Cappoquin Chickens closing down

by Darren C - PETA Wed Sep 17, 2008 09:41

"Cappoquin chickens closing down.....

Personally I think it's a big step forward. 50 or so intensive farmers affected! payback for the cruelty they have inflicted on god knows how many millions of innocent animals."

This type of animal liberation tripe is the most unadulterated reactionary horseshit. Local workers and farmers are about to lose their livelihoods - a whole community decimated - and this cretin cheers for it. This is self-parody.

I think I'll stick to working for socialism, eating a small amount of meat without feeling guilty about it. Just as I believe that it's the job of working class to liberate the working class, so I believe it's patronising to believe the animals can't self organise for their own liberation, or are they somehow different from us and incapable of conceiving of concepts like rights? When the animals demand the vote, I'll back them all the way.

*(People Enjoying Tasty Animals)

by snc Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:25

it's nothing to do with "rights" it's WELFARE these are one of the leading intensive chicken farmer supporting processors in the country. Free range, fine, if you must eat meat, go for free range pork & poultry. Not supporting a place where thousands of chickens are all in a shed together, never see the light of day and are so filled with chemicals they are about twice the size of a year old free range hen by the time they are 6wks. surely you don't think that is alright just because they are chickens?!

by Mr Alan Corcoran. Thu Sep 18, 2008 01:39

How Do You Know A Cappoquin Chicken thats for Sale In Tesco Irl.
Answer = From The Tyre Marks

by Catlady Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:56

I second the opinion that this is a huge step forward, and am thrilled to bits that this place is shutting down. I dearly hope others will follow.

As for animals organising their own liberation, what about the elderly??? Children??? Following your logic Darren, we should all support abuse unless the victim is capable of helping themselves. As a former abuse victim myself, I can assure you that this is rarely possible, and it has absolutely nothing to do with being capable of conceiving concepts like rights.

by Darren C - Marxist-Leninist-Speciesist Thu Sep 18, 2008 13:06

People who equate the abuse of chickens with the abuse of children and the elderly are...are....well, I won't go there.

I don't for one moment defend gratuitous violence against defenceless animals. But I'm sick to death of 'animal liberation' looney tunes who believe that battery hens in Cappoquin are the major slave and proletariat force of contemporary capitalist society and that Waterford workers and farmers are equally complicit in this new 'class war'. They're scabs. Actually, since vegetarianism is probably more prevalent in middle class than working class communities, workers are actually the real enemy. Who gives a rat's ass if Santa doesn't visit their children this year? Serves the bastards right, eh SNC and Catlady?

by Catlady Thu Sep 18, 2008 17:37

Darren, with all due respect, you are misinterpreting what I have said (not to mention what SNC, who is clearly a welfarist and not an advocate of animal rights, has said) - either through an inability to follow logic or a deliberate attempt to skew the issue.

Specifically, your response to my post has failed to address the issue of the individual's ability to conceive of concepts such as rights as being necessary for that individual to have his or her rights respected.

Chickens can hardly be described as being the proletariat considering they are not in receipt of any wage, and do not have a choice about whether or not they are stuffed into filthy and cramped conditions, and bred and fed in order to make them grow at a rate which is too fast for their bones to support. Neither do they have any choice when their necks are slit open, or when they are dipped fully conscious into vats of scalding water (be they free range or not during their short lives). Slaves perhaps, but even slaves aren't mass produced and slaughtered to satisfy tastebuds.

Your comments about vegetarianism are interesting, and show your lack of understanding of the basic difference between Animal Rights and animal welfare. I'd certainly be interested in where you sourced your opinion that vegetarians are predominantly middle class, and would question the relevance thereof even if you can prove that this is indeed the case. Is there a certain income level below which compassion becomes a luxury???

Not being involved with Animal Welfare myself, but rather with Animal Rights, most of my contacts are not vegetarian, but vegan. I can assure you that they come from a wide variety of backgrounds. I find it interesting that those who object to our movement often seem to accuse us of being either spoiled middle class children, or, paradoxically, of being wasters/crusties/no-hopers/unemployed. I assure you that I am neither. I am an experienced shop steward from a strong socialist background, but my interest in social justice goes beyond that of working hours, conditions of employment and so on. I see no reason why we cannot, as a society, strive to better the world for ALL earthlings.

