FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
The scene with the chicken vacuum in the warehouse explains what "cage free" chicken really means. I think it's rather misleading...
>The piglet’s pain was so severe, and her screams so piercing, that the sanctuary’s staff members screamed and cried. Even the FBI agents were so sufficiently disturbed by the resulting trauma, that they directed the veterinarians not to subject the second piglet to the procedure.
a blatant act of animal torture.
If a German veterinarian would do this, he'd instantly lose his license, and the cops who "supervised" this would be under investigation for dereliction of duty.
There is so much that has gone wrong in this case, on all levels from the cops over a judge who actually authorized the warrant to the "veterinarians".
For people that want to eat or use animal products you should consider hunting for your own food, rearing your own chickens or just cutting back.
The ecological problems and the blatant disregard for animals rights are too much and a top down approach doesn't seem possible considering the power these big agricorps have.
It's time for individuals to make the conscious decision to opt out.
Moral arguments are fun to make, but without a plan they’re just bloviation. Pushing people to prioritise humane legislation, advocating a switch from intelligent animals and related methods, while less emotionally satisfying, are altogether more effective.
Any time someone draws any specific moral line based on life or intelligence, everybody else raises an eyebrow about the legitimacy of that line.
Even taking it all the way down, plants have communities, negotiate resource exchange, have fear & pain responses, and are basically just as alive as anything else. They just eat differently and move slower. And yet we eat their live young (care for some sprouts in your salad?)
The fact that life is not black and white but a lot of grey levels does not imply that there is no such thing as black or white. If one's moral compass and integrity are still intact, then even knowing the constraints, one would usually try to make the grey a little brighter.
Plenty of people genuinely don't care about the treatment of food animals, or even of humans outside their perceived tribe. It's just as "obvious" and consistent within those entire groups that there's no concern there. "Moral compass and integrity" are less about intact or unintact, and more about "similar to mine".
This is why pure moral arguments don't change anything, because people don't share morals. Now, some do have broader subscription, like not murdering people, and there you can defer to the shared moral. But others (like animal rights) are observably divided, so rallying on violation of local moralisms has no meaning to those outside that moral locality. It's exactly the same as religions yelling at non-adherents for acting in violation to the religion's tenets.
Same way as I can say something is obviously a heap of sand without pointing out exactly at which point it turned into one from it's beginnings as some grains of sand (Sorites paradox)
Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it, but that's not something we can argue about in an HN thread...
You are right that pure moral arguments don't change anything, but I don't think the reason is that people don't share morals, but rather have to do with people being extremely good at rationalizing away the immorality, or never questioning it in the first place. Of course, if you think ethics is a relative concept then this reply won't convince you but the argument that might convince you would not fit this format.
But that's not the situation here. You're saying that there is some scale at which something is "obviously wrong" implying a convergent consensus of observance. Tying it to sorites, it would be like you claiming that there's a fuzziness beyond which the heap should be considered "obviously too big" by everyone, while to others there's no such concept as a heap that's too big (or even merely disagree that you've entered "too big" territory yet). You can't argue that it's too big, without pulling in something external that they might share.
> Regarding moral relativism, I don't buy it
It's not that morals are "relative", and I agree that's a terrible label, but more that morals are held as axiomatic. There is no and cannot be justification of morals themselves, they simply are held (or are not held) by a person as the foundational root clauses from which all their other justifications are derived.
So there's no possible way to argue or justify root morals to others who simply don't share them. You'd need to link them to morals that the other does hold for there to be any worthwhile concept conveyed at all. Otherwise it's just yelling that others are not following your particular flying spaghetti monster. If one fundamentally believes that animal suffering matters, and another fundamentally believes that it does not, what possible justification or persuasion would cross that boundary?
> You are right that pure moral arguments don't change anything, but I don't think the reason is that people don't share morals, but rather have to do with people being extremely good at rationalizing away the immorality, or never questioning it in the first place.
Re-read what you said, and consider it in the initial discussion of animal rights. You're saying that there is a morality held in a person that is invoked in an observed situation that is being rationalized away, implying that they fundamentally subscribe to the same morals as you. I think this convergence (and I'd simply call it a projection) is an extreme claim, going against the observed variety among cultures & schools of thought around the world and throughout history. That's simply not an accurate picture of humanity.
In particular, sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained, and degrees of harm in varied directions exist in absolutely everything, all the way down to entropy. Just look at governmental overreach to see how the concept of "harm" can be all encompassing, bringing a justification for involvement wherever they may choose, from economics to surveillance.
No, I'm saying something even more extreme. I'm saying that ultimately, morality does not depend on any point of view (mine or anyone else's) in much the same way that what is ultimately true doesn't depend on any point of view. Immorality is simply ignorance doing its thing. I'm in no way free of ignorance, but I am actively trying to reduce it.
> I think this convergence (and I'd simply call it a projection) is an extreme claim, going against the observed variety among cultures & schools of thought around the world and throughout history. That's simply not an accurate picture of humanity.
Yes, there is an incredible and fascinating variety in humanity. Situations, points of view, emotions, agendas - all can be extremely complex and nuanced and very dependent on conditioning or "starting conditions". Yet, I think you'll find that compassion is something that is understood in any culture (as is fear), and the ability to empathize with someone else's situation (be it in another culture or another species) is not as far fetched as you make it seem.
