Jump to content

a presentation


CollegeB
 Share

Recommended Posts

I may do a presentation on animals as a minority group...Does anyone know of some acts/law/policy that negatively impact animals? I'd like to incorporate veganism as one solution to the problem so if anyone has other solutions or things to say then i'd be happy if you posted them here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the Humane Slaughter Act (and certainly its American counterpart) exclude certain food animals (like chickens and fish I think, but you would have to check with the USDA to be sure).

 

You know who would really know this? peta. if you email [email protected] and ask which laws and policies exclude animals, I am sure they will fire back a whole bunch of useful info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey college B!!

No problem. by the way that was [email protected] - sorry about the typo there, but evrybody knows i suck at typing and dont always have the patience to proof read!

 

anywa, another interesting thing about the Humane Slaughter Act is that not only does it exclude chickens, and fish, etc. but even the animals that it does supposedly protect, it is still a useless piece of legilstaion because it is RARELY enforced by the USDA. And thus, it really doesnt protect any animals. you can call the USDA tro inquire about how many charges they have laid under that staute, to prove that it is hardly enforced, and like I said, peta will email you all kinds of info for free!

 

peta is a great resource, and no matter what mistakes it makes, this is one of its best attributes!

 

good luck and keep us posted college b!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah so this is my blog on bb.com...anyhow I got this link and its to an article of why this lady hates vegetarians. I wrote her an email countering some of her points, maybe some of you would like to do the same. These uppity femenists really drive me crazy HaHa! http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1505127,00.html

 

Ohh yeah and don't appologize to her for her bad experiences. Nobody here did anything to this lady, and it would be like the muslims appologizing for 9/11 when they didnt do anything. She also never really specifies vegetarian or vegan, so maybe letting her know there is a difference would be good, i really didnt point that out. Or jsut dont bother her, whatever you want to do, it is your time, your life.

-Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what this ignorrant woman says. If you do write to her, please ensure that your letter does not prove her right!

 

Why I hate vegetarians

 

People should not be bullied into giving up meat by humourless, judgmental souls using spurious arguments

 

Julie Bindel

Monday June 13, 2005

The Guardian

 

Eating in a meat-free restaurant the other day made me realise why I hate vegetarians. The food, unlike the tasteless, bland rubbish often served up in such places, was delicious. Unusually for meatless cuisine, it had flavour and texture, and had even been seasoned. What was unpalatable were the customers and waiting staff, all of whom seemed to believe that what they were eating made them superior. They all looked smug and self-satisfied. It brought it home to me that most vegetarians - and I am largely excluding those who eschew meat for religious and cultural reasons - give themselves a bad name. They are better than you, don't you know? The atmosphere in the restaurant was one of pompous aloofness. I left with indigestion.

 

Article continues

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

People often assume I don't eat meat, because I am a feminist and vaguely of the left. I have turned up at dinner parties to find the host has assumed that at least one guest would be vegetarian, and served undercooked baked potatoes. What an atrocity! Why can they not put a chicken in the oven at the same time? Or is the sight of meat so offensive to veggies that they would pass out at the table?

Recent converts can be the worst. I have lost friends to the cult who, once they get fed the mantra from the militants, become something akin to ex-smokers. I am tired of feeling self-conscious in restaurants when ordering meat in front of them. No one should deny that factory-farmed animals are kept in the most appalling conditions, and that eating too much meat is bad for you. But look at their claims. Crusaders promote vegetarianism not only as healthy but as a solution to world hunger and a safeguard of the planet.

 

Do not assume living without animal products is always a positive, healthy choice. A vegan couple in American have recently been charged with child abuse for malnourishing their three small children. They had been brought up on a vegan diet from birth. There have been similar cases where children, who cannot choose what they eat, have had their health severely damaged because of their parents' principles. They are putting the welfare of animals before that of their children. Giving up meat and dairy has been linked to anorexia and other eating disorders in teenage girls. Lack of vitamin B12, found mainly in meats, eggs, dairy and fish, can cause brain damage. Most vegans, and some non-meat-eaters, have to supplement their diet with pills. In the developed world, vegetarianism is a privileged choice. How many working-class vegetarians do you know? It is not an option for most poor people in this country.