We AR activists, on the other hand, are fully aware that animal abusers come from every walk of life and income/education level, and do not discriminate against abusers on such irrelevant grounds. It makes absolutely no difference to me how much Mr. X makes in a year, I am only interested in stopping him from inflicting needless suffering on others, whether he does so in a professional capacity or during his leisure time.

I make no apologies for being happy that this killing plant has closed down. I wish the ex-employees luck in their job search. Hopefully they will find alternative employment as quickly as possible, in a sector which is not based on abuse, death and utterly needless suffering for anyone. I certainly take no pleasure in seeing children go without, despite your spurious accusations.

by snc Thu Sep 18, 2008 22:28

Basically, animal abuse is unnecessary.
there is no need to mass produce chickens or pigs (the other most abused animal) just so people can buy cheap chicken and eggs.
so why should we feel sorry for the people who cause and/or support this abuse?
personally I would rather go on the DOLE than participate in mindless cruelty to animals to earn money.

If you must eat meat, at least buy free range stuff so you are supporting farmers who give their animals a better life.

there is no need for mass produced meat seeing as we don't even need it to be healthy.

and as for vegetarianism being an elitist diet, um, how?

traditionally (read up on your Irish history) the poorer classes had a mainly vegetarian diet (potatoes, root veg with occasional bacon from a free range pig) and the wealthier classes were the big meat eaters.

by snc Fri Sep 19, 2008 00:35

well seeing as I live in a rural area and have never even visited Dublin.....

as for vegans being unhealthy, you've obviously never seen any of the athletes who are vegans.

and if you have a properly balanced diet there should be no problem. (plenty of fruit and veg, fibre, whole grains, soya products to replace meat & dairy etc)

by Catlady Fri Sep 19, 2008 15:41

I assume there was a comment deleted referring to vegans being unhealthy which I didn't see myself. I've been vegan for a few years now (vegetarian before that) and I can assure you that I am perfectly healthy according to my doctor.

Soya contains all of the essential amino acids contained in flesh, so there is absolutely no need to eat carrion of any kind. The UN has long been on record stating that animal farming is the major cause of greenhouse gasses (far above that of all the worlds transport put together). It is also far far cheaper to feed oneself on a plant based diet as well as being healthier due to the low fat practically cholesterol-free nature of plant based foods.

As for vegan athletes, SNC is entirely correct. Check out http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26480.php (a medical site with no links to the AR movement)

Top nutritionists point out here that ""Every nutrient known to be essential for human health is available, in proper concentration, in plant foods. This is not so with animal-based foods, as there are many essential nutrients totally absent in them."

Unfortunately, being vegan has not magically trnsformed me into an Olympic athlete, but then the only excercise I get is walking the dogs!

by snc Sun Sep 21, 2008 00:06

Why is there still such an ignorance and lack of respect for other peoples lifestyle choices?

All people are trying to do is campaign for animals to be treated better. We understand that while it is cruel and wrong, the majority are still for eating meat, so therefor instead of trying to stop the whole meat industry, just to make the animals lives better while they are alive. i.e. free range living conditions, humane treatment, transportation and quick and painless slaughter.

and as a personal opinion, vegetarian "meat" is really actually nice, flavoursome and juicy, not dried up tasteless cubes like some people who may have had an unpleasant encounter with tofu or TVP may think.

by Mr Man Sat Sep 27, 2008 14:39

"Why is there still such an ignorance and lack of respect for other peoples lifestyle choices?"

Well that could go both ways. One could say that alot of vegetarians/vegans don't have respect for meat eaters lifestyle choices.

"All people are trying to do is campaign for animals to be treated better."

Well don't look now but NARA is anti-welfare and pro-rights. \

"so therefor instead of trying to stop the whole meat industry, just to make the animals lives better while they are alive. i.e. free range living conditions, humane treatment, transportation and quick and painless slaughter."

I agree. What about halal/kosher meat though?

"traditionally (read up on your Irish history) the poorer classes had a mainly vegetarian diet (potatoes, root veg with occasional bacon from a free range pig) and the wealthier classes were the big meat eaters."

What does tradition have to do with today? That is no longer true. Poorer classes had a mainly vegetarian diet due to the high price of meat. Now thanks to intensive agriculture, the proletariat can enjoy a kilo of minced meat for the same price as a couple of organic veg.

