Dr. Jerry Vlasac's imfamous advocation of assasinating scientists)

-the unwilligness of AR leaders to denounce said criminal/terrorist activity

-the use of outrageous, offensive, vile propaganda that at times has involved the use of the following: comparing Jews murdered in the Holocaust to farm animals, comparing Jesus Christ to a pig, and using a porn star to promote their anti-fur campaign

-Their unsatiable need to regulate other people's lives

-And who can forget simple hypocrisy? PETA alone has euthanized more than 10,000 homeless pets in the past 6 years ( documented by the State of Virginia ). Hypocrisy is indeed the king of all public relations nightmares

No, Gary, Mr. Scully is utterly clueless. The reason that activists are maligned, ridiculed, mocked, criticized, and condemned is because of THEIR OWN ACTIONS. I think it's time they took responsibility for their behavior ( and so does the FBI who have made ALF the number one domestic terrorism priority). Instead of engaging in these behaviors, the way we decide things in our society is through the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Propose legislation, run AR activists for public office, etc. If people believe your agenda is as right, noble and good as you say it is, it will survive the scrutiny of public debate. But as long as you continue to terrorize, propagandize, and substitute emotionalism for rational thought and logic, you will continue to fail, period.
 

Haha, I see that you are trying to prove the Scully quote that you opened the post with! You have belittled animal activists and have scarcely noticed the cruelty we seek to redress. So clever, ANON.

It's interesting how ANON ended his post: "terrorize, propagandize, and substitute emotionalism". He has defined meat industry tactics... I grew up with this terrorism: If you don't drink three glasses of milk every day you will get osteoporosis. And: You have to eat meat for protein.

And have you noticed the commercials on tv advertising California cheese? Happy, cute cows hanging out in huge green pastures with lovely shade trees? Sounds a lot like substituting "emotionalism for rational thought and logic". It's also substituting emotionalism for the truth.

And the truth is that billions of animals are kept in horrifying conditions and then killed. Let's take some responsibility for that, shall we? I have, and I am vegan as a result.

Gary: Thanks for a great web site!
 

(This comment was moved from the next post to here. My goof-up.)

Thanks again for your thoughts.

In my experience, AR activists are belittled, pilloried, and so forth for these reasons:

1 - We are reminding people of the great suffering caused by their willful actions. It is exceedingly difficult to incriminate one's self. At the same time, based on reactions that I see consistently, there is no denying the awful conditions and outright abuse that farm animals, fur animals, circus animals, and many other animals used as commodities have to go face their entire life because we like the taste of their flesh, the feel of their fur, or the way they move when tormented. No matter how delicately we may broach the subject, it's impossible to completely avoid making people feel guilty.

People react to the realizations of, say, factory farm suffering in a number of different ways.

a - Most put it out their mind; they prefer not to think about the consequences of their actions.

b - Some kill the messenger. Most ethical vegetarians have had at least one episode where meat-eaters try to trick the vegetarian into eating meat, or without any provocation try to upset the vegetarian by talking about all the meat they're going to consume.

c - Some delve immediately into creative rationalizations: we were made to eat meat; where do you draw the line, plants might feel pain, etc. It is a common human trait to avoid cognitive dissonance by inventing neat rules that make our behavior ok.

d- Some hunt for minute imperfections in the animal rightist's message as a diversion away from the bigger picture. Many times I have had to play 20 questions with a dedicated carnivore, as if my answering one question not quite right justifies meat-eating and other activities that cause substantial harm to animals.

2 - Corporations that make a living from killing animals find it hard to defend actions like intentionally giving chickens heart disease or causing foxes to go insane in tiny cages. About their only option is to discredit the whistleblowers. They have huge amounts cash with which to that. Most people only have the vaguest notion of what PETA - the favorite target - does. After about 20 minutes of discussion with me they generally have a more moderate, even-handed opinion. They don't love PETA, and I don't like everything PETA does, but at least they've heard the other side.

(This is a side topic, but you may want to ask yourself, honestly, why, in the face of so much ridicule and harassment, AR activists continue to press on. Now you might conclude that they are wild-eyed extremists who have lost their grip on reality. That of course is your right, and it would be a convenient answer, and an easy way to dismiss their arguments, but I don't think it would be accurate. From the animal rights activist's perspective, honestly, what is it that you think motivates them? What is their - and my - goal? I'll tell you my motivations soon enough regardless, and straightforwardly. Take your time and give me the answer you might put on a test where you would get a million dollars for being correct.)

