General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy arent Animal Rights ever an issue in presidential politics?
Is it because they're so nebulous? Is it because most people hear Animal Rights and think "Well animals are cool but we gotta worry about humanity first." Is it because most people don't think Animal Rights affect them directly?
Well what about climate changes relationship with factory farming? It's one of the highest contributors to the issue.
What about the quality of our food? Factory farms aren't getting any more hygienic.
I'm just wondering why this topic always seems to take the back burner when it affects more than just animals.
TO CLARIFY: Why isn't it ever talked about in interviews or debates? I know Hillary has a good platform for Animal Rights.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Plain and simple.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Given the number of humans we have living in poverty in this country, animal rights aren't even on my radar.
athena
(4,187 posts)considering what we're doing to animals all across the country every single minute.
You know, it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is possible to stop supporting the factory-farm industry by stopping consuming its products while still working to end poverty.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,781 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)gopiscrap
(23,762 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Maybe they can squeeze it in if the debate lengths were doubled. But it doesn't really even come up in the primaries.
Animal rights are a policy issue and they don't really affect individuals directly. Maybe you can get the question submitted for a future debate.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)That I bet they never prep for. Lol
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)
Orrex
(63,217 posts)I mean in some measurable, tangible way.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)And that topic has been in many debates. So it's somewhat measurable and tangible.
Orrex
(63,217 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)
The fact that they're so newsworthy is a pretty clear indicator that they don't actually figure into it all that much.
They should be front and center in every election, at least on par with the economy and national security, but so far they get an off-hand and incomplete mention in the VP debate.
Sorry, but if an actual presidential candidate wasted actual debate time talking about animal rights at the expense of any other human rights issue that might have been discussed during that time, it would be tantamount to forfeiting the election.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)And I resent that you refer to something important to me as wasteful.
Women's rights are above animals rights in my mind as well. But neither are wasteful. 
Orrex
(63,217 posts)Until animals vote in large numbers, the issue will be subordinate to just about every human-specific concern on the campaign trail. You can resent me for pointing out this fact, but your resentment changes that fact not at all.
Imagine the candidate who includes a pro-animal plank in her platform and who somehow manages to pass whatever legislation you've fantasized about it. She would then be attacked for every human-focused initiative that she failed to pass, and it would be claimed that she prioritized animals over humans. This is a fact easily inferred from many decades of campaign history.
Further, the candidate who includes a pro-animal plank in her platform would immediately and relentlessly be attacked for being anti-meat, anti-hunting and (by extension) anti-gun. It would be a catastrophic political misstep with very little potential payoff.
But what do I know? Email your helpful suggestions to Secretary Clinton quickly so that she can mention the issue in this weekend's debate.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)No news is being broken. You were kinder about it down thread.
Orrex
(63,217 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 6, 2016, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)
If you don't care for the term "waste," then how about "We Are Surrendering This Election" instead?
Or perhaps "an expenditure of time and campaign resources that's highly unlikely to yield any measurable positive effect upon the candidacy."
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Cakes488
(874 posts)This is not some petty issue...why do think the vegan/vegetarian lifestyle is booming. There are more of us coming on board every day...and you should care very much about where your food comes from and the cruel, inhumane, disgusting, foul conditions these animals are being "raised" in. If you really saw what was going on on factory farms you would lose your appetite.
Orrex
(63,217 posts)For the foreseeable future, that means that those high-minded champions of animal welfare who withhold their vote will instead be voting for the Republican candidate who sure as hell won't pander to the animal rights crowd.
I'll repeat my suggestion that you email Secretary Clinton to advise her on this non-petty issue so that she can revise her campaign strategy.
Cakes488
(874 posts)Oh you've only read brochures on factory farming...don't cheat yourself you should see the videos and see where your food is really coming from....it's like eating rotten vegetables.
Not sure I understand your quote here: "that means that those high-minded champions of animal welfare who withhold their vote will instead be voting for the Republican candidate who sure as hell won't pander to the animal rights crowd" Um no they'd be voting for the Green Party then, Republicans would be the LAST people animal rights activists align themselves with.
I'm not really caring for your tone suggesting I email Clinton about this non-issue so she can revise her campaign strategy. Obviously by your snide and sarcastic response you don't care at all about animal welfare, which is fine...I hope you are involved in a cause that is close to your heart and you are doing something about it rather than just complain about things on a message board.
Orrex
(63,217 posts)By stating that "I've read the brochure," I was dismissively responding to the preachy manner I've heard so many times from high-minded champions of animal welfare, and I frankly don't care that you don't care for my tone.
I've read articles, I've read studies, I've seen documentaries, I've watched a great many videos, and I've been generally beaten over the head with the literature in various formats. I've seen how sausage is made, and I still eat sausage. However, I appreciate your condescension, thanks.