 

A veggie colleague once said of a woman with her three young children in a supermarket, "Have you seen those cheap beefburgers and pies she's feeding them? Why does she not go to the market, buy some fresh vegetables and make them all some nice, healthy soup?" Again that assumption that vegetarian and vegan foods are cheaper, which they are not, and that the mother had all the time in the world to prepare food from scratch.

 

Let's get our priorities right. People who put foxes and lambs before people do not have my vote. Animal liberationists blowing up scientists for conducting experiments that might lead to a cure for cancer are odious. There are more refuge spaces for cats than there are for women and their children fleeing domestic violence. While rape crisis centres are closing due to lack of funds, animal charities are raking it in.

 

Although vegetarianism is often seen as a "women's issue", there is a nasty, misogynistic wing that relies on sexist images and messages to convince people that meat is murder. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) are the worst offenders. One of their early adverts features a woman dragging a fur coat behind her. She is captioned as a "dumb animal". Another has a woman having her fur coat ripped off in the street and clubbed to death by a man, to make the point that it is not nice to be killed for your coat. The actor who played Lolita in the 1997 remake became "the youngest star to pose naked for Peta's anti-fur campaign". The message is: treat women, not animals, like meat.

 

Those who think we should not eat meat because all life is sacred are naive. Would they be happy allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or having rats run loose in their home? Not all creatures are equal. There are natural hierarchies in the food chain.

 

People should be allowed to make their own choices and not be bullied or frightened into giving up meat. In the US recently, children in a secondary school were taken by their teachers to a slaughterhouse to show them how animals are killed for food. This tactic is a form of mind control, as unethical as discouraging young girls from having sex by making them watch a difficult childbirth.

 

I may hate vegetarians because they make me feel guilty, or because, meat being so delicious, they must have lots of willpower. But as an animal lover who agrees in principle with most reasons for giving up meat, I would rather not join that band of humourless, judgmental souls. It would seem that you are indeed what you eat.

 

· Julie Bindel is the founder of Justice for Women

 

[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got an email back from my teacher and she said I could do animal rights for this presentation. Just so you all have an idea of what this is about I'll post her reply...

 

Brian,

 

Based on the brief information provided, I started thinking of a comparison format based on anthropocentrism. As you mentioned there are limitations as to the "rights" of animals specifically in the realm of animal cruelty. Likewise, what also comes to mind in a comparison are such concepts that relate to "fear"-- the text notes (i.e. Sinophobes, xenophobia, etc.) and how fear of the unknown is influential in human thinking (such as prejudice) and action (discrimination). Although the topic does not focus on specific human groups, it reveals elements to the development of human (cognitive) ideologies reflected in human behavior. In short, it seems like you have some conceptual framework to develop the topic--so I see this as one you should pursue. Certainly, if you need me to elaborate more, see me after class and we can discuss further.

 

Dr. Breaux-Schropp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey College!

 

That's great that your prof is encouring you to pursue this presentation! Definietly take advantage of her willingness to help you develop the framework further.

 

Thanks so much for choosing to use this as an opportunity to educate people a little more on the exploitative and abusive relationship that humans have with animals. Maybe you will impact some people and get them thinking about issues they never really put their minds to before!!!!

 

Thanks again and good luck. Let us know if you need anthing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I start working on it I'll post what ive got so you all can read it and I hope to do a power point. I am undecided as to whether to put pictures, especially the really nasty kind. I may expose how other minority movements used the vegetarian movement for support and then dumped it when they got power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll see if I can get a hold of it... Our teacher is discouraging reading books because she thinks they could bias the report, but I don't agree with her. In a presentation you present a side as well as facts, so a book to support a side would be great. If I can't rent it though I'm not sure I can get it in time for the presentation which is due august 9th. If there is anything you would like to get in the presentation just post it or email it to me. I'll try to work it in but I have no material yet so it's kind of a first come first served deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I want to pose this problem to everyone, and it is a component of my presentation, but I want what i say for this to be broader than what I can come up with. The presentation needs to contain solutions to the problem. If I talk about how animals are given a minority status, what are some ways we can counter this and hopefully give them a better stance in our society? Consider countering the religious attitudes that keep the outlook on animals as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's strange that your teacher doesn't want you to use any books on the subject, because there are a lot of good ones out there. Steven Wise's book "Rattling the Cage" gives a good critique of the religious and legal history that led to the way animals are treated now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have been more specific. She wants us to use scholarly journals, not just a book that we can pick up at Hastings or Barn's and Nobel's. I fully intend to use regular books but just point out well so and so says this. I think she is concerned people will use what a book says as fact and not really bother to say it was written by anyone. I have never had an assignment where non-scholarly books were not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys I found this through my searching. I would put up a link to what I got this from but it came from a database that only the school internet has access to. ...

