The Flesh of the Organic, Free-Range Fallacy
A lot of people ask, so you're against free-range, organic meat? And when I say yes, they stare at me in disbelief. Apparently it's just too much that I could possibly reject "humane" meat. Apparently it's just too much that I'm such an "extremist". Apparently it's just too much that I would "turn on the animals" for the sake of ideals.
But let's take a reality-check here. Who, exactly, is turning on the animals by saying that if certain conditions are fulfilled, it's okay to take everything someone has away?
"Humane" meat isn't so humane when you look at it that way. Humans seem to think that, as long as you're nice while exploiting someone, it's suddenly okay.
Uhm, hello. It's still exploitation.
If we suddenly eliminated the abusiveness of the sweatshops and took care of the humans working there, while the companies took their work and sold it for 50000% profit, it would still be exploitation. Tell me, could you say that sweatshops were okay if they weren't abusive, and if they were taken care of? Even though they still took someone's work and paid them unfairly, not giving them any recognition at all?
Or, here, a more accurate example: slavery.
If we eliminated the abusiveness of slavery and had the masters take care of them, would it be okay? Or would slavery still be wrong, because of the rape of individuality, of choice and freedom?
If we eliminated the abusiveness of murder, if no one cared about that someone, would it be okay? If they were killed 'humanely' instead of torturing them first?
No. You still:
1. Deny that person's individuality and uniqueness.
2. Deny them freedom and choice in their life, whatever choices they may make.
3. Deny them the freedom to live out their lives as they will.
And, in the last, 4. Deny them everything they've ever known for your wants.
It's exactly the same way with "free-range" flesh. Even though you're treating them nicely, you're still denying all those animals the glory of themselves. Even though you're treating them nicely, better than factory farms do, you still have one problem: the animals are losing their lives. They're losing everything.
As someone I met once said (paraphrased), "Buying someone dinner before raping and killing them, instead of just knocking them over the head and dragging them off to the woods, is not a step in the right direction."
And it isn't. In case you missed it, my point is:
It is still exploitation.
It is still slavery.
It is still profiting off the woes of someone else.
It is still the loss of everything for that person.
Furthermore, it is still all of that for your wants. You are the one buying it. You are the one creating the demand for inherent cruelty. I don't give a damn if you breed your own cows and kill them for your food (as some idiots have defended themselves by), they are their own person. And the loss of a person, of a personality, is what made murder murder.
And might I add, even "organic, free-range" dairy farms have to steal the cows' babies to get their babies' food.
When you go free-range, you're not being "humane" and you're not being "kind". You're making exploitation, slavery, and murder look prettier.
So don't. Go vegan.
But let's take a reality-check here. Who, exactly, is turning on the animals by saying that if certain conditions are fulfilled, it's okay to take everything someone has away?
"Humane" meat isn't so humane when you look at it that way. Humans seem to think that, as long as you're nice while exploiting someone, it's suddenly okay.
Uhm, hello. It's still exploitation.
If we suddenly eliminated the abusiveness of the sweatshops and took care of the humans working there, while the companies took their work and sold it for 50000% profit, it would still be exploitation. Tell me, could you say that sweatshops were okay if they weren't abusive, and if they were taken care of? Even though they still took someone's work and paid them unfairly, not giving them any recognition at all?
Or, here, a more accurate example: slavery.
If we eliminated the abusiveness of slavery and had the masters take care of them, would it be okay? Or would slavery still be wrong, because of the rape of individuality, of choice and freedom?
If we eliminated the abusiveness of murder, if no one cared about that someone, would it be okay? If they were killed 'humanely' instead of torturing them first?
No. You still:
1. Deny that person's individuality and uniqueness.
2. Deny them freedom and choice in their life, whatever choices they may make.
3. Deny them the freedom to live out their lives as they will.
And, in the last, 4. Deny them everything they've ever known for your wants.
It's exactly the same way with "free-range" flesh. Even though you're treating them nicely, you're still denying all those animals the glory of themselves. Even though you're treating them nicely, better than factory farms do, you still have one problem: the animals are losing their lives. They're losing everything.
As someone I met once said (paraphrased), "Buying someone dinner before raping and killing them, instead of just knocking them over the head and dragging them off to the woods, is not a step in the right direction."
And it isn't. In case you missed it, my point is:
It is still exploitation.
It is still slavery.
It is still profiting off the woes of someone else.
It is still the loss of everything for that person.
Furthermore, it is still all of that for your wants. You are the one buying it. You are the one creating the demand for inherent cruelty. I don't give a damn if you breed your own cows and kill them for your food (as some idiots have defended themselves by), they are their own person. And the loss of a person, of a personality, is what made murder murder.
And might I add, even "organic, free-range" dairy farms have to steal the cows' babies to get their babies' food.
When you go free-range, you're not being "humane" and you're not being "kind". You're making exploitation, slavery, and murder look prettier.
So don't. Go vegan.
posted by Avian Mooch, or a Really Angry Cow at
5:37 PM
|
0 comments