I also notice that you wholly ignored the two very likely scenarios that I proposed if a Democratic candidate were to campaign on a platform of animal rights. Instead, you opted to preach and condescend, which is fine.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)MONDAY, OCT 3, 2016 02:03 PM EDT
Rudy Giuliani’s comment that Donald Trump is better “than a woman” is made even more sexist by the context
Giuliani let the subtext become the text when he bluntly stated that "a woman" can't be as qualified as Trump
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/giulianis-comment-that-trump-is-better-than-a-woman-is-made-even-more-sexist-by-the-context/
The Donald Trump campaign has, to no one’s great surprise, decided to make Hillary Clinton’s gender the centerpiece for their arguments against her fitness to be the president. In a single speech on Saturday, Trump attacked Clinton’s sanity, her stamina, her ability to please her husband, and her own fidelity. In other words, he hit the Big Six of misogynist slurs: Ugly, slutty, crazy, disloyal, deceitful, and weak.
In case these sexist attacks are too subtle for some of the dimmer bulbs in the right wing base, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani went on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday and spelled out the misogynist antipathy to Clinton in the bluntest of terms.
“Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman,” Giuliani said, . . . (click the link to get the rest)
SHRED
(28,136 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)But fear not. I will leave more steak for you. Lol
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...and some we call "food".
It's just a mind game really.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)That is not what presidents are for. Sorry, but it's true.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)And technically, presidents are only Commander in Chiefs that have direct control of the military.
Presidents don't really have a direct say in a woman's right to choose do they? But they talk about that.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)who set aside public lands and set the model for our parks/memorial/refuge system. And he hunted animals like nobody's business. Now, how many of today's "animal rights" advocates could work with the likes of him to advance contiguous ecosystems and biological corridors, what animals in the wild need most?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)that's why, hopefully sooner rather than later, the lefty progressives in our society WILL sit across the table from tea-partyers to fnd a common good.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Cut and paste the stuff shown below into an email, pretty up the fonts (which are lost when pasted here), and send this to as many animal lovers as you can. Check out the links and cut-and-paste bits from them into your email if you wish.
p.s. I posted this here on DU once as a standalone post. Didn't get much reaction -- you're right it's not a MAJOR point -- but send it to a few animal lovers anyway. That's the best I can do right now. If you come up with more, let me know. Here it is:
----------------------------------
Just a Reminder
Animals can’t vote in this election – You can
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/08/13/trump-bothers-hunting-trip-cautionary-tale-animal-rights/
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-son-game-hunting-photos/
http://gothamist.com/2012/03/13/photos_donald_trump_sons_awesome_at.php#photo-2
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/protecting-animals-and-wildlife/
The way our society treats animals is a reflection of our humanity
------------------------------------------
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Oh i know that Hillary and Bernie have (well had for Bernie) similar platforms for animals. I'm happy with both.
I'm just asking why it never comes up in debates I guess.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)There are many important issues that they did not hit on in the debates. They have to focus on the biggest issues that are most likely to have impact on voters. I don't think they even touched climate change or the war on drugs. The biggest issues that people use as deciding factors are jobs and the economy, war and peace, and the rights of various interest groups such as the military, the elderly, and people represented by the zinger of Alicia Machado, both a woman and a minority.
They conduct polls -- real scientific ones -- to find out what issues are deciding factors for people. If animal rights were high on the list, they'd be talking about it.
However I do think that animal rights might influence some marginal supporters or undecided voters. It's a niche issue, like pot legalization. If you are connected to potential voters in a niche community then by all means you should disseminate information on where the candidates stand on that issue. Hillary's website has extensive position statements. Google (or any good search engine) is also a useful tool.
If the underlying question is why more people don't care about animals, that's a puzzler and I can't help you much on it. It's like asking why is there racism, why misogyny, why religious intolerance: Partly it's the culture, partly upbringing, partly one's innate temperament, partly one's circumstances in life, partly how good one is at observation and figuring things out. Some things are just hard to understand.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)This was posted today in a couple of other threads.
athena
(4,187 posts)Very powerful in showing what kind of people Trump and his ilk are.
Orrex
(63,217 posts)Your examples re: factory farming aren't useful here, and you demonstrate this in the way you chose to frame them:
retrowire
(10,345 posts)So I guess, animal rights just aren't important enough?
Personally, that's saddening. But I do get that the fight for Animal Rights is still being fought and won in many ways without the help of the presidential stage.
So yeah! That's worth being thankful for.
