Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[Waldo]

Aj,

(forgive me my soapbox, this may have been best as a completely new thread)

It is so very rare that I find myself in near complete disagreement with you, but I have to say that I find this argument of yours weak. Painfully so.

The burning building argument is so far to the extreme that it annoys me it was pulled out in this discussion, and worse yet that it's now being perpetuated. Yes, in an extreme circumstance I'll help my fellow humans, but I would also do everything in my power to save *every living thing* in such a case.

Yes, there is a hierarchy, and based on Genesis 1:26 "Man has dominion over the inferior creatures". What's not clear is if dominion means that we're free to eat and force into labor at our hands or if we bear a higher responsibility to care for them. In various translations it's stated as "rule the" or "rule over"... but is that in the way a Sovereign would rule a Kingdom? Does that give the Sovereign the right to enslave it's people and put them to death? If they have that right, is it ok just because it's the way it's always been done?

No, we've never lived wholly at peace with animals, it's only been in the last 30 years that we've breed, excuse me, produced animals in the way that we are now and in the numbers that we do now - specifically for slaughter.

Only now do we pump them so full of growth hormones to get them to mature faster to elevate profits. So fast do broiler chickens grow now that they often cannot support their own weight.

Only now do we pump their feed full of antibiotics in an effort to "minimize loss", that we're seeing 80% of US antibiotic usage on animals. The long term human health effects of which have long been a concern for doctors.

So cramped are their cages that they cannot turn around or stretch their wings. In many cases their beaks are cut and cauterized so they don't peck other chickens to death out of boredom and frustration.

Now, due to specialization between broilers and layers... all male chicks born as layers are "disposed of" because they are economically worthless.

And that's just what happens to chickens. I could go on about pigs and cows and turkeys, not to mention sheep and other farmed animals.

All in, according to a UN study in 2006 it was found that Factory Farming/Animal Agriculture contributes more to global warming than driving. As a matter of fact 296 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2. Factory Farming is also a major cause of land and water degradation.

And why is this all the case? We, particularly those of us in the US, consume more meat than ever. Meat, once a luxury item at the market, is now common place. Meat prices have not kept pace with inflation and demand has skyrocketed. Our appetite for fast food burgers, chicken and pork is out of control and factory farming has risen to the challenge of meeting this every increasing desire.

With practices that any rational human being can agree are inhumane, this nation turns a blind eye to the suffering animals endure in order to "feed the world". But it's not just feeding humans that causes such suffering.

Clothing and other products rely heavily on animal products. Leather is everywhere. If you are not already Vegan, I dare you to consider your closet or your home and think of just how many products you use each day which are animal based. It's staggering.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJgGEqa2xI"]YouTube - Earthlings 5 of 9 (dolphins, clothing industry, india cows, leather, fur farms)[/nomedia] (warning: Graphic. May be unsuitable for some viewers, Forward to 3:35 for information about the Indian Leather Trade). Hindus revere cows. Yet poor Indian families are routinely lied to in order to buy their cows. Those cows are then transported to an area where they can legally be slaughtered. Their handling during this transport is nothing short of nightmarish.

I could go on, but I just wanted to point out the vast difference between a rock falling to earth destroying half of all life and the systematic cruelty which we, humans, subject the animal life we've been entrusted with. We have control over one - not the other. It reads, to me, as an astonishing amount of arrogance to suggest otherwise.

Just because we've been at something for eons, surely you're not arguing we should continue a practice? I don't think I need to go into the parallels between sexism, racism, DADT, slavery, a woman's right to vote, marriage freedom and so on and the eating of animals, do I?

Many vegans and vegetarians believe that if we had to kill the animals we eat, we'd all be vegetarians. I don't believe that for a minute, but I do believe our ranks would swell. I know if I'd been forced to do so I would have become vegan as a child. Having become vegan at 40 I feel guilty for the years where I lived disconnected from my compassion for companion animals and the systemic cruelty suffered by food and service animals.

In closing, I encourage anyone who has interest in learning more about these issues to watch, in it's entirety, the documentary film, Earthlings. It is available on YouTube, in multiple parts. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7TiSkBLoPM&feature=BF&list=PLEC5CD974D672 9FC1&index=1"]YouTube - Earthlings 1 of 9 (CC Subtitled)[/nomedia]. It is also available (in it's entirety) on Netflix.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, as a matter of reality, we DO have a hierarchy whether we like it or not. Like June, if my house caught fire and I could ONLY save either my granddaughter or my dog, I would save my granddaughter. Anyone who says otherwise is almost certainly lying and if they aren't, then they may need a reset of their moral compass. If it were a question of my family starving or eating the neighbor's chickens (with his permission, of course, otherwise it would be theft) then I feel like chicken tonight! Am I valuing the life of my granddaughter over that of my dog? Yes. Does that mean I don't *really* love my dog? no.

As far as 'what that has done to our planet', you mean what has been done that hasn't been topped by, say, very large rocks periodically striking the planet at several multiples of the speed of sound? Are we doing damage? Yes. Should we stop? Yes. But are we really on course to do worse than, say, the K-T extinction where a rock the size of Manhattan struck the Earth at around 30K mph and killed off half of all sea life and about 70% of all land life? No. That doesn’t mean that we should be sanguine about the extinction of tigers (and it is, at this point, almost certainly a fait accompli that tigers are going extinct) but it does mean that some perspective is in order. Human beings have been hunting, killing and eating animals since before we were Homo sapiens. We've been at it since *at least* the time of Australopithecus. Those canines you have in your mouth aren't there for decoration and they aren't vestigial like the wisdom teeth. In fact, our transition away from a plant-based diet to a mixed plant-meat based diet is written all over our bodies. Wisdom teeth used to be useful when we ate more plants, they were a third set of molars for grinding up plant material. Our brain size is ENTIRELY explained by meat-eating (your brain is very energy hungry and the only diet that would support the explosion of our brain size in the ancestral environment was a protein-heavy (therefore meat-based) one). Our eye-hand coordination was adaptive for hunting.

We are, whether we like it or not, apex predators. Again, that doesn't mean that animal cruelty is acceptable but it *does* mean that this idea that we have, at any point in our evolutionary history, lived in peace and harmony with other animals is a fallacy. The last time anything in our evolutionary ancestry remotely lived a life resembling that myth was when we were prey animals and the last time THAT circumstance obtained was more than 15 million years ago. This idea that we are the only animals that do violence for anything other than sustenance is also not true. Again, NONE of this is a defense of Mr. Vick or an argument in favor of animal cruelty. It is simply to say that somehow, we are supposed to be something more than the large-brained primate that we are is to argue for a fantasy and an inconsistent one at that. If you argue that we should know better than other animals then you are elevating us above the rest of the animal kingdom. If you argue that other animals aren't cruel or are only violent in pursuit of food you are falling into the Disney-fication of Nature (chimps, just to name one species amongst many, fight and kill over territory, mates, and because of rivalry and they do it in coalitions just like we do).

The truth is, suebee, that chances are you value the life of any random human being more than you value the life of any random species of rodent. That doesn't mean that one cares nothing at all for rodents (or any other phyla) but it does mean that, truth be told, if you could only save the life of a baby or a cat and you HAD to choose because the house is burning down, you'd pick the child. That isn't license for animal cruelty but it is a recognition of the reality of our moral instincts (and our morals, despite religious claims to the contrary, are instincts).