Clear sky
Clear sky
35.6 °F
December 26, 2014
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search

Institutionally condoned insanity

February 23, 2012

Re: “The humane slaughterhouse,” February 9: Is humane slaughter the highest benchmark to which humans should aspire in our definition of what it means to behave humanely? Barring dire circumstances of survival, slaughter is murder, plain and simple. Let’s not pretend that it can ever be made right.

Regarding Temple Grandin, she has Asperger’s Syndrome—an autistic condition of which one characteristic is limited or no empathy. Any attempt to present her as an animal empath is a combination of her own delusion, her PR people to sell her books, and the animal slavery industry’s strategy to protect and increase their profits by hoodwinking the public with the notion of guiltless happy meat. To give her accolades is to keep the bar as low as it always has been, except with a more insane twist.

Know that her “expertise” is chillingly reminiscent of Nazi extermination practices. She calls the ramp she designed to funnel cattle to their deaths the “Stairway to Heaven.” Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the SS at Treblinka and Sobibor similarly called the tube to the gas chambers the “Road to Heaven?” Think again.

If full transparency were possible about the lives and deaths of all animals at the hand of humans, and people would take off their blinders and allow their eyes, hearts and minds to bear witness to how low we actually sink—whether we are the executioner, or pay the executioner with our purchasing power—maybe, just maybe, our world would have a chance for the love and peace to which we give lip service.

Time is running out on the environment and our collective health and soul. We must aspire to a higher standard of what it means to be human. And that standard is a vegan consciousness.

Paula Frank
Queens, NY

No offense, but......

The irony here is that without the high protein diet that can only be afforded by meat, mankind would never have been able to evolve the brain necessary for abstract thoughts such as the idea that eating meat is wrong.

That is not conclusively true

As time goes on anthropologists discover new evidence that throws previously accepted precepts into serious question. There is a book called "Man The Hunted" which pretty much puts to rest the widely held and accepted notion of "man the hunter". And even if it were true that meat-eating had something to do with the development of the proto-human brain, so what of the irony? What is your point? Are you saying that we should continue to do things because that's the way they were done at one time? Here are just a few very sensible thoughts on the matter, which I hope anyone here will take the time to read and consider:

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6537-Was-meat-eating-ess...

By writing "the way things

By writing "the way things were done at one time" you mean the past several hundred thousand years? People were meant to eat meat. There is no point in feeling bad about it. Not eating meat is your choice as is your religion and your music preference and your favorite color. Irony abounds in the vegan argument especially those who hail from a metropolitan area which is essentially an oblivion of animal habitat and interaction. I don't wish to have a back and forth about the ethics of meat consumption as it is impossible to alter each other's mindset. I only wish to remind you that people have always eaten meat and always will. It is not insanity. It is not unethical. It is just how we evolved. So we may as well do it as efficiently and humanely as possible.

Choice?

I'd like to point out that although you may "choose" your religion, your music, your favorite color, etc., your choice ends when that choice involves a victim who has no choice. Your choice takes the choice away from those who would choose otherwise. A rapist "chooses" to rape, a man beats his wife because it makes him feel superior - it's his choice, right? Of course not. Anyone knows that those victims would choose to not be subjected to the "choices" of their attackers. Anyone who has ever witnessed animals at slaughter know that they fight with every last breath to live. They don't willingly give their lives for us. They choose to live. Your "choice" is not a choice - it's a masked preference for the taste of animal flesh. And you will go to any lengths to justify your choice - you've made that very obvious from your previous posts.