Orrex
(63,217 posts)Congress is in a better position to act on this issue IMO, but you won't likely see many congressional campaign ads about animal rights either.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)I can mention that animal rights activists do not gain supporters by throwing blood on women's fur coats and other flagrant displays of antisocial behavior. In fact that kind of thing turns people against them and labels them as a fringe group of nutters not to be listened to. On the other hand,
Remember the ad campaign with the baby seals? That was effective.
Factory farming is certainly an abomination, but telling people that isn't going to get you anywhere. You need to align with their interests -- show them how abandoning factory farming means they would be better off personally in some way.
Personally I tell people that free range organic eggs taste much better, which is true. It doesn't carry much sway with people who are forced by their circumstances to be cost conscious, but it can influence people who can afford to choose.
If you're trying to sell an idea, use persuasion, not intimidation. Animal rights activists would do well to take some courses in (or at least read up on) salesmanship, persuasion, debating, that sort of thing. If you want to be effective.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I'm not an activist. I do practice veganism and talk about it which anyone who's willing but I'm no blood bucket thrower lol. I don't thump the Bible about it either. Take note about how I handle the humor of SHRED up thread. I say my stance and make a simple joke back that says, "I'm not here to tell you how to live either. We're cool!"
Thanks for your help though you're very helpful.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)This is a sort of a book report about it that I have circulated to friends and acquaintances.
The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, and Thomas M. Campbell II.
ISBN 1-932100-66-0, and/or 9781932100662, and/or 9781932100389
(c) 2006, published in paperback by BenBella Books, www.ipgbook.com
Synopsis:
The author was raised on a farm and believed consumption of animal protein to be the key to good health, until years of scientific research convinced him otherwise.
He was convinced by demographic data (on humans) and subsequent supporting laboratory data on rodents, including many experiments he conducted himself (and ultimately on himself).
His first major job as a young-ish scientist was to find ways to bring protein to underprivileged children in the Philippines. He discovered that aflatoxin in peanut butter made from moldy peanuts was causing liver cancer in children, but much to his suprise, the liver cancer was most common among the rich kids who ate a lot of animal products (rather than the poor kids who ate a lot of peanut butter).
He got some rats, divided them into groups, and fed them different diets. His rats died of cancer on diets high in milk protein. This was repeated with other animal proteins. Rats who ate zero animal protein could gobble up loads of aflatoxin without getting sick.
When premier Chou En Lai of China developed cancer not long after that, a massive demographic study was undertaken in China. Being in the area and having made contacts, Campbell got in on it, and I think he said he directed it. He reiterates his credentials a lot.
They looked at the geographical distribution of cancer in China (a big place) and then found out what the people in the different areas ate. It turned out that regions where mostly plant foods were consumed showed little or no cancer. As animal protein intake increased, so did cancer.
At extremely low levels the effect leveled off; that is, the difference between tiny and teensy weensy didn't seem to matter.
Similarly he later saw a study someone else had done on American nurses, all of whom consumed high levels of animal protein (which no group in China did), and there was no observable variation in effect at the high end either; that is, the difference between a huge amount and an an even bigger amount made no difference.
So consuming anything from zero up to a tiny bit of animal protein doesn't correlate to cancer, and after that you can draw a graph showing that cancer goes up in proportion as animal protein intake goes up, until you reach a pretty big amount of animal protein, and after that the risk levels off at a high level.
He makes a big hoop-la pointing out that the data from various studies quoted to indict fat consumption, or animal fat consumption, have not measured fat consumption specifically by itself, but rather consumption of animal products. He thinks animal proteins cause a lot of the problems that have been attributed to animal fats. The groups that were studied consumed animal fat and animal protein together, as meat, whole milk, eggs etc. When he looked at some other data where people had reduced fat consumption while increasing animal protein consumption (switching to skim milk, white turkey meat, etc), the change didn't improve their situation at all. So, two points here; (1) animal food is the problem, not animal fat, and (2) scientists are being sloppy.
He particularly indicts milk protein, but finds fault with animal-based foods in general.
He proposes possible mechanisms.
Incompletely digested short chains of amino acids get into the bloodstream, where the body makes antibodies against them. As an example, one small chain from a milk protein has been shown to resemble the cells in the pancreas, and the antibodies then attack the pancreas also. (This particular reaction only happens if the person also has the genetic predisposition to diabetes.) Studies of diabetes in children show that infants weaned from mother's milk onto cow's milk formula at a very early age are vastly more likely to develop childhood diabetes.
He generalizes that a similar mechanism can account for a lot of autoimmune diseases, and gives interesting demographic statistics to support that viewpoint. (Example, Dairy-eating areas of Norway have more arthritis than seafood-eating areas. Further studies show that this correlation holds even when the second group doesn't eat seafood, so it isn't about the fish oil.)