If you are concerned about the indoctrination of children, you should be much more concerned about:

- The number of TV commercials for junk food they see each year
- Marketing seminars attended by fast food companies that deal specifically with how to get children to nag their parents' to make repeat trips to McDonald's, Burger King, etc. For instance, toys that come with meals usually are part of a set, to encourage return trips. (Read "Fast Food Nation" for more on this insidious marketing technique.)
- The fact that more young children can recognize Ronald McDonald than Jesus or the President.
- Brand recognition starting as young as 2 years old
- Fathers pressuring sons to kill deer or other animals. I can tell you many stories of the trauma this causes in young male children
- Lies told to children by promoters of rodeos and circuses
- Sponsorships of in-school TV programs by candy and soft-drink companies
- The ostracizing of students who do not wish to participate in dissection. Again, I can tell you many stories, thoroughly documented, of teachers and school officials lying, marginalizing, and belittling these compassionate objectors.

The average 6 year-old has probably never even heard of PETA but has seen thousands of ads by companies that make animals suffer and die. Of course, the ads never show that part.

I don't condone any of the violence you enumerated. The vast majority of violence, though, is inflicted on animals. Deliberate torture, starvation, and assault are commonplace, routine, and never prosecuted. Animal rights activists have been subject to threats as well. One whistleblower at the University of Nevada, who correctly identified years of animal abuse and cover-ups, not only received death threats but was investigated under the guise of homeland security. I have a series of posts coming up about extreme levels of corruption in Virginia, as well as associated defaming of animal advocates and media manipulation by government officials.

But here's what I often say when the subject focuses on the behavior of a tiny percent of animal activists. Go ahead, hate them. Reject every one of their tactics. But please focus on what is done to the animals. Don't perpetuate unnecessary cruelties and suffering on animals because the ALF did something atrocious.

I apologize for sounding nit-picky here... PETA does not compare victims of the Holocaust to farm animals per se. They compare the suffering of the two groups, which is valid. They compare the breadth of the killing operations, the rationalizations, the silent acceptance. IMHO, the comparison is compelling though disturbing.

They never compared Jesus Christ to a pig. What they compared was our killing of the innocent for specious reasons. Again, I know it is easy to get worked up about PETA. (I personally didn't like the ad - and told them.) But I would ask you in the most sincere and straightforward way, get worked up about the veal calves who spend their lives chained, motherless, anemic, weak, isolated, sitting in their own urine and feces.

So what if PETA used a porn star in one anti-fur ad? The ad itself was not pornographic. OTOH, our treatment of fur animals is obscene. Again, hate PETA but please don't take it out on the animals.

Actually PETA would much prefer that people change their behavior on their own. Getting legislation passed is about the most time-consuming, tiring process in the world. But let's look at the current structure. Almost any act of cruelty against a farm animal, no matter how heinous, is legal, and if not legal, done with impunity. The current system is dominated by lawlessness. Torture is legal. Abuses in corporate settings that are felonies in 38 states are considered "standard business practice." I suggest that if PETA's proposed regulations look extreme, it's because we have laws that are bent extremely in favor of the exploiters and allow atrocities worse than you can imagine to occur without the slightest chance of penalty.

Do you know why PETA has euthanized pets? For the same reason animal shelters across the country euthanize pets. There are no homes for them. There is absolutely no hypocrisy. PETA - and you or I - can discern the difference between killing an animal out of pity and killing an animal for profit. For balance, we should figure in the number of lives that PETA saves through their free spay / neuter services and pet sterilization campaigns. In addition, they - or more accurately, their members - adopt many homeless animals. They crawl through sewers to save strays. They plead with apartment owners to let a small managed colony of feral cats live in the courtyard. They film horrible mistreatment of dogs in poorly-run shelters and end up getting convictions.

Of course, suffering is worse than death and the biggest crime of our largest animal killing institutions is not the killing but the intentional the life-to-death misery imposed on the animals.

We disagree on Mr. Scully's knowledge. He has seen, for example, the endless rows of pigs in tiny cages at Smithfield Ham. See my next post. The president of Smithfield said the pigs "love it" in their cages that are barely bigger than they are. I may not be the world's foremost expert on pigs. But I've hung out with them enough to know that they don't love being confined, isolated, and sleeping on a hard or slatted floor. There's your cluelessness. Take a look at the "Where Ham Comes From" video on the sidebar to catch a glimpse of the pain we're talking about, and then reconsider whether Scully is clueless. Keep in mind that the scenes in the video are representative not rare in factory farms. Also let me recommend - for enjoyment if nothing else - The Pig Farmer, by John Robbins. It's pro-animal and pro-human. Here’s the link: http://www.foodrevolution.org/pig_farmer.htm.

