Re: How Sarah Palin Created a Whole New Generation of Vegetarians

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Q9idnbKsENVb8anUnZ2dnUVZ_u-

> why the doctored videos showing "abuses"

'Aviagen workers punched, threw, and kicked live birds; bludgeoned birds
with pipes, pieces of wood, and tools; deliberately broke turkeys' necks
and
other bones; stomped on birds' heads; forcefully shoved feces and feed
down birds' throats; held birds' heads under water; cut turkey hens' beaks
with pliers; and urinated in a turkey pen. One worker bragged about
jamming
a broomstick 2 feet down a turkey's throat and mimicked raping a turkey
hen.

PETA has asked the Sheriff's Offices in Greenbrier and Monroe counties
to investigate the abusive actions and file appropriate criminal charges.
The
Greenbrier County Prosecuting Attorney's Office has confirmed that it will
investigate PETA's complaint. In addition, PETA is asking Aviagen and the
National Turkey Federation to adopt several key animal welfare reforms.
...'
http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=12271

> there are no degrees of immorality or wrongness; something
> either is morally wrong, or it isn't.

The Turkey
http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/turkey.html

'Should We Eat Meat?

Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best
cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also
known as a "tofurkey") has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a
reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a
thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the
West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often,
should we eat meat?

Animals: Our Moral Schizophrenia
Gary L. Francione
Rutgers University School of Law

The notion that we should not eat meat or any products, including dairy
and eggs, may appear to be radical and relative to our prevailing norms
of behavior, it certainly is so. But relative to what we say we believe as
a moral matter, it is not radical at all. In fact, when it comes to
animals,
our thinking is characterized by significant degree confused and
delusional thinking, or what we call 'moral schizophrenia.'

We all ostensibly accept the notion that it is morally wrong to inflict
'unnecessary' suffering on animals. This moral principle is embraced by
almost everyone and is so uncontroversial that it is embodied in the law
of most nations through anticruelty laws. These laws are often contained
in the criminal code and provide for the imposition of a fine or
imprisonment in the event of violation. As a general matter, only those
moral rules that are widely accepted and uncontroversial, such as
prohibitions against killing other humans, inflicting physical harm on
them, or taking or destroying their property, are enshrined in criminal
laws.

There may, of course, be disputes about what constitutes 'necessity' but
if this concept is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must rule out the
imposition of suffering and death on animals for reasons of pleasure,
amusement, or convenience. If these reasons are not excluded as
justifications, then the moral rule is without coherence. We can see this
in the human context. If we interpreted the widely shared moral principle
that it is wrong to abuse children as allowing for an exception in the
case of abuse that resulted in pleasure, amusement, or convenience, the
exception would create a loophole that would render the moral rule
meaningless.

The problem is that in the case of nonhuman animals, the overwhelming
****tion of our animal use can only be justified by pleasure, amusement,
or convenience. Our most numerically significant use of animals is for
food. Humans kill an estimated 53 billion animals worldwide every year
in connection with the production of meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal
products. This number does not include the billions more of fish and
other aquatic animals.

There is absolutely no necessity for this suffering and death. We
certainly
do not need meat or animal products to live an optimally healthy life.
Indeed, mainstream health care professionals are increasingly of the view
that animal products are detrimental to human health. Animal agriculture
is a disaster for the environment because it involves a most inefficient
use of natural resources and creates water pollution, soil erosion, and
greenhouse g*****. The only justification that we have for the pain,
suffering, and death that we impose on these billions of animals is that
we enjoy eating animal foods, or that it is convenient to do so, or that
it
is just plain habit.

Our moral schizophrenia is illustrated in the 2007 scandal concerning
American football celebrity Michael Vick. Vick was indicted on and
eventually pled guilty to federal dog fighting and related charges and was
sentenced to prison as a result of these matters. There was widespread
and well justified condemnation of Vick for what he did with respect to
the dogs. Everyone - including those who ate meat and animal products
- condemned Vick. But how is what Vick did any different from what
those who consume meat and animal products do? What is the difference
between sitting around a pit and watching dogs fight and sitting around a
summer barbecue roasting the bodies of cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, or
fish? Vick apparently derived pleasure from or was amused by watching
dogs fight; those who eat animal products derive pleasure and amusement
from ingesting those products. The fact that others are paid to do the
killing in the latter situation is irrelevant in terms of the moral
justification
for the imposition of suffering and death. In both cases, the pur****ted
moral justifications are identical and must be rejected for precisely the
same reason.

Many of us live with nonhuman companions. We love those nonhumans
and we treat them as members of our families. We worry about them and
often rearrange our lives in different ways to accommodate them and to
ensure their well being. We take them to the veterinarian when they are
ill
or when they need to have their teeth cleaned. When they become ill, we
often go to great lengths to get them well. When they die, we grieve them,
sometimes for extended periods.

There is, of course, absolutely no difference between the dog or cat who
is a member of our family and the cow, pig, or chicken into whom we
stick a fork and who we put into our mouths, chew, and swallow.
Nevertheless, we act as though there were a difference.

In sum, you may think that a veganism is strange or bizarre. It isn't.
What's strange and bizarre is that we aren't vegans.

I am providing below an educational pamphlet that I did with my colleague,
Anna Charlton, which concerns animal use and 'necessity.' I am also
providing an editorial that I did for the Philadelphia Daily News
entitled,
"We're All Michael Vick."
....
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/animals-our-moral-schizophrenia