37 votes

Victory Update: Hey, I Know You're Busy, But Some Pigs Really Need Your Help Right Now. Seriously

Tell Tyson to Stop Torturing Pigs
Please, help me put a stop to this. Take a moment to sign my petition
Thank you.
"Pete"
Undercover Investigator

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-tyson-to-stop-torturing...

http://youtu.be/T48yOYjz5sk
Submitted by HatedoftheWorld on Tue, 11/26/2013 - 02:31. Permalink

"Tyson Foods has terminated its contract with an Oklahoma pig farm after video was released of workers abusing the animals."
"A spokesperson for Tyson said: "We're extremely disappointed by the mistreatment shown in the video and will not tolerate this kind of animal mishandling. ... [We] will take possession of the animals remaining on the farm.""
"The owner of West Coast Farms told the outlet he's already fired the workers seen in the video."

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/tyson-foods-ends-contr...
___________________________________________________
These are not men. They are creatures. They deserve to have their lives snuffed out with the same indifference and in the same violent fashion they inflicted on those animals. I sincerely hope they do.

I would hope that libertarians and conservatives would seek to rectify these issues on a state and local level. A nation-wide boycott, if necessary could make a huge impact.

But to request the federal government to step into another extra-constitutional aspect of life should probably be avoided at all costs.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here goes...

My definition would be: rights inherent to all living things. We can look at them within the framwork of politics or nature. A natural right, as per our consitution, is a right that can not be taken away by government, one that we inherently have by virtue of god or nature... but in reality they are really the philisophical musings of men attempting to create a just society. Natural rights, in a historic context, are rights governed by natural law.

If you would like me to enumerate them... that is a different story and would probably require a new thread and lots of back and forth conversation... Which would be a great thread, especially if we were dicussing rights for other species.

Please understand that I admit I don't have all of the answers but the best way to learn is through discussions like these. It used to be one of my favorite things about this website. Now everybody just gets mad and tries to win the argument.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

"Please understand that I

"Please understand that I admit I don't have all of the answers but the best way to learn is through discussions like these."

I am really happy you write this, because I assumed I knew what rights were until a few years ago until I figured out I really didn't and most people didn't.

As to your definition.

"My definition would be: rights inherent to all living things." That doesn't define it.

"A natural right, as per our constitution, is a right that can not be taken away by government" Also doesn't define it.

"One that we inherently have by virtue of god or nature..." Now that is getting closer.

"Natural rights, in a historic context, are rights governed by natural law." That is a circular answer. Same as saying bananas is defined as bananas that grow in nature.

I do agree that all species have "rights" and I am really happy you mentioned that.

Actually you probably won't find a definition anywhere (I haven't), but there is only one answer I came up with and has yet to be challenged.

Rights = necessities in life. For example, you have a right (necessity) to eat; to pursue the gather of food; to keep what you gather; to have shelter, or pursue the creation of a shelter; to defend against anything that will harm you; to speak or communicate or pursue such right; to travel or pursue the right to travel.

All these things are necessary for you to live. They are what you need to live and continue to live. They are not guaranteed. However, Government is instituted to protect those rights/necessities.

Hope that makes sense. And by any means if you have a another definition let me know.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

"We are nothing more than hairless monkeys"

So, what makes what Stalin or Hitler did, wrong?

Your belief system goes downhill fast.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Umm...

An explanation is not a justification.

Think more. Type less.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Umm. So you don't have an answer?

.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Again... think more type less.

I answered you but since you didn't take my advice the first time I'll lay it out for you as you're obviously not going to think for yourself.

Since you didn't make any real arguments in your reply, I'm assuming that your implication is that since I believe humans are nothing more than "hairless monkeys" that they don't have rights and Hitler and Stalin did nothing wrong.

Your first mistake is your implication. I stated in my first reply that I believe animals do have rights. If that is the case, why would you frame an argument around the assumption that humans don't have any rights other than what rights YOU believe animals have?

Stalin and hitler abused and killed people. That is wrong. The people in these videos maliciously abused and killed those animals. That is wrong.

What I meant by, "Explanation is not a justification," is that just because we can explain the bad behavior of humans by stating, "we are nothing more than hairless monkeys," doesn't mean any of it is justified.

