“Animal Procedures Are Cruel”

Mankind has come a long way over many millennia in the arena of humaneness, most recently in the work of the famous Dr. Temple Grandin.  Her discoveries and research have helped slaughter facilities everywhere reduce animal discomfort in the slaughter process.  Even kosher and halal slaughter (which use no stunning) now take place without significant animal suffering.  See more at Dr. Grandin’s web page, which covers animal transport, handling, slaughter and facilities design.

      Now imagine if no one ate meat, how many and how big fences would have to be built to keep wandering, overpopulating, starving farm animals out of gardens and fields!  “Mercy killing” would be inevitable.  Vegans very often will kill animals they think are suffering, but for reasons known only to themselves will not use the meat.  It goes to waste or is fed to animals like cats and dogs, which have no self-inhibitions to kill.

      A veterinarian castrates an animal for pay; a pet-lover does it to prevent overpopulation; a farmer does it to increase meat quality; a sicko does it to get his “jollies.”  But you know, the animal may feel the same no matter the motive.  So is it one’s motive that makes it cruel or humane?  Is mercy killing always merciful?

      It can be argued that cruelty to animals sometimes averts greater evils.  King Solomon noted 3000 years ago, “The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10)  Cruel behavior, though not approved, was a valuable way to see of whom to beware.  Cruelty can be accidental, negligent or intentional.  When staged for publicity purposes, it’s the latter.  When its remedy is delayed in order to get camera footage, it’s the second and third—really hard to excuse.  Yet they’re the bread and butter of the professional animal sympathist industry.  Even so, let’s be wary of the assumptio non probata, lest we lose our moral high ground to money-grubbing activists whose tender mercies are cruel, and thus lose the opportunity to please the real customers, who just want to look out for “the life of their beast.”

“Livestock Wastes Fresh Water & Corn That Could Feed Poor?”

This has been the cry of Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals, Animal Protection Institute, HSUS, PETA and others for years.  They imply world hunger would be ended if no animals were raised.

      But only a small percentage of grain is of #1 Grade—fit for human use.  Most corn for example has fungal damage, insect damage and animal or bird defilement.  We still see this in most corn cribs.  Low-grade corn can be fed to animals; some can be made into fuel or other products.  One thing is certain:  Not enough is fit for human consumption to stop world hunger.  In “hungry” places around the world, livestock is the only buffer against off seasons.  Crops are grown until unfavorable weather, and then the animals are butchered as needed until crops start growing again.

Corn weavils damage a large percent of each year's crop: Who'd want to eat it? (Livestock would!)

A similar argument is “It takes a football field of water 6 feet deep to raise just one steer.”  That’s just about an acre, and just about 5 sheep.  Two years of rain, say 36 inches, will make enough grass to raise those livestock in most rich grass regions.  The water falls on that acre whether the animals are there or not, so it’s a bit misleading to imply they are wasting water.  In fact, most grassland isn’t fit for growing other crops—too steep, too rocky, soil too shallow, etc.—but it can grow grass.  People can’t live on grass, but we can eat the sheep that graze it.  So in fact, sheep make it possible for poor nations to grow more food, not less.

      Moral:  Always look for the activist’s unproven assumption and then follow the money.

More “Assumptio Non Probata”

The first step in soliciting donors to an animal sympathist business involves a very subtle false assumption cloaked in outrage.  Shocking scenes of animal abuse reinforce most prospects’ reactions of indignance, but more importantly they shift attention away from asking what sort of sicko would stage such a photo and/or stand around shooting videos of it rather than interfering with the abuse itself?

      Now consider the fact that survival instincts are the top motive for all behavior at all times for all creatures, including professional sympathists.

      The survival of “pro symp” businesses depends on finding or staging ever more animal abuse to “document,” in the inevitable event past victims eventually get exonerated.

      For example, the very first animal abuse case initiated by the professional sympathist business known as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) trashed the long and respected career of a Maryland-based medical scientist.  Years later he was finally cleared of PETA’s staged “documented” accusations.  It cost him dearly to clear his name, but by that time, dozens of new victims had been accused, and many new donors had been roped in.  Interestingly, PETA’s success was based on the unproven assumption that its officers have some kind of incentive to end animal abuse.  They don’t.

      Everyone wants to believe their pure hearts influence them more than money to pay their bills.  PETA itself crows about its employees working for minimum wage; yet due to IRS provisions they don’t have to live like poor orphans.  PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) each have nearly a million members and reportedly have combined annual budgets of around $165 million.  PETA’s recent entry into the pornography business—touted on its own websites—reveals the group now exploits women to get attention; why not stage a little animal abuse too, for the camera and cashbox?