Another possible mechanism has to do with the sulfur-based amino acids, found mainly in animal protein, which supposedly produce a more acidic, in fact sulfuric-acid, condition in the body, dissolving things that shouldn't be dissolved, and imbalancing calcium in the process.
He goes on to say that cutting out animal foods is not, in and of itself, sufficient. We need whole plant foods, especially the colorful ones (dark green, bright red and orange) which contain a pantheon of carotenoids (and fiber). Apparently beta carotene and lycopene tablets alone won't do the job. He complains repeatedly about bad methodology in reported studies. (Scientists being sloppy again.) Scientists have measured carotene levels in the blood of groups of people who eat a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables, and who don't get cancer, and these sloppy scientists have leapt to the conclusion that the beta carotene protected the people from the cancer. However carotene tablets alone don't do that. You have to eat the whole food and get the whole range of related compounds to get the effect.
On protein, we don't need as much protein as we seem to think, and plant foods have more protein than we might think. Ten per cent of the calories in spinach come from protein. All whole grains, for example corn, have protein. Beans, lentils, chick peas are high in protein.
He complains about "junk food vegetarians" and also about vitamin supplements. Eat whole plant foods, he advises, not Fruit Loops and potato chips, not vitamin pills washed down with Coca Cola. However, he does acknowledge that supplements of B-12 and D are necessary for some people; (B-12 comes from animal products and also from soil bacteria if it's the appropriately fertilized kind of soil) (The D of course requires sunshine to form naturally but can also be had from some animal sources such as cod liver oil).
The observations are much the same for heart disease as for cancer, and for all autoimmune diseases mentioned including MS. In areas where people eat plant-based whole food diets the diseases are almost nonexistent, and in areas where people eat highly processed diets high in animal products the incidence shoots up. When individuals move from one group to another, their risk profile morphs into that of their adopted life style.
In this context he tells an interesting anecdote about his pet rats. When they had been exposed to carcinogens and developed budding cancers, he switched them to a plant based diet, and the cancers remained dormant indefinitely. If, however, the rats reverted to an animal protein diet, the cancers resumed activity and grew. Several variations in the timing demonstrated that the cancers could more or less be awakened or rendered dormant at any point by changes in diet alone. However, they couldn't be eliminated. Once extant, they remained lurking forever, waiting for a chance to reactivate.
He mentions that there are senators and scientists in the pay of big money interests. (Wow, really? You may say.) You might think Cattlemen's Association types, or Nestle and Kraft, but they aren't his main villains.
In especially low esteem he holds The National Dairy Council (or whatever they're called now), which he seems to view as being on a par with the tobacco industry. Their marketing campaigns aimed at children and misrepresented as nutritional education seem to get to him the worst.
Beyond that, and more generally, having been on high-up government scientific committees he can tell first hand stories, and he does, naming people and everything.
Being seventy years old when he writes the book, he apparently isn't too afraid they'll ruin his future. Or maybe he's just gotten overconfident because their efforts so far have mostly failed (according to his telling of it). He says he's in excellent health, but his claim to be motivated (to write the book) by something like altruism, combined with his talk about his age, gives the text a little of the air of a deathbed oratory.
Does milk protein cause cancer, as the data demonstrate, and does the dairy industry know it, in the tradition of the tobacco industry? Interesting in this context is research he describes towards the end of the book, funded by the dairy industry to try to show an anticarcinogenic effect from a component of milk, a fatty acid derived from linoleic acid in corn oil in the corn the cows eat. Dubious experiments are done feeding mice the fatty acid (CLA) by itself. Other experiments are done to prove that feeding cows more corn increases the CLA in the milk. So far nothing to show that any milk product has any good effect. Eventually the researchers feed some mice a milk product containing CLA, but the milk product they choose is butter. (So, how much do they know, and when did they know it?)
It's actually one of the best diet/ health/ nutrition books I've ever read.
He doesn't recommend that you need to cut out all animal protein, but he thinks that less is better and zero is probably just fine as long as you get your B-12 (and D). He does seem to recommend staying away from milk products pretty completely.
athena
(4,187 posts)If a person hears what happens at factory farms and chooses not to listen, that is not the fault of the person trying to pass on the message. It is the fault of the person who is refusing to hear the message. They may simply not be ready.
What made me switch to a vegetarian (almost vegan) diet was watching a movie about veganism and reading a couple of books about factory farming. Until then, I, too, had chosen to ignore the facts. There is no way I could have stopped eating meat for health reasons.
The bottom line is that you are blaming the messenger when you should be blaming those who are refusing to listen. There is nothing anyone can do to make someone listen to something they don't want to hear. Fortunately, the message is out there, and it is reaching more and more people every day.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Some animal rights advocates want to alleviate the animals' suffering. That's the angle I was viewing it from. But it is certainly valid to view it as a matter of personal development for the humans involved.