We also will have to agree to disagree on emotionalism and rational thought. First, I have no problem with emotional arguments. Our ability to feel sympathy for other beings is a gift, and possibly the key to a humane world. Lack of sympathy would be Hell. (Speaking of emotion, for years, animal advocates were dismissed as sentimental or declared guilty of anthropomorphism if they attributed emotions to animals. Now it's all the rage in scientific circles - as if it's being discovered for the first time.)

I also believe in looking at the cold hard facts. Presenting a true picture of animals in battery cages, steel-jawed traps, rodeo chutes, and circus chains. Not the prettified, everything's fine picture portrayed by the vested interests of animal exploitation. Most people, for example, have no idea that the male offspring of breeding hens are suffocated when they're less than a day old. That's one fact out of a thousand that's hidden and sometimes denied by the offending companies. People often have an irrational reluctance to try veggie chicken. Once I talk them into a trying a bite, they like it, and often work it into their regular rotation of meals. People are emotionally attached to their food; that's a given. But I do think it's necessary to honestly think about how that food was made, and realize that we have a choice to adopt a more humane diet. The animal rights platform can be reduced to a couple of simple principles: try to avoid doing harm, live by the golden rule as much as possible.

AR advocates believe that certain violent acts against animals that are currently legal are so heinous they should not be allowed. And I'll bet my mortgage that they one day will not be, and that we will look back upon institutions like factory farms and animal circuses the way we look back on slavery now. Everyone did it at the time, including presidents and church leaders, and they even pointed to passages in the Bible that supposedly justified it, but now that we've moved past it, now that no one living is directly culpable for the atrocities, we can see how horrible it was. We've already started in the direction of abolition for animals that suffer without recourse at our hands, with a slate of animal cruelty laws, which get stronger year by year. The law is catching up though lagging behind, as it typically does, to emerging, more widely compassionate ethics.

If inclined, I'm still interested in any common ground you might suggest.

Best regards,

Gary
 

I would like to add one more point.

There is certainly nothing wrong with attempting to bring about change through the legislative process, and indeed animal rights advocates are active in that area. Largely through their efforts, California is phasing out foie gras-style force-feeding, students in many states have a right to dissection alternatives, cockfighting is increasingly illegal, pig gestation crates were outlawed in Florida, and there are new laws prohibiting the interstate shipment of exotic animals for private ownership. Companion animal cruelty laws have been steadily strengthing. Worldwide there are great strides being made in animal protection measures. The president of Austria passed groundbreaking animal rights legislation last year. Close to home, we're trying to ban the practice of giving away animals as prizes. It's slow-going and there's lots of resistance but we're making progress. Grassroots activists working on a shoestring budget have gotten the ear of key legislators, but politics is a tedious process.

But why should the animal rights debate be restricted to the political arena? The animals are in such dire straits that we owe it to them to use every legal channel available to help them.

The meat and dairy industries spend huge sums of money on ads in every medium imaginable. So do their advocacy groups. Why can't animal rights groups put up a few counter-ads that inform people about the immense sufferrng that goes into every serving of Hot Wings, bacon cheeseburgers, and pepperoni pizza? What's wrong with discussing the issues on the net and in private gatherings? I see nothing wrong with giving someone a brochure that accurately describes how fur is made, or how circus elephants are kidnapped, beaten, and kept in chains. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with complaining to restaurants that slice open animals while still alive or to newspapers that glamorize bull-riding but neglect to mention that the bull is repeatedly shocked while in the chute. In general, I believe in using our democratic right of free speech for a noble cause.

As already pointed out, the Happy Cow ads perpetuate the myth of content farm animals. In truth, the vast majority of California dairy cows live horrid lives, filled with prolonged suffering and routine - sometimes severe - cruelties. Consumers are shown a steady barrage of happy farm animal portrayals, and thanks in large part to this incessant marketing, have almost no idea of how bad things really are. When they do find out, they're usually horrified. Occasionally they give up meat on the spot.