 

ubjects: Conservatism, Livestock industry, Animal rights movement, Cruelty to animals, Public policy

Author(s): George F Will

Document types: Commentary

Section: The Last Word

Publication title: Newsweek. New York: Jul 18, 2005. Vol. 146, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs

Source type: Periodical

ISSN/ISBN: 00289604

ProQuest document ID: 867593191

Text Word Count 817

Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=867593191&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=87&RQT=309&VName=PQD

 

Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your duty: read his book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." [MATTHEW SCULLY], a conservative and hence a realist, knows that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature, putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation.

 

Copyright Newsweek, Incorporated Jul 18, 2005

 

MATTHEW SCULLY, A FORMER SPEECHWRITER for President George W. Bush, is the most interesting conservative you have never heard of. He speaks barely above a whisper and must be the mildest disturber of the peace. But he is among the most disturbing.

 

If you value your peace of mind, not to mention your breakfast bacon, you should not read Scully's essay "Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism-for Animals." It appeared in the May 23, 2005, issue of Pat Buchanan's magazine The American Conservative-not where you would expect to find an essay arguing that industrial livestock farming involves vast abuses that constitute a serious moral problem.

 

The disturbing facts about industrial farming by the $125 billion-a-year livestock industry-the pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations-have economic reasons. Ameliorating them would impose production costs that consumers would pay. But to glimpse what consumers would be paying to stop, visit factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm. Or read Scully on the miseries inflicted on billions of creatures "for our convenience and pleasure":

 

"... 400- to 500-pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied straw ... The pigs know the feel only of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement, with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn ..."

 

It is, Scully says, difficult, especially for conservatives, to examine cruelty issues on their merits, or even to acknowledge that something serious can be at stake where animals are concerned. This is partly because some animal-rights advocates are so off-putting. See, for example, the Feb. 3, 2003, letter that Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-animals other than humans-sent to the terrorist Yasir Arafat, complaining that an explosive-laden donkey was killed when used in a Jerusalem massacre.

 

The rhetoric of animal "rights" is ill-conceived. The starting point, says Scully, should be with our obligations-the requirements for living with integrity. In defining them, some facts are pertinent, facts about animals' emotional capacities and their experience of pain and happiness. Such facts refute what conservatives deplore-moral relativism. They do because they demand a certain reaction and evoke it in good people, who are good because they consistently respect the objective value of fellow creatures.

 

It may be true that, as has been said, the Puritans banned bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. And there are indeed degrading pleasures. But to argue for outlawing cruelty to animals because it is bad for the cruel person's soul is to accept, as Scully does not, that man is the only concern.

 

Statutes against cruelty to animals, often imposing felony-level penalties, codify society's belief that such cruelty is an intrinsic evil. This is a social affirmation of a strong moral sense in individuals who are not vicious. It is the sense that even though the law can regard an individual's animal as the individual's property, there nevertheless are certain things the individual cannot do to that property. Which means it is property with a difference.

 

The difference is the capacity for enjoyment and suffering. So why, Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference? There cannot be any intrinsic difference of worth between a puppy and a pig.

 

Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life."

 

Says who? Well, Scully replies, those who understand "Judeo-Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, or the proud learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong protecting the weak."

 

Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your duty: read his book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." Scully, a conservative and hence a realist, knows that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature, putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation. And as Scully says, "If reason and morality are what set humans apart from animals, then reason and morality must always guide us in how we treat them."

 

You were warned not to read this. Have a nice day.