I've found the concept of "blame" to be remarkably un-useful in most contexts. Who burned down the house? He did it, she did it. But the effect is the same regardless of who you blame -- there's no house left for us to sleep in.
Also, if one doesn't want to be bothered expending a lot of mental effort on changing another person's views, then it is easy to justify laziness as laisse faire.
If a little toddler has trouble learning to read or do math, don't try different approaches trying to teach him; he's on his own; the educational materials are there if he wants to use them; Do I understand the position correctly? If somebody wants to learn, they'll learn, and if they don't, then they're obstinately "refusing to listen"? That's cool. "Nothing anyone can do". Got it.
athena
(4,187 posts)It is only possible to change one's own views.
The best anyone can do is provide information. If the person to whom the information is given refuses to receive it, there is nothing the other person can do. I hate to break it to you, but no one is going to go vegan based on how a vegan spoke to them about veganism's benefits. Complaining about the vegan's tone is yet another attempt by a meat eater to justify their own cruelty and shift the responsibility for their own actions to someone else.
By the way, adults who choose to eat meat are not toddlers. I won't even go into how condescending it is to suggest otherwise.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There is so much human suffering that the focus will stay on that topic. I do think how we legislate for animal protections is a sign of who we are as a people. I think we should have louder voices. I also understand why it isn't at the top of peoples list. They want to know what is going to be done about human suffering. I am happy Clinton has some excellent ideas in her platform when it comes to caring for animals.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)You make good points and thank you.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Or at all for that matter. The only time it seems to be discussed is when protesters are successful at events. Then it's just about the protesters. We have gone too far on the left in maligning certain animal rights groups. Seems to be one of the areas we are still willing to discard sizable groups because they do some foolish things even though their overall goals are just and equitable. I would love a debate question on this topic. I'm so tired of all the unnecessary suffering.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I seem to have a recollection that you and I have argued a lot before. My memory is always shit however so if I'm wrong my bad.
But I must say that this discussion with you is enjoyable and fulfilling. And I thank you for having it with me. 
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You are a name I always enjoy seeing, even when discussing different positions.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Since the whole Bernie group split all to hell.
Friends became enemies. And most became people I couldn't recognize anymore.
Politics are emotionally straining. But I appreciate your kindness!
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Fuck them. They give animal rights a bad name. I want nothing to do with them, nor would I support any group thst supports PETA.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Very strange response to say the least.
Iggo
(47,561 posts)Animals don't have rights and wouldn't know what to do with them if they did.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Iggo
(47,561 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)Is it when one is affected by the pain and suffering of humans while remaining unaffected by the pain and suffering of animals? Is it something less, or other, than "Human Decency" to be affected by either or both? Does having compassion for one limit our compassion for the other?
Iggo
(47,561 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)I took your post exactly the wrong way and I'm both glad and relieved to find out I was wrong. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)right here in the US. Animal abusers are not getting the punishment they should be getting for their crimes against animals & the list goes on.
Cakes488
(874 posts)
BKH70041
(961 posts)And really, who would care more about animal rights than the actual animals themselves? But they don't even care enough to register.
And the one's living out in the wild? Pffft! Forget about it! They have other things to do.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
blue cat
(2,415 posts)Someone should try to get him on record about his feelings on animal rights.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)All Donald said in the interview about it that I saw was that he himself was not into that.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Afraid that's the main reason
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Cakes488
(874 posts)For me this is a top priority. Making this nation NO KILL is at the top of my agenda. Not only do we torture & rape farm animals but we also slaughter our companion animals by the millions. Disgusting when there are other solutions that are working.
I disagree with people who say people come first or people are more important...if you were born a fish you wouldn't think so, granted you wouldn't be doing much thinking at all (lol) but you get my point.
Cakes488
(874 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)But I don't think NO KILL is possiblem. Just as I don't believe world peace is possible.
I don't believe in humane killing either though. Killing is killing and it's wrong. But, I don't think our culture will ever, ever in a million years forgo meat.
But I do have a lot of faith in the meatless industry for greatly curbing the consumption of meat. Have you SEEN what beyond meat and other vegan meat companies are getting into? Holy shit. The technology and technique is only getting better.
I do believe we can get to a point eventually where, people will...
A: Acknowledge the risk and health dangers of eating real meat so much.
B: people will make actual meat less prominent in their diet in favor of the vegan alternatives which are beneficial for the health of us and our planet.
C: and many people will still partake in meat but maybe on special occasions or when they feel like spoiling themselves.
That's far future thinking though.