If I missed the point behind your question please let me know, I'd be happy to elaborate. However, let's not attack each others belief systems.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

No, No, No. My point was that if Hitler and Stalin are nothing

more than hairless monkeys, then they did nothing wrong. Is a lion morally accountable for ripping the hide off of a zebra while he is still alive? Of course not; he's following his instinct. Humans are morally accountable because we are MORE than animals.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

I think we are hairless

I think we are hairless monkeys too. However as one of those hairless monkeys, I put my own species above others. That doesn't mean I condone people who torture other living things for fun. While I wouldn't say animals have rights, I also don't think rights come from gods. I think they are the logical manifestation birthed in the fact that people form bonds of love with one another and wish to see their loved ones live in peaceful societies with a chance to prosper. No matter how much you claim to love and honor the sacrifice of the living thing you just killed and devoured, you still killed it, and devoured it. You still deprived it of its right ot life. So lets not pretend we believe animals have a right to life.

Im a hunter too, and I strive to give the animal I kill the quickest, most pain-free death I can. I would never torture it, but thats not because I feel it has rights, its because I am not without compassion.

However the problem of animals being tortured on these mega-farms is a problem solved by the free market. Tyson dropped these jerks like a hot potato the second this video hit the internet.

People in general don't like to see cruelty, even to their food.

Those were not my words 1controversialchick

I cut and pasted the announcement of Tyson stepping in.
Submitted by HatedoftheWorld on Tue, 11/26/2013 - 02:31. Permalink

Incidentally 1controversialchick , I don't think the ranch hands should be snuffed out. I think the pussies should have their a-s-s-e-s kicked from one end of the farm to the other. They're not men. They're scum.

I live in Arkansas

They are big crony corporate dogs in this their home state.

I don't eat anything Tyson produces because it's all raised on corporate farms likely fed gmo corn, laced with antibiotics and chock full of hormones.

Tyson reacted, not out of compassion or a sense of shared guilt (there are ways for them to know this stuff in advance), but the company didn't want it's image wallowed around(pun intended) in the mud.

.

Barracuda_Trader, could you do me a favor and remove the first portion of my comment? It was poorly worded and made in a moment of outrage. I'm afraid it could be continued to be misunderstood. I would be greatly appreciative.

HatedoftheWorld

I can't change a reply once it has been replied to.
I'm not a mod god.
But I like it when you're angry.
God gets angry too.

.

Oh, I know. I was referring to where you pasted it into the actual post.

Thanks for helping clear it up for me.

.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

.

Hey 1controversialchick, I'm the one that wrote that.

Of course, a deer hunter doesn't deserve a bullet. Nor does an employee at a slaughter house deserve a knife.

I do not believe animals should have the same protections under the law as people. I believe they must be property as they are not sentient beings.

I would support state/local legislation punishing the unmitigated cruelty exhibited in this video and in other investigative endeavors that have been exposed in the past. Though I deem that inconsistent with libertarian jurisprudence.. it seems perfectly consistent with the constitution.

I would hope that the story being leaked could coincide with a nation wide boycott until the situation is rectified but that is another topic.

I'm not against the industrialization of the meat industry. Modern practices are from what I've seen far more humane (because of journalism such as this.)

For example, before most cattle are drained from the neck, they are stunned beforehand. Allowing them to forego the cruelty of having to endure having their throats slit consciously.

More on that here.

The exception being Ḥalāl and Kosher methods, which I find archaic and on the edge of unnecessary cruelty, but it is what it is.

Nor am I against the hunter taking a life.

In my opinion, it shows the animal respect. It shows life respect when it is ended without malice or the intent to inflict pain. The deer hunter which you referenced, frequently reveres the animal and is thankful for it.

But when you do the kinds of things shown in this video, you cross a clear boundary.

These men seemed gleeful seeing creatures in pain. That's the difference. And while I don't know all the answers, cruelty to any animal or human that cannot defend itself is on par with rape and should be viewed with the same disgust.

The point was illustrate my disgust with human beings engaging in such actions. It was not an indictment of people that eat meat or the people that bring it to the table.

I hope that explains the severity of my comment.

I have to disagree..

I guess it's disagreeing anyway.. maybe it's just clarifying? a hunter who went out and wounded a deer or even a fawn and then picked it up and slammed it down a couple of times, kicking it around the forest a while before finishing it off would be considered somewhat strange, don't you think?

cruelty is never ok.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Yes, but Barracuda said these mens' lives should be snuffed out.