You've obviously given some thought to your claims (which these days is refreshing), and as someone who always wants to get to the truth of things, I'll gladly give up everything I believe in if it is incorrect, but then again my understanding wasn't acquired overnight, so if you're also as keen to dig deeper and see what comes up I'll be happy to correspond further.
Your morals are axiomatic, and as ground truth they can't be supported by anything other than their supposed self-apparentness.
Your second half simply restates my "sensitivity and callousness to specific situations of harm are very trained", as that's all we're talking about here: How various harm "feels" when you see them carried out. This empathizing you base things on is hugely selective even within you. You aren't empathizing with the plight of plants or insects, for instance. If you empathized with everything equally, then you'd be crippled by any amount of perceived harm, which is pervasive. Everybody is empathetic & compassionate, but to different situations. This has a ton to do with culture and normality.
People constantly misconstrue their sensitivities with morals.
And eat less chicken. A lot of them need to suffer to supply the same amount of meat as a cow for example.
I think the staggering amount of meat products consumed daily speaks for itself - animal rights isn’t exactly a new concept.
I suggest you watch videos on YouTube by the SHARK to see what’s really going on at CAFOs and other facilities.
The planet can’t take it (methane and CO2) and it directly causes “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” suffering and pain proportional to purchases.
I used to eat piles of meat but have not for about a decade because I became educated about the multifaceted reality of the climate, environmental, ecological and animal welfare aspects.
For me, meat just taste too good.
The parent's statement was simple: they don't care about the "barbarism" of eating meat. I think it's taken as a given that they therefore don't much care about what animals experience as the consequence of their actions.
So I'm not sure how your comment is relevant or what you meant to achieve by making it.
Could you clarify?
> I don't morally justify it, no matter how barbaric it is.
It wouldn't matter either way even if he tried to morally justify it. Like with people eating foie gras. They justify it by saying that it's their right to eat what they want.
Meanwhile poor geese can't care less, doesn't have any concept of morality, just suffers either way, because the result is the same. People just like eating their ill livers. And it doesn't matter if they justify it or not.
What is more moral, eating a steak from a cow that was killed for its meat by decently paid, respected workers - or - eating a chocolate bar made with palm oil whose products were farmed using slave and child labor?
The point being that not all foods are ethically made. It's not as easy as meat == always the only immoral food choice and not-meat == always good. By reducing meat consumption, if you replace it with other non ethically sourced foods, are yo really helping? And if those new foods take advantage of human workers and slavery, is that better than an animal's suffering?
They aren't saying "Well plants can also be bad, so just stick with meat." It's "if you switch blindly without any research, you may actually ending causing more suffering for people and animals in the world than if you had stuck with meat."
Edit since I can't reply to posts below mine. It's not just about calories. I really think this sentence was overlooked from the parent post way up:
"What is more moral, eating a steak from a cow that was killed for its meat by decently paid, respected workers - or - eating a chocolate bar made with palm oil whose products were farmed using slave and child labor?"
Research conditions of cacao workers if you think this example is a joke or being made up.
There’s a legitimate question around why public dollars are being spent on a relatively minor crime. But that legitimacy is lost by the article blowing a reasonable law enforcement response to a theft into a “cover up”.
I have a pet theory to explain why animal rights organisations are so often ineffective. The organisations that effect change get fewer donations than those that piss people off. This, together with institutional prerogatives, results in the villification of reasonable le enforcement actions over trying to pass legislation.
I don’t believe it is—the article specifically says it’s illegal elsewhere but not in America. In the states where it might be illegal, the laws in question were passed as a result of reasonable debates balancing the cost of food against the wellness of animals. All-or-nothing often yields the latter.
> I find it absurd and sad that the "crime" of documentation and rescue
While falsifying intent for purposes of undercover reporting is illegal in some states, stealing is illegal everywhere. If they had to act, they should have immediately given the piglets to the (a) farm’s management or (b) police. Worst case: immediately hire a lawyer upon return to the shelter. The methods they used were dumbly deployed.
You know very well yourself that this would not have been a good idea at all if their goal was to help the mistreated piglets and bring wider awareness for the farming practices.
Non-destructive activism is an overwhelmingly positive force for society. These were dying, mistreated piglets; calling this "stealing" is akin to giving a blessing for the animal cruelty that took place here.
It reminds me of a town hall a freshman state legislator held a few years ago. She wanted to propose an animal welfare law for farms in the state. PETA and Greenpeace showed up. The former wanted to boycott the law (I don’t know what this means) because it didn’t go far enough. The latter was concerned this would encourage meat eating and increase carbon emissions or something. The bill was reconsidered and dropped. Compromise is hard.
All this theater for two piglets is reasonable?
Speaking about political motivation - there is federal AETA law (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Ac...) which "prohibits any person from engaging in certain conduct "for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise."" What can be more political reason than "terrorism" ?!
It’s like a hundred or $200 [1]. The same amount as a package of mine that was recently signed for and pilfered. The NYPD assigner a detective and co-ordinated with our City Council. (Note: they initially ignored the case. I had to call my City Councilman’s office to prod them.)
I’m not saying it’s not politically motivated. But one needs more proof than an activist group going under cover and stealing piglets getting pursued by the FBI. More probable: the identity of the perpetrators pissed off the farms, moving them from “meh, shit got stolen” to “write letters to everyone” mode. Law enforcement reacts when you document and follow up with them and their politicians, irrespective of who you are.
The article you link to says:
> I have seen decent pigs go anywhere from $50 to $100 on Craigslist.
I am not sure if a half dead piglet counts as a "decent" pig.