Cakes488
(874 posts)I agree...I don't think we will ever eradicate meat eating and I do have much less of a problem with it if said animals are raised humanely rather than these disgusting, cruel, torture warehouses. I think sticking to the factory farm argument rather that the "just don't eat meat" one is more "winnable".
But everybody should aim to consume less. Meat eaters should be concerned about the conditions these animals are being "raised" in...this is a universal issue.
There is zero doubt that cow burps/farts are screwing up this planet!!
I will not stop fighting to make this nation NO KILL, I believe we will succeed in NYC as others have succeeded around the country. This is a more local fight with local politicians. If people in the community don't get involved then yes things will never change. Like Obama said: "Change only happens with participation"
Clinton has bashed the Trashpot Trump boys for killing big game in Africa...so there was something about animals mentioned this election cycle after all!
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Cakes488
(874 posts)pipe dream. Hopefully one day we will evolve and become a NO KILL planet...but until then we'll just keep dreaming.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,177 posts)Humans are charged with animal welfare and animal cruelty is prohibited.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Or at least must pertain to subjects belonging to a group that can reciprocate those rights.
Furthermore, if we presume that an animal has a right to life and human government is the guarantor of such rights, are we obligated to intervene in the natural process of predation?
That's why I focus on animal WELFARE. Reducing and eliminating animal suffering where possible and plausible is the goal, afaic.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Hmm. When you hear "Animal Rights" so much you begin to think it an all encompassing term.
I understand.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)And I do get that animals get treated like shit. To some degree that's unavoidable...I mean most non-human animals treat other animals like shit and we're no different. But we are the biggest, baddest animal on the block and we probably can live our lives while making theirs a little less miserable. So there is a good moral argument to do so.
Cakes488
(874 posts)aikoaiko
(34,177 posts)...that I was missing out on something called rights.
Cakes488
(874 posts)aikoaiko
(34,177 posts)
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)and therefore the concept of "rights" do not apply. Attempting to extend the notion of rights to an animal (which cannot by its nature extend rights back to you) is incoherent and most people recognize it as such. Mentioning the term in a political debate would get a candidate labeled as a crackpot immediately.
As for the alternative, animal welfare, many people are concerned about that, but most people have their own interests and families to look out for first.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Imagine a moderator asking about animal rights in a debate. Both candidates will say pretty much the same thing.... I love animals, we have a pet at home, penalties for cruelty to animals, humane treatment in farms, blah blah blah. Not an interesting thing to talk about when they are not going to argue.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)TXCritter
(344 posts)Have you not noticed that there is a candidate - an entire party willing to throw whole genders, races and classes under the bus? In fact, if you're not white, male, christian, American and middle class or richer there are over 100M+ people in this country who don't want YOU to have some rights. In to that environment, how do you expect a population to reach out to extend rights to non-humans when they refuse to recognize fellow humans as human?
Once upon a time women were legally PROPERTY.
Once upon a time Africans (and others) were legally PROPERTY.
Once upon a time Native Americans legally 3/5 of a human being.
And while the legalities have changed, the culture has not. If the culture had changed Black Lives Matter would not be a movement or, at least, you would never hear the knee jerk defense that 'All Lives Matter'. If the culture had changed women would not be blamed for getting raped. If the culture had changed there would be no battle going on at Standing Rock right now.
The culture is not ready for Animal Rights as a presidential campaign issue. More than that, the Animal Rights movement is not ready to take on that level of action. It's too fractured.
The AR movement has become dominated by a vegan agenda. In some cases, seemingly, to the exclusion of all else. People who might believe in AR are denigrated as "Welfarists" if they refuse to be vegan. In one AR group I've been associated with I keep my non-vegan status quiet because some in that organization have openly declared that people like me should be expelled. You don't build a movement by expelling allies - you look for common ground.
On the far fringes of the AR movement you have people advocating for separating predatory species from prey species, exterminating predatory species, forcing predatory species onto vegan diets and, in the most extreme case I've encountered , advocating that predatory species be genetically re-engineered to be vegans. Unfortunately, these fringers sometimes get media attention they don't deserve. So the debate becomes about whether AR people even understand biology as opposed to debating whether or not living beings deserve respect.
Or culture doesn't just see animals as property, individuals see animals as food. No politician will ever seek to take food from the mouths of their voters. In the hierarchy of needs, food is #3 from the top. So, in all seriousness, if you want AR to be taken seriously at the top of the political agenda, you need to de-veganize the issue.
So, why isn't AR a presidential issue? For the same reason that Jill Stein is running 4th in the race. You don't start at the top with a new issue. You start in the legislatures of the states or in the city councils and build up from there. People have been fighting for Universal Health Care in this country for 70 YEARS and we still don't have it. Women have been fighting for respect for centuries. African Americans have been fighting for their humanity in America across 5 centuries. Workers have been fighting for workers rights decades.