Catlady; You are absolutely correct visa vis your vegan nutrition. However, while it is perfectly feasable to survive on a vegan diet and animal agriculture is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gasses, most people would find a vegan diet unnatural (we are omnivores, reflected in our dentation) and in fact, the massive rice industry has been shown to contribute a massive amount to greehouse gases.

In china alone, in one year produces 10,000,000,000 kg of methane from it's rice paddies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ud...5d58d

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ud...1cac9

by snc Sun Sep 28, 2008 00:54

What about cows and other agricultural activities? They cause billions of tons of CO2 emissions every year. To save me typing it all, here's a link to a web page that is more detailed: http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warmi...e-CO2

by Hermes Sun Sep 28, 2008 16:51

A Vegetarian diet can be dangerous. These reports are well worth consulting. They are nor scare stories: they are basedf on scientific studies not mystical new age beliefs.

Myth: To lose weight, become a vegetarian

As with most styles of eating, whether you eat meat or choose to exclude all animal products from your diet, the particular food choices you make determine whether the diet is high, low or well balanced as far as calories are concerned. Many vegetarian foods such as vegetarian cheeses and margarine, nuts, seeds and pastry made from flour and vegetarian spreads are relatively high in fat. If you concentrate on these without balancing them out with starchy carbohydrates such as bread, rice, pasta, other cereals, fruits and vegetables, you could find that your weight actually starts to creep up, not down. Simply becoming a vegetarian is not a guaranteed fast route to weight loss. Always read the label for nutritional information (on energy and fat per serving/100 grams).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/14021.php

Iron - the Most Common Deficiency

Women and young girls who eat little meat, poultry and fish or who turn completely vegetarian are particularly at risk of running down the body's iron reserves and experiencing symptoms of deficiency.

Although these girls often appear to be in good health, low iron levels profoundly affect many aspects of their day to day lives, including an ability to concentrate, and thus learn, in school. Nelson tells us, "In tests we have carried out we think that the IQ in British girls who get enough iron in their diets and those who are anaemic can mean the difference of a whole grade in school exams".

"Girls who are dieting and those switching to a vegetarian diet are particularly at risk", explains Nelson: "New vegetarians need to be very careful in the first year of conversion because they often cut out meat and don't know how to replace the iron with other foods. Women and girls who diet and go vegetarian at the same time should think about eating iron fortified foods or even taking a modest supplement".
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/14052.php

Dietary fads blamed as childhood rickets returns to UK

Vegan and macrobiotic diets have led to the return of rickets in Britain, according to experts. They say cases among children are rising, more than 50 years after the disease was virtually eradicated by better health and nutrition.

Earlier this year, a New York couple were convicted of endangering the life of their 15-month-old daughter by subjecting her to a strict vegan diet which left her malnourished and suffering from rickets. Silva Swinton and her husband Joseph were jailed after what was seen as a test case for parents who put their children on such diets.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4562.php

by Hermes Sun Sep 28, 2008 17:43

Here are additional reports on the dangers of a Vegetarian diet.

Vegetarian Diet Shrinks Brain
http://blog.edu-cyberpg.com/2008/09/23/Vegetarian+Diet+....aspx

Vegetarian Diet Increases Alzheimer's Risk
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001....aspx

Sex drive warning to vegetarians and elderly

Elderly and vegetarian men are being warned about the effect of low protein diets on their sex lives in later years. Researchers say people who do not eat enough protein are at risk of low testosterone levels which can cause a decline in sexual function as well as muscle loss, reduced red blood cells and damage to bones. People who do not eat meat are particularly at risk, because animal products are good sources of high biological value proteins.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/613396.stm

by snc Sun Sep 28, 2008 19:23

Are they forgetting all of the other sources of iron & protein?

beans, pulses, dark green vegetables etc.

all the protein & goodness without the fat. besides, eating too much red meat can cause cancer, especially stomach cancer, as well as fat blocking your arteries etc. and contains very little fibre or anything really except protein/iron.

as long as you have a well balanced diet (minus the meat/dairy or just meat if your not a vegan) and replace the meat/dairy with alternatives, then you should be fine. Of course if you go veggie and eat nothing else except pasta or whatever you will be unhealthy, just like a meat-eater who eats nothing but hamburgers and chips! it works both ways.

and it's scientifically proven and supported by doctors that vegetarians have a significantly lower risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity. (if they eat a well balanced, healthy vegetarian diet of course)

by Roger Yates Sun Sep 28, 2008 22:19

Hermes – you appear to be good at googling for a headline. Less good at looking at the detail, perhaps: even the detail in materials you yourself provide.

