Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#21

Post by distances »

oh_sigh wrote: post #16
distances wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a logical line of thought. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

That is not at all what my line of thought was. My point was that you can't just cut meat out of your diet and think that you are behaving more moral than before. If you increase, say, your chocolate, or palm oil, tea, etc consumption, then you may be increasing human suffering compared to when you were an omnivore.

I don't see this making any sense at all. Why would eating less meat result in more palm oil consumption? For me this sounds like a complete nonsense justification for not reducing the amount of meat in one's diet.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#22

Post by tobltobs »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Activists were filming, under cover, a farm being heinous to pigs, saw two piglets in a dire state, and absconded with them. The FBI got involved to get the pigs back. 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 w…

> reasonable law enforcement response

All this theater for two piglets is reasonable?

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#23

Post by tdb7893 »

kiba wrote: post #6
cup wrote: post #3

I think its hard to morally justify consuming animal products in this day and age, under a capitalist system where animal welfare is not recognised. 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 possib…

I don't morally justify it, no matter how barbaric it is. For me, meat just taste too good.

I love hot dogs, tacos, and pepperoni pizza too much to be vegetarian but what I did was just cut down my meat intake. I eat meat for no more than 3 meals a week

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#24

Post by megous »

kiba wrote: post #6
cup wrote: post #3

I think its hard to morally justify consuming animal products in this day and age, under a capitalist system where animal welfare is not recognised. 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 possib…

I don't morally justify it, no matter how barbaric it is. For me, meat just taste too good.

Animals certainly don't care about your inner mental processes. They can only experience consequences of your actions. So your first sentence seems quite meaningless.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#25

Post by distances »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
distances wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is such animal mistreatment in a farm not a crime in the states in question? I find it absurd and sad that the "crime" of documentation and rescue even enters the discussion, when the FBI resources should clearly be used to investigate the far, far greater misdeed taking place at the farm itself.

> Is such animal mistreatment in a farm not a crime in the states in question? 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 "c…

> If they had to act, they should have immediately given the piglets to the (a) farm’s management or (b) police.

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.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#26

Post by nxc18 »

molloy wrote: post #20
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral pitch for abstinence from meat in general, or meat one hasn’t killed themselves, is one of the most unsuccessful animal rights campaigns in history. People like meat. Those same people are moving into cities. The population is not going to hunt. 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 a…

Moral arguments for veganism aren't made because they're more emotionally satisfying than arguments for animal welfarism, that comes across as pretty condescending to suggest. A lot of vegans don't support welfarist approaches. More effective in what metric/s? Do you have sources to back that claim?

The entire argument he was responding to defined the problem as a moral one.

I think the staggering amount of meat products consumed daily speaks for itself - animal rights isn’t exactly a new concept.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#27

Post by jjtheblunt »

tobltobs wrote: post #22
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Activists were filming, under cover, a farm being heinous to pigs, saw two piglets in a dire state, and absconded with them. The FBI got involved to get the pigs back. 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 w…

> reasonable law enforcement response All this theater for two piglets is reasonable?

Yes, technically: crime is about the action, not the victims.

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#28

Post by badminton1 »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

For reference you might consider watching the excellent documentaries "Our Daily Bread," and "Food, inc"

"Our daily bread" is particularly interesting. They try to show an unbiased perspective, by no adding a narrator, or music. Just showing the process step by step.

The scene with the chicken vacuum in the warehouse explains what "cage free" chicken really means. I think it's rather misleading...

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#29

Post by mschuster91 »

trhway wrote: post #12

> The FBI agents ordered staff and volunteers to stay away from the animals and then approached the piglets. To obtain the DNA samples, the state veterinarians accompanying the FBI used a snare to pressurize the piglet’s snout, thus immobilizing her in pain and fear, and then cut off close to two inches of the piglet’s ear. >The piglet’s pain was so severe, and her screams so piercing, that the sanctuary’s staff memb…

> 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".

Re: FBI Hunt for 2 Missing Pigs Reveals Federal Cover-Up of Barbaric Factory Farms

#30

Post by squeaky-clean »

distances wrote: post #21
oh_sigh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not at all what my line of thought was. My point was that you can't just cut meat out of your diet and think that you are behaving more moral than before. If you increase, say, your chocolate, or palm oil, tea, etc consumption, then you may be increasing human suffering compared to when you were an omnivore.

I don't see this making any sense at all. Why would eating less meat result in more palm oil consumption? For me this sounds like a complete nonsense justification for not reducing the amount of meat in one's diet.

Because you still need some kind of food to replace that meat with?

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.

Post reply on HN