Climate change? We've known about climate change for 120 years and one of our candidates STILL claims it's a HOAX.
Compared to these issues AR is an infant and it has a long way to go to claw it's way through other issues demanding attention. You need to settle in for a life-long fight.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)michaz
(1,352 posts)As an animal rescuer ( mainly cats and dogs) I can tell you that many have met with their Senators and Assembly people. Many of us have here in NYS. We were trying to get some new laws on the books. Actually I met with them along with the Sheriff here and the person that runs the Spay Neuter Now program. The Sheriff was explaining how they very often find animal abuse before or along with domestic abuse. He also spoke on those that abuse and torture animals and how they are usually only a step away from doing it to humans. In that sense, there is an obvious animal/human connection. We were trying to get the laws into the penal code and out of Ag & Markets. I can tell you that some of the abuse that many of us have seen is horrifying. The abuse goes on with large animals also. It is just as bad. We all have the things that we work on. Some choose women's rights, some choose other things but some of us choose animal rights. It does not make one more right or wrong than another. It is an individual choice. The secret is to just work on what ever one chooses to. That way everything gets covered. retrowire I would suggest this to you as it is a great book. I often use it. http://nifaa.org/manual.html It is called "Get Political for Animals" by Julie E. Lewin.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)What happens to those birds in the factory farms and in the factories where they are "processed" is inhumane to the nth degree.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I ALMOST did lol. Luckily a better job opportunity saved me from the moral quandary.
Response to retrowire (Original post)
kestrel91316 This message was self-deleted by its author.
TXCritter
(344 posts)What is a right but a recognition that another being has an expectation of respectful behavior from us? They aren't magical. We create them and extend them to others. We can do so even when others can't extend them back to us - e.g. infants, insanity or other impairments.
Sure, the constitution has no recognition of animal rights. It even fails to grant all humans equal rights but we can change that. The law is not immutable.
Response to retrowire (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
napi21
(45,806 posts)I just heard about it on Thom Hartmann. - If this gets aired enough, all those millions of dog lovers, people against cruelty against farm animals, and those who detest Big Game hunting will ALL turn against The CON MAN!
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)
0rganism
(23,959 posts)leadership standards are remarkably low, and it's not just our society of lunatics either
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The old, strong coalition that expanded national (and state) parks, memorial lands, refuges, and allowed public access for recreation has been largely broken. To the average hunter and fisher, "animal rights" is synonymous with urban-centric Beltway lobbying groups working to outlaw hunting. (Please note another thread about the "Humane Society" activities. If this is HS of the US -- HSUS -- it is the wealthiest and most virulently anti-hunting organization in he U.S. And they are not the only ones. Yet the bulk of funding to acquire land, restore ecosystems, enforce game laws, research animals and their habitats, comes from -- yep -- hunters and fishers. In addition to these folk's payment of general taxes, they pay:
1). Additional taxes on arms, ammunition, tackle, motorboat fuels
2). Additional fees for state licenses
3). Additional permit fees to pay for "walk-in" hunting
4). Additional fees in most states to maintain wildlife management areas which benefit ALL species.
And they have been doing this since FDR instituted many of the above taxes. Further, most management areas, parks and refuges are open to other citizens for use without the payment of special fees (I hunt a management area 50 miles from Austin for $48/yr. Yet fishers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, boaters, etc. can use the area for no charge, other than the state sales tax).
Now, hunters and fishers must face the ingrained corporatism of the GOPer's "sagebrush rebellion" (including the likes of Bundy-types) which seeks to liquidate federal lands directly, or transfer them to state control where Republican-weakened and cash-strapped governments will sell those lands off to private corporations who will do what they want, hunters and animal lovers both be damned. In recent months, the major "hook & bullet" press, including Field & Stream, Outdoor Life, Petersen's Hunting, even the staid Grays Sporting Journal, have raised the flag of alarm against this seismic corporate shift, trying to reignite a more unified movement favoring PUBLIC LANDS. But a lot of sports people don't see much cooperation from the urban-centric animal rightists; in fact, I must ask animal rights folk, in the refrain of the old union song, "which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?"
Will animal rights groups join outdoors people to defend and expand public lands? Or will they look the other way as hunting retreats back to the European royalist model of estates where hunting is an aside to sumptuous meals and quiet screwing? After all, the main interest of too many animal rights groups is to further restrict if not eliminate hunting by whatever means, and to resume the mediagenic exposes of chicken factories.