For example, your first link clearly states that most diets can be a problem without adequate nutritional knowledge. You say a vegetarian diet can be dangerous. I agree if it is heavy on dairy like "vegetarian cheeses" and "margarines". Note the qualifier in your first link: “If you concentrate on these without balancing them out with...”

You also seem to regard vegetarianism and veganism as the same thing, which is a mistake.

Your first link: “Myth: To lose weight, become a vegetarian

“As with most styles of eating, whether you eat meat or choose to exclude all animal products from your diet, the particular food choices you make determine whether the diet is high, low or well balanced as far as calories are concerned. Many vegetarian foods such as vegetarian cheeses and margarine, nuts, seeds and pastry made from flour and vegetarian spreads are relatively high in fat. If you concentrate on these without balancing them out with starchy carbohydrates such as bread, rice, pasta, other cereals, fruits and vegetables, you could find that your weight actually starts to creep up, not down. Simply becoming a vegetarian is not a guaranteed fast route to weight loss. Always read the label for nutritional information (on energy and fat per serving/100 grams).”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/14021.php

Btw, turning to any diet in order to find a “fast route to weight loss” may be what represents the most danger.

Your second link: “Iron - the Most Common Deficiency

“Women and young girls who eat little meat, poultry and fish or who turn completely vegetarian are particularly at risk of running down the body's iron reserves and experiencing symptoms of deficiency.

“Although these girls often appear to be in good health, low iron levels profoundly affect many aspects of their day to day lives, including an ability to concentrate, and thus learn, in school. Nelson tells us, "In tests we have carried out we think that the IQ in British girls who get enough iron in their diets and those who are anaemic can mean the difference of a whole grade in school exams".

“"Girls who are dieting and those switching to a vegetarian diet are particularly at risk", explains Nelson: "New vegetarians need to be very careful in the first year of conversion because they often cut out meat and don't know how to replace the iron with other foods. Women and girls who diet and go vegetarian at the same time should think about eating iron fortified foods or even taking a modest supplement".”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/14052.php

Note, again, that this is an educational issue about knowledge: “because they often cut out meat and DON’T KNOW HOW to replace the iron with other foods. Women and girls who diet and go vegetarian at the same time should think about eating iron fortified foods or even taking a modest supplement".”

Your third link: “Dietary fads blamed as childhood rickets returns to UK

“Vegan and macrobiotic diets have led to the return of rickets in Britain, according to experts. They say cases among children are rising, more than 50 years after the disease was virtually eradicated by better health and nutrition.

“Earlier this year, a New York couple were convicted of endangering the life of their 15-month-old daughter by subjecting her to a strict vegan diet which left her malnourished and suffering from rickets. Silva Swinton and her husband Joseph were jailed after what was seen as a test case for parents who put their children on such diets.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4562.php

You fail to note that these people were not vegans in the first place: “Prosecutor Eric Rosenbaum also called a nutrition expert and practicing vegan who said the couple did not seem to be practicing a mainstream vegan diet. Amy Joy Lanou, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said that vegans are encouraged to breast feed their children or use a manufactured soy-based formula instead. She also pointed out that the Swintons gave the baby cod liver oil, an animal product vegans avoid.” http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/24/ctv.swinton/

Your fourth link in your second post: “Here are additional reports on the dangers of a Vegetarian diet.

“Vegetarian Diet Shrinks Brain”
http://blog.edu-cyberpg.com/2008/09/23/Vegetarian+Diet+....aspx

Note the food sources: “Many factors that affect brain health are thought to be out of our control, but this study suggests that simply adjusting our diets to consume more vitamin B12 through eating meat, fish, FORTIFIED CEREALS or MILK may be something we can easily adjust to prevent brain shrinkage and so perhaps save our memory,” says Anna Vogiatzoglou of the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics at Oxford University. “Research shows that vitamin B12 deficiency is a public health problem, especially among the elderly, so more vitamin B12 intake could help reverse this problem. Without carrying out a clinical trial, we acknowledge that it is still not known whether B12 supplementation would actually make a difference in elderly persons at risk for brain shrinkage.”