Therefore, he is suggesting violence to force his will--not a libertarian position.

When my brother was a teenager, he worked at a chicken farm. His job was to cull the useless chickens. He was taught to knock their heads on his boot to kill them. I hated it then, and I hate it now. (He hated it too, by the way, and only worked there until he could get a better job.) However, what means would you suggest of culling useless animals? Should they carry a glock around and shoot every chicken? That would be ridiculous.

The logic is faulty--an animal's life is not of the same worth as a human's-- period.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

.

Yeah, that comment was just begging to be mistaken.

No, I was not saying anyone should engage in violent retribution against the hands. I'm fully aware of the NAP and wouldn't even support a federal law on the subject as that is also violence. Much more dangerous violence, in fact.

I was not conflating the value of a human life to that of an animal.

I totally understand where you're coming from and agree.

What I was intending to say by 'they deserve' is that I wish this world were just and men who dispensed cruelty were met with the same. Doesn't matter if it's Charles Ng, Joseph Stalin or someone choking a dog for kicks.

That's not the case though the world is complicated and so the best way to deal with such cases would be with state/local law, boycotts, buycotts, etc.. Obviously, violence would be no solution.

As for the chickens, my grandmother would cut their heads off in one fell swoop. I see nothing wrong with that other than it is an unfortunate reality. The spinal cord is severed immediately. Negligible pain is inflicted. No joy is taken in the act. I see this as being different than what was exhibited above.

Apologies for the confusion.

thank you very much for your response.

.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

=nodding=

I've lived in the country all my life and have seen first hand how people CAN treat creatures without intentional cruelty or malice that would still look horrific and shocking to a non-farm person. What your brother had to do could very well have been the most merciful end for those chickens..

What I wonder about is this.. would those who behave in the way pictured in this video, so callous and cruel towards a helpless creature that suffers and feels fear and pain.. do they become inured to the suffering of all creatures, human included.

Is that a video they could take home and show their work to their family with pride or would they be ashamed?? Would their loved ones look back at them with love or disgust?

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Thankyou.

Humans shouldn't take pleasure in causing anything pain. Only a cold-hearted person would. But, cruelty is 'in the eye of the beholder' when it comes to animals. Slippery slope.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

My opinion...

"The logic is faulty--an animal's life is not of the same worth as a human's-- period."

According to what empirical and verifiable source? Ending your opinion with the word "period" doesn't magically turn it into a fact.

It's also not very libertarian of you to lump all animals and all humans into two all encompassing groups... is it?

Who would you rather have back, Lassie or Hitler? ...a random serial rapist or your first family pet? A dog never flipped me off in traffic... but I guess neither did Hitler.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Here's an interesting article

Here's an interesting article that I have taken away a good insight from. It is by Temple Grandin and the basic premise is that while animals are property, they are not "things" since they can experience pain. Because they can experience pain we have a moral responsibility toward them in the carrying out of our activities of ownership.

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html

I agree we have a moral responsibility to our animals.

The Bible even talks about being good to your animals.

Pro 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

However, animals' lives are not equal to that of human beings, and I can guarantee you that the people running this petition are tyrants in "sheep's" clothing. They want to use violence towards people to force us to treat animals the way they want us to treat them.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

This video shows a mix of

This video shows a mix of valid concerns and ignorance regarding hogs and hog farming.

OK, enlighten us Doc

I have been around farms for years and I lease out my farm land, but I have never worked on one. Just familiar with dairy farms and horse ranches, but I have never seen anything like this going on. This can't be common practice on hog farms, can it?

Yes it is

The pig slamming is done for those that are usually dying. Sometimes the whole farm can be slaughtered and burned. The plywood is usually for self defense. There are zappers for moving a pig to get their attention to move. Stomping them to move is excessive. This is gruesome for me though. Even though they are not human, all of God's creation is to be treated respectfully.

Who the hell eats anything from

Tyson? This is one of many reasons to dump mega-agri-corp-"food". Just dont support it. It may be more work, but usually you can find locally sourced meats. Go to a farmer's market in your area.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

ecorob's picture

I vote this...

as the best comment on this thread!

Tyson? HELL NO.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Haven't Watched The Video

But I'm reminded that Tyson's slogan is "Tyson's feeding you like family".