Speaking of the democratic process...Even though the Happy Cow ads are blatantly deceptive in a particularly objectionable way - giving the impression of humanely-raised animals, which the public desires and for which they will pay extra, while hiding the deplorable truth of confinment, mastitis, lameness, veal pens, and improper stunning - the California Dairy Board is immune from being sued. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. In fact, it's virtually impossible for the public to sue any of the big animal cruelty offenders: factory farms, fur farms, animal labs, rodeos, circuses. Disturbingly undemocratic.

In 2002, both houses of Congress passed an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have - finally - extended Animal Welfare Act (AWA)coverage to birds, rats, and mice, which make up the vast majority of lab animals. Then-senator Jesse Helms caved to pressure from the animal research lobby, which has always resisted any strengthening of the Animal Welfare Act, and though he was not supposed to remove key parts of the bill, at the 11th hour, behind close doors, he undid nearly all the animal protection components, including the the expansion of the AWA. Profoundly anti-democratic.
 

Cheri said "You have belittled animal activists and have scarcely noticed the cruelty we seek to redress". Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with that accusation. Just how have I belittled animal activists?
By pointing out tactics they have used that are documented and provable? That's not belittling, it's simply calling attention to facts. Why is it OK for AR activists to bring up facts about what questionable things factory farms do, but not OK for facts about what questionable things certain AR groups do to be brought up? Too many people seem to think that if you disagree with their beliefs or ideology, you are belittling them. That simply is not the case. Cheri, I believe if you look at my other posts regarding Gary's utopia column, you will see that he and I have had a spirited, lively, yet civilized discussion. Neither one of us has used insults, foul language, or juvenile name calling. We simply disagree on the animal rights issue. It is entirely possible that he and I may agree on many issues that have nothing to do with animal rights. Debating with someone in a civilized manner is not belittling them, nor is disagreement with a particular ideology or agenda. I stand by my theory that if AR activists want more credibility in the arena of ideas, they need to clean the skeletons out of their own closet before attacking the skeletons of others.
 

Anonymous: On your main point - that you were criticizing but not belittling AR activists. Fair enough. You deserve the benefit of the doubt, and it's what I'd want if the situation were reversed. In online discusiions, it is all too easy to have one word or phrase interpreted in the wrong way, and from that point on the discussion never quite recovers. To tell you the truth, I'm often on edge when an online debate starts up, for fear it will get out of hand. Without the benefit of facial expressions, hand gestures, and normal breaks and distractions that you'd have in a face-to-face conversation, the margin of error for misunderstandings narrows considerably. At least that's how I see it.

Cheri: You brought up some very cogent points. I can see how one could interpret a specific phrase or two in anonymous's posts as unfair or a put-down, but I can also see how that could be a misinterpretation. So I say we give Anon the benefit of the doubt. Hope I'm not overstepping my bounds and sounding all haughty and Mr. Know-It-All as referee.

Actually, it's very beneficial to get impressions from "outsiders." I think the animal rights message is strong, I think the animal cruelty message is compelling, I think the facts - not to mention the agony of the animals in undercover videos - speak for themselves, but if the approach is a turn-off, or if too many of us don't follow our own rules of conduct, or fail to "be the change we want to see" as Ghandi put it, we deserve criticism. Having someone say "this is why I don't listen to you" may be more valuable than positive feedback.

I would say, however, to Anon, that while the sins of AR activists, as reported by anti-animal rights advocates, seem to be along the lines of how we make our point, the sins of factory farms et al are their core, everyday operations. Speaking for myself, I'm only trying to represent the animals' interests. The hens, chickens, veal calves, pigs, foxes, and other animals crammed into extremely small spaces, walking over one another, breathing in fould air, deprived of all natural behaviors, mutilated, deformed, tortured during transport and slaughter. Their pain is real, their suffering excessive - and it can be prevented almost entirely by changing habits that are easier to change than you might expect. I hope I've presented and continue to present the animals' predicament and ways out of it in a respectful, non-exaggerated, non-deceptive manner that makes non-animal rights people at least consider the problem and how they can help, regardless of their opinion of PETA and ALF.

>>>It is entirely possible that he and I may agree on many issues that have nothing to do with animal rights<<<

The quagmire in Iraq may be one.

Gary
 

So sorry, ANON, I did not mean for my rather sarcastic joke of the quote to be taken so literally. Maybe a ;) at the end of my first paragraph would have taken the sting out? And I concede, "criticizing" is the better word.

It really just amused me that ANON opened with that quote, and then proceeded to "prove" the quote with quite strong language. I'm sorry that my sense of humor has resulted in hurt feelings. My apologies, ANON.