This ref to milk includes plant milks as much as it refers to calf food.

Your fifth link I cannot access: “Vegetarian Diet Increases Alzheimer's Risk”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001....aspx

Your sixth link: “Sex drive warning to vegetarians and elderly

“Elderly and vegetarian men are being warned about the effect of low protein diets on their sex lives in later years. Researchers say people who do not eat enough protein are at risk of low testosterone levels which can cause a decline in sexual function as well as muscle loss, reduced red blood cells and damage to bones. People who do not eat meat are particularly at risk, because animal products are good sources of high biological value proteins.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/613396.stm

Note that, “Denise Parish, a dietician at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, said it was known that low protein diets caused muscle loss, but the link with testosterone had not previously been made.
“She added: "In the elderly population, people tend to have lower protein intake because of poor denticulation, which means they can't eat as much meat, and poorer appetite. The same is the case for vegetarians and vegans."
“She said foods such as textured vegetable proteins, soya, pulses and rice and bread were good providers of protein for these groups of people.
“A spokeswoman for the Vegan Society said there was not usually a problem of low protein intake for vegans, who do not eat meat or dairy products.”

Especially note: “foods such as textured vegetable proteins, soya, pulses and rice and bread were GOOD PROVIDERS of protein for these groups of people”

I doubt anyone would contradict my claim that a junk food vegan diet can be dangerous. However, all people who eat ~any~ diet ought to be taught the knowledge they need to eat healthily and perhaps free from the scare stories you appear to like so much.

RY

by Cian Tue Oct 28, 2008 16:34

The issue of the closing of a factory premised on animal exploitation and suffering is actually a more complex issue than some of the animal rights/welfare supporters here are suggesting, particularly if animal rights supporters also claim to be explicitly concerned with the exploitation of human workers under capitalism.

From an animal rights perspective, of course it is good to see the closing of a plant that has been needlessly slaughtering sentient beings. But there are other factors at play. Firstly, it is important to understand WHY this is happening. When we examine WHY this is occurring we can clearly see that this event does NOT represent ANY kind of "success" or "victory" for animal rights (or even welfare).

As everyone is aware, we are in the midst of serious economic crash which among other things is resulting in massive reduction in demand. Cappoquin chickens are simply the victims of this entirely amoral capitalist logic. Does the closing of Cappoquin Chickens indicate that animal rights supporters are "winning the debate" or "making strides" towards the abolition of animal use? Of course not!

If Cappoquin chickens were closing as a result of massive increases in the number of people going vegan as a result of seeing the logic of an animal rights position, then YES that could be seen as a step forward, but obviously that is not the case and no-one is suggesting that.

In addition - we must recognise, that although what was actually carried out as work in this factory was morally indefensible, all progressive left activists need to be careful to also consider the hegemonic nature of speciesism and the capitalist power relations at play in this, as in every industry. We need to recognise that undoubtedly, most of the workers at cappoquin chickens believed there were no ethical problems with their work and may never even have encountered well constructed anti-speciesist arguments before. There are only ever a certain number of jobs available at any given time in the economy, almost everyone needs to work to survive and where there is demand for animal products, inevitably some people will take up jobs in animal use industries.

Until animal rights supporters have changed the social discourse to the extent that speciesism is is seen as being as morally indefensible as racism or sexism, workers will continue to take up positions in the animal use industries, and targeting them, or saying that the loss of their jobs is a "big step forward" in the context of a society where speciesism remain absolutely UBIQUITOUS, is just bizarre and totally illogical. It also reinforces the perception that most animal rights people couldnt give a shit about people. This is not a good way to win people to abolitionist arguments.

