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

31–40 of 54 posts

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

#31

Post by distances »

edejong wrote: post #15
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…

Yet here in the Netherlands I see many coworkers and friends moving partly or totally away from meat due to moral concerns. Others choose to pay higher prices for livestock raised in better conditions.

Same in Finland. Lots of people who have no intention of going full vegetarian have nonetheless added meat-free dishes and locally, ethically produced meat for their diets.

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

#32

Post by argentenergy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4
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…

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…

I know it might be hard for you to understand, but some people gasp are able to abstain from eating meat even though they enjoy it. Maybe it's not just due to the moral argument, but a lot of times it is a large player. For myself, I have gone plant based for my health first and foremost, which is a common thread I find among fellow vegans. It is certainly still important to make morality important. I think your assumption that people can't overcome their desires for a greater good leaves a cavernous amount of room for people to surprise you. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, either.

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

#33

Post by hacking_again »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #30
distances wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

According to the suffering and environmental damage line of reasoning, the reason meat is strictly worse is because if you grew plants instead of animals you'd have 8x as many calories to eat. I might be off, it may be some other factor, but I do know it's much larger than 2x.

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

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross »

distances wrote: post #25
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don’t think that at all. Handing dying piglets to an agent of the law and documenting their returning to the farm without penalty is exactly how you get laws passed. Stealing them and then trying to make the police look complicit is an unnecessary distraction if your aim is effecting behavioral changes.

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

#35

Post by distances »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #30
distances wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Sorry for being impatient and calling your argument nonsense; the main problem I see with that is the fact that these issues are orthogonal. You won't be trading meat to palm oil chocolate and unethical bananas. Portraying these two as issues that should be weighed against each other is not representative of the actual outcomes, and thus feels to me like unnecessary spreading of uncertainty.

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

#36

Post by distances »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
distances wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don’t think that at all. Handing dying piglets to an agent of the law and documenting their returning to the farm without penalty is exactly how you get laws passed. Stealing them and then trying to make the police look complicit is an unnecessary distraction if your aim is effecting behavioral changes.

I see no reason why that would have resulted in any less of a witch hunt than the current outcome. This was a very mild and non-obtrusive instance of activism, and I whole-heartedly believe this was the correct course of action in this case.

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.

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

#37

Post by naasking »

ogre_magi wrote: post #5
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 have no trouble morally justifying it.

Well, maybe no trouble justifying it, but I'd hazard it's likely not a morally sound argument.

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

#38

Post by distances »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #27
tobltobs wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Do you think the response was actually because of the two missing piglets, and not a politically motivated move in support for the farming practices?

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

#39

Post by firethief »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #30
distances wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Why are you comparing average meat to the most unethical plant foods? Only an insane troll would stop eating meat to replace the calories with the worst possible plants, and obviously average plants are much less bad than average meat.

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

#40

Post by JumpCrisscross »

distances wrote: post #36
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that at all. Handing dying piglets to an agent of the law and documenting their returning to the farm without penalty is exactly how you get laws passed. Stealing them and then trying to make the police look complicit is an unnecessary distraction if your aim is effecting behavioral changes.

I see no reason why that would have resulted in any less of a witch hunt than the current outcome. This was a very mild and non-obtrusive instance of activism, and I whole-heartedly believe this was the correct course of action in this case. 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 anima…

When pushing for rule changes, you’re pitching to the margin. Worrying about to whom you’re giving a “blessing” while breaking simple laws only your base finds controversial ensures you’ll see no legislative traction. Best case: you squared your problem’s difficulty by twinning your policy exposure and thus political cross-section.

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.

Post reply on HN