[sidebar]

Why, Matthew Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subjects: Web sites, State laws, Hunting

Classification Codes 9190 United States, 5250 Telecommunications systems & Internet communications, 8307 Arts, entertainment & recreation, 4320 Legislation

Locations: United States, US

Author(s): Annie Gentile

Document types: News

Section: ISSUES & TRENDS

Publication title: The American City & County. Pittsfield: Jun 2005. Vol. 120, Iss. 6; pg. 16, 2 pgs

Source type: Periodical

ISSN/ISBN: 0149337X

ProQuest document ID: 854693001

Text Word Count 557

Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=854693001&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientId=87&RQT=309&VName=PQD

 

Using a computer-assisted hunting model invented by Texas entrepreneur John Lockwood, for as little as $150, people can point, click and bag a trophy black buck antelope at his remote 300-acre Texas hill country ranch from the privacy of their own homes. The online recreation has sparked legislation in several states and outrage from animal rights and hunting groups. Employing a Remington semi-automatic rifle affixed to a camera and a high-speed Web connection, Lockwood touts his Web site - Liveshot.com - as a practical hunting alternative for nontraditional hunters such as the severely disabled. Internet hunting opens up a very bad precedent, says Bruhn, who also questions how states could feasibly regulate the owners of such ranches from making the hunting experience as tough or as easy as they choose.

 

Copyright PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. Jun 2005

[Headnote]

Lawmakers, activists outraged at cyber shooting.

 

Using a computer-assisted hunting model invented by Texas entrepreneur John Lockwood, for as little as $150, people can point, click and bag a trophy black buck antelope at his remote 300-acre Texas hill country ranch from the privacy of their own homes. The online recreation has sparked legislation in several states and outrage from animal rights and hunting groups.

 

Employing a Remington semi-automatic rifle affixed to a camera and a high-speed Web connection, Lockwood touts his Web site - Liveshot.com - as a practical hunting alternative for nontraditional hunters such as the severely disabled. "This was never intended for the fat, lazy guy from New York City who just wants to log in and kill something," Lockwood says. With few exceptions, he says it would be hard to imagine any able-bodied hunters paying for his service.

Photograph

Enlarge 200%

Enlarge 400%

[Photograph]

State and federal legislators are working to ban hunting over the Internet, which allows a hunter to shoot game that may be thousands of miles away.

 

Dale Hagberg agrees. Paralyzed from the chin down, Hagberg made history when he became Lockwood's first live hunt customer.

 

While his three 3-hour hunting sessions did not net a kill, Hagberg says just watching his monitor, and seeing the leaves rustling on the trees and the animals excited him.

 

But the difference between being behind the trees or behind a computer screen thousands of miles away is what has angered many state legislators. "[Remote hunting] is unethical and violates fair chase principles," says Mike Bruhn, Chief of Staff to Wisconsin Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford. Gunderson has proposed legislation that requires individuals to be in physical possession of a firearm when shooting at captive wildlife and outlaws operating Internet hunting facilities within the state.

 

Internet hunting opens up a very bad precedent, says Bruhn, who also questions how states could feasibly regulate the owners of such ranches from making the hunting experience as tough or as easy as they choose. "[Lockwood's business promotion as a service for disabled hunters] is just a last-ditch effort to justify his business model," Bruhn says.

 

Maine Rep. Rod Carr, R-Lincoln, limited his antiInternet hunting bill to the prohibition of such ranches within the state's borders. His bill, however, does not prohibit Maine residents from logging onto the Internet to hunt animals in other states.

 

"This is the kind of technology I associate with warfare," says California Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach. In late April, California passed a three-part bill, which bans Internet hunting sites from operating within the state's borders and outlaws importing animals into the state for such purposes. Bowen concedes that a third provision - to prohibit anyone from hunting over the Internet from within the state - may be the most difficult part of the bill to enforce.

 

In all, 15 states have introduced Internet hunting legislation, and U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., recently introduced a federal bill. The legislators are backed by The Humane Society, the National Rifle Association and groups that cater to disabled hunters, all of whom have spoken out in opposition to Lockwood's model. "[We are] opposed to all forms of Internet or remote-controlled hunting, because it is simply not hunting," says Ken Schwartz, state governmental affairs and communications manager for Texas-based Safari Club International.

[Author Affiliation]

Annie Gentile is a Vernon, Conn.-based freelance writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...