As for "When the animals demand the vote, I'll back them all the way." Firstly, no serious animal rights advocate would suggest giving chickens voting rights - a patently ridiculous notion. What abolitionist animal rights supporters do advocate is the granting of one right to sentient nonhumans - the right not to be treated as property and and exploited for human ends. That sentient animals are not capable of conceiving of concepts like "rights", or organising to end their own oppression is completely irrelevant to whether we grant them rights or not, or consider their oppression or suffering to be worthy of concern. The granting of a right is not dependent on the receipients ability to understand that right. We do not require humans to understand the concept of rights in order to be the benifiaries of rights. As the other poster mentioned above - the granting of rights to severely mentally disabled humans destroys your argument here.

The inability of sentient nonhumans to free themselves from their oppression does not justify their oppression. That is like saying that the weaker the oppressed group, the greater the justification for their oppression.

by john and mary Tue Oct 28, 2008 17:38

“From an animal rights perspective, of course it is good to see the closing of a plant that has been needlessly slaughtering sentient beings. But there are other factors at play .”

This is moral relativism of the first order . It is like saying that from a human rights perspective it’s good to see the closing of Auswitz but from the point of view of the soldiers employed there other factors need to be considered .

by Jerry Cornelius Tue Oct 28, 2008 18:23

It is irrational to compare a chicken farm to Aushcwitz. Only a very odd person would think that a chicken is equal to a human being. People who advance such arguements bring the struggle for animal rights into disrepute.

by Cian Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:32

Nobody is arguing that chickens are EQUAL to human beings. But bringing up the holocaust for moral comparison with animal slaughter is another great method of ensuring that people think you have gone off the deep end. Again, you seem to forget that we live in a society where animal suffering is not really seen as morally significant in any meaningful sense and speciesism is the predominant outlook of the vast vast majority of the worlds people's. This will not be changed by the shock value of things like PETA's "holocaust on a plate" campaign, or your analogy here.

Many people that worked at Cappoquin Chickens undoubtedly believed not only that what they were doing was OK, but that in fact it was (at least in part) NECESSARY for human survival. Many millions of people believe just that and vegans and animal rights people have thus far not won those arguments! Until we do that, there is no validity in people's minds to our opinion that it is indefensible to slaughter animals for food. Certainly, they will not equate it with Auschwitz, and the comparison is likely only to cause offense.

The human suffering resultant from the closing of Cappoquin chickens IS morally relevant and I stand by that. This is not moral relativism - it is acknowledging that all sentient beings experience suffering, and that suffering is worthy of moral consideration. The closing of the this plant is NOT a victory for animal rights in any sense and to suggest such is simply opportunist and dishonest.

by john and mary Wed Oct 29, 2008 18:28

Jerry and Cian should remove their blinkers and read our post again carefully. At no point in it did we say that chickens are "equal to human beings" . We made an analogy to Auschwitz to draw attention to what we regarded as a certain measure of hypocrisy inherent in Cian’s rational . Murdering a chicken is of course not the same thing as murdering a human being ,but murder is murder after all , and the “other factors at play" and “think of the poor workers losing their jobs" arguments which Cian used to excuse the murder of chickens can under different circumstances be used to justify the murder of human beings . Cian no doubt unconsciously repeats his latent speceism again today when he writes :
“Many people that worked at Cappoquin Chickens undoubtedly believed not only that what they were doing was OK, but that in fact it was (at least in part) NECESSARY for human survival.”
Yes Cian that is undoubtedly true ,but using the same logic you could say:
“Many people that worked at Aushcwitz undoubtedly believed not only that what they were doing was OK, but that in fact it was (at least in part) NECESSARY for the survival of the fatherland.”

by Cian Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:34

At no point did I "justify" the murder of chickens - feel free to point out where I justify the continuance of animal slaughter. You are implying that because I even mentioned the fact that humans will suffer because of the loss of their jobs, that this constitutes a justification for the factory's existence and what took place there. I find it highly amusing that you are accusing me, a supporter of abolitionist animal rights, as a speciesist. I am starting to see why the animal rights movement has failed to build any significant links with other struggles on the left.

by Catlady Tue Nov 04, 2008 02:38

"Nobody is arguing that chickens are EQUAL to human beings"

I am!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why on earth would they not be?????? On what premise would they be less important??????

I'm not in any way sdaying they are MORE important. But what on earth makes you think that us animals are more important than them? What do you mean by important? Important to who or what????? I am confused as to what you mean by important. Especially considering that our species, while the most intelligent, has managed to mess the entire world up for all earthlings, human and non human.