Can you work with the likes of commercial salmon fishers, back country hunters, and yes, Safari Club International to stop huge mining interests from despoiling much of Alaska's wilderness? These people did that this year, you know.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that would cover such questions? seems a matter of state regulation or city ordinance.
melm00se
(4,993 posts)while I am certain is a passionate topic for some, is a niche issue therefor it won't appear on any major candidates list of important topics. In fact it is probably far far far down the list.
athena
(4,187 posts)Posting a pro-vegan argument on DU, for example, is a sure way to get flamed to the point where you begin to wish you were never born.
Indeed, even posting about a vegan meat substitute in the Vegan forum will get you attacked by meat eaters who feel insecure about their choices and feel the need to try to justify them.
Just mentioning that you're vegetarian at a party will get you surrounded by meat eaters grilling you with questions about the supposed dangers of a vegan or vegetarian diet, while trying desperately to justify their own "reasonableness" in eating animals.
Fortunately, things are changing. More people are finding their conscience (as I did 3.5 years ago). The topic may not come up in debates, but news items like this one show that factory farms are feeling the pressure of an increasingly growing number of people who refuse to support them by buying their products.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)it's the twisted idea many Vegans have that somehow the rest of the world cares what they eat.
You gave a perfect example.
That is your own projection on people and has little or nothing to do with why we laugh at you and mock you. It is because you project nonsense like the above. I couldn't care less what you eat. It's when you start trying to pretend people feel insecure with their eating habits you get into the part where people laugh at you or mock you.
You present every stereo type ever about Vegans and wonder why people give you push back.
I love steak I love hamburgers Bacon is fantastic as is a big juicy ham....mmmm good stuff. Some veggies are awesome some are more like eating dirt. No thanks.
athena
(4,187 posts)Clearly, I have struck a nerve. Just as I happen to strike a nerve whenever I choose a vegetarian option at a gathering. Your post demonstrates my point beautifully.
I never bring up my diet. But the moment a meat eater notices I'm vegetarian, they immediately change the topic to my diet. Often, I end up having to get into a discussion I am not the least bit interested in. I couldn't care less what anyone eats; their diet is a choice they make according to their own conscience, which is not my problem.
Eat as much meat as you like. All you're doing is hurting animals, hurting your own health, hurting the environment, and revealing something about your personality. None of that concerns me, since I don't even know you. It concerns no one but you. And clearly, there is some cognitive dissonance there, which is why you feel the need to attack me and defend your meat-eating habits. Again, though, that is something for you to think about. It is none of my business.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You can't help yourself even in the middle of trying to pretend it doesn't matter to you.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Is too many are like Christian fundamentalists who feel duty bound to witness to all and sundry because they want to "save" others, because others are "sinning".
I don't want to be witnessed to by religious zealots or secular zealots. I can make my own mind up about my personal morality and conscience, thank you very much.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Man, I have literally pissed people off just mentioning veganism. No doting, no trying to preach, just merely mentioning it triggers some.
Gee whiz!
athena
(4,187 posts)That's all it took the last time I was at a gathering. Suddenly I was bombarded from all sides with questions about whether one can get enough protein, iron, you name it, on a vegan diet, and I had to endure comments about the supposed danger of raising kids on a vegan diet (no one in the group had small kids) and the supposed dogmatism of vegans. It didn't turn ugly, but later, I was pretty annoyed that I had been forced to talk about something I had zero interest in discussing. It's really stressful to have to talk to meat-eaters about vegetarianism, knowing how touchy they tend to be.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)My wife and sister in law are also vegans and they learned a golden rule when going out to eat, NEVER TELL THE WAITER You're vegetarian.
Because they will get curious at best and interrupt your meal for an interrogative conversation and at worst they'll hide bacon at the bottom of your baked potato.
But one time a waiter actually SAT DOWN with my wife and sis in law asking all about the lifestyle of veganism. They were polite, just curious. But seriously, they were trying to enjoy their meal.
So we always say, "food allergies".
I had a co-worker once question my strength because he knew I was vegan. Said he was concerned because he knew I didn't eat any protein. Then he asked where I got protein. I pointed at my bag of trail mix, mentioned kale and a whole bunch of other greens.
People literally don't know this stuff. And it sucks because they tend to bombard the veg people with scrutinization like we're starving ourselves to death. Nevermind the fact that there are and were entire civilizations that lived just fine on vegetarian and vegan diets.
JanMichael
(24,890 posts)...turned around, flexed a bicep (no shit), then looked at the group of meatfuckers and said "Yes I am a 48 years old vegetarian". I wanted to say "and now look at your own fat fucking ugly selves and shut the fuck up" but they were co-workers...
Mic dropped and walked out.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)
robertpaulsen
(8,632 posts)I was going to say, "Because they don't vote" but then I realized fetuses don't vote, but every fucking election their an issue in presidential politics. That's how issues that should have been resolved generations ago remain issues here: Because the Bible says so!