I suppose I am questionig the use f the word "important". And "Equal". Being a linguist these things bother me somewhat.....

by Catlady Tue Nov 04, 2008 02:41

Thank you to Roger Y for going through the nonsense spouted about vegan health.

On a personal anecdotal level, I lost no weight when I went vegetarian. But once I went vegan it dropped off (it needed to!). This was a pleasant side effect, as once Istarted eating wholesome home cooked foods, my cravings for what my mother used to call "rubbish" disappeared.

Also, iron deficiencies are most common in women and young girls, due to menstruation. This has nothing to do with eating meat. Indeed, when I had a anemic cat (obligate carnivore don't forget) the vet made me give him blackstrap molasses - not meat - to up his iron levels. Cats do not like molasses, believe me...

Plenty more anecdotes, but basically Rog has hit the nail on the head when he says "all people who eat ~any~ diet ought to be taught the knowledge they need to eat healthily and perhaps free from the scare stories you appear to like so much."

by Cian Tue Nov 04, 2008 15:09

Catlady -

>I suppose I am questionig the use f the word "important"

Okay. But if you read what I wrote you will see that actually you were the first to use the term. I never said that chickens were LESS or MORE important then people. All I said was that no-one was so far arguing that chickens are EQUAL to humans. You now say that they are. Fine, but I would like to know in what RESPECT are chickens equal to human beings.
Human are NOT equal to some animals in many respects - i.e. cheetah's are much faster runners - we cannot fly without mechanical aids while birds can... so in this respect we are NOT equal to nonhuman animals but actually INFERIOR. We are also not equal to most nonhuman animals in terms of intelligence - I agree we are abusing this intelligence to destroy the planet but that doesnt change the fact that our intellectual capacities are (in general) greater than other sentient nonhumans. That doesn't justify us killing them or using them in any way, but it DOES mean that we are NOT of EQUAL intelligence. So basically, yes I am happy to say straight out that in many respects, chickens are NOT equal to humans. There is however no MORALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between sentient beings that would justify the infliction of unnecessary suffering and death on one, but not on another.

by lisap Fri Nov 28, 2008 08:42 fthsfgdafgadfga at hotmail dot com Spokane, Washington

Malnourishment is one of the economic problems. However, being a responsible citizen can solve the horrible situation. Eating the right food at the right time is the key to get well and become healthy. Haiti has become one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere. It is one of the dirtiest, sickest countries in the world – and getting worse each day. Haiti’s urban slums swarm with garbage, sewage and people. Starvation is a huge problem. Mothers have no option to choose from as to what to feed their children, but instead must choose which children to feed. This true event makes us feel really fortunate and thankful to be living here in America. I might even say that we are spoiled rotten. We’re lucky to have food, fast payday loans, water, and many other useful resources that are right at our fingertips. We are lucky to have an ample food supply that millions of people around the world are unable to have even the slightest access to. America is a fast food nation. More than ever, the number of children struggling with obesity has skyrocketed, and America is the fattest it has ever been. American families would be better off eating healthier, more nutritious foods found at the grocery store. However, financial problems are another factor that many American families are facing. Not everyone is able to afford the wholesale foods at the grocery store. Medical expenses, however, will cost you a lot more money than healthy food expenses. The health of the world food supply is worth the extra cost. Although sometimes you may be tempted to indulge on fast food on a daily basis – when your budget is tight and the value meal is calling your name – remember to keep your health in mind as well as the health of your family. If you need help to maintain a healthy food supply, you can count on fast payday loans for help to cover those grocery expenses. Click here to learn more about http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2008/11/18/hung...oans/.

by Catlady Sun Nov 30, 2008 01:22

You said "There is however no MORALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between sentient beings that would justify the infliction of unnecessary suffering and death on one, but not on another."

I agree entirely with what you have said, and i believe there has beena misunderstanding.

I apologise and to clarify my views, I wish to state that my beliefs are somewhat based in the theory of painism.

Put simply, thou shalt not kill (anything that will suffer as a cause of the killing - unless you are under attack and defending yourself).

So I don't support the kiling of chickens or any other animal, but have no problem killing vegetables as they have no ability to suffer.

Sorry Cian. I agree with all that you have said about equality. I meant equality in the sense of having the right not to be exploited.