Lets Kill them with compassion

by Ciara Roche Wed Aug 22, 2007 22:06 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

Well done for bringing this up Bernie. Overall I think anyone with compassion and concern for animals would see the irony of caling a slaughterhouse humane. There are different degrees of cruelty and possibly this particular slaughterhouse is a little less cruel than the average one, but without knowing too much about the American Humane Association hard to say where on the scale of cruelty it is. I can never understand why they don't leave the calves with their mothers for a bit longer, probably to extract as much milk as possible.

Your comparison between slaughterhouses and concentration camps is very apt although it is bound to attract ridicule from some people - certainly your comparison is more realistic than those trying to call a slaughterhouse humane.

Slightly off topic I know, but it is my belief that had Dr Mengele not been able to medically experiment on unfortunate Jews and Roma (most of them children) he would have experimented upon animals. In fact he probably practiced on animals before the Third Reich allowed him access to human beings.

Again well said.

by Anthony Fri Aug 24, 2007 01:06

I've been a vegetarian for most of my adult life out of compassion for the plight of animals in modern industrial farming. However that's a personal ethical choice that I am lucky enough to be able to make for myself and I wouldn't compare inhumane treatment of animals with that of humans.

I think Bernie's analogy is stretched and trivialises the extermination and great suffering borne by millions of Jews, Slavs, gypsys, socialists, homosexuals and disabled people. I think it's wrong to compare the efficient and systematic mass slaughter of human beings (the so-called "Untermenschen") to that of animals being killed for food regardless of how inhumane the animals are killed.

For what it's worth, camp orchestras were formed by commanders for a variety of reasons and I seriously doubt that any Nazi apologist (if you could find one willing to speak) would argue that playing music was an act of compassion. The reason for playing music while inmates marched to the gas chambers was to lull the prisoners into keeping in line and to make the guards' job easier.

I'd also be interested in seeing evidence for the claim that "Concentration camp employees were ex-slaughterhouse workers." It wouldn't surprise me that some employees used to work in slaughterhouses as I understood that camp employees came from a variety of working backgrounds with many of them from factory and other so-called unskilled backgrounds. However it would indeed be very interesting if there was evidence that a higher proportion than average of camp employees previously worked in the meat industry.

by Aron Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:40

Thanks Anthony for expressing points that I tried to raise here and were mysteriously removed from the boards.
Also has anyone noticed the same tactics used by the "animal Nazis " and the real Nazis????
1] Real Nazis found a scapegoat for all the ills of the World,ie the jews,Slavs,homosexuals etc.
ThE Animal Nazis find a scapegoat in meat eaters,hunters,fur wearers,and slaughterhouses or farmers.
2]The real Nazis portrayed their enemies in propaganda films as sub human ape like ,diseased,evil,retarded creatures.And the Nazi heros were upright,morally right,justified in using violence ,super heros.3rd Reich films are full of such examples.Hitler junge Quex, Jud suss,to name a couple
The Animal Nazis,while fortuneatly not having enough money to produce epic films,still refer to the people they despise as,blood morons,gun fetishists etc,and accuse them of all sorts of horrendous crimes.
3] The real nazis had a propaganda trick ,the big lie.Tell a load of little lies and when you need to tell a whopper the people will swallow it whole. Ditto the animal nazis,constantly on telling little lies here,in the papers,on the boards.
4] The real nazis had a paramilitary force to protect their meetings and later to break windows, peoples heads and burn books.Called the SA.[Sturm Abteilung].They resemble the tactics of the Animal Nazis,in threatning and intimidating fur shops,meat factories,etc,and are not opposed to
violent means like their SA comrades.
5] Both enjoy the tactic of ruthless suppression of free speech anddissenting views.
6] Bot5h Hitler and most of their leaders were vegans and passionate animal lovers,but totally immune to human suffering.It is a classic sign of a psychopathic personality.

Whats next???Death camps for non vegans?? The title of animal nazis is well deserved.

by gurgle ribid squeek growl - no words. Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:56

Bernie that is deeply offensive. I use gun-fetishist to describe those who play with toys as guns seeking them to be as realistic as possible, in an age and not far from a society where 11 year olds get shot by teenagers who ply youtube with videos of guns as toys.

Let's not lose sight of what the music meant. Bernie, if you find one animal that may play music or recite poetry or recount its life to you then you may make the connections between Shoah and cattle charnelhouse. But neither the blessed Shambo or the meat I eat today can recount the absence of its family, the mass murder and slavery for no good reason. Perhaps you think all life is equally sacred, there are many who do. But none that hold such creeds that I am aware of equate the condition of other living creatures with that of their family. Do you?

I respectfully ask that you never again insult the memory.

information on music in the 3 reinhard deathcamps of which Treblinka was one. They were not stripped of their citizenship, transported, put to slave labour, experimented on & murdered for meat.
http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/arsongs.html

by Ciara Roche Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:20 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

I don't think that Bernie meant to insult victims of the Holocaust. What I believe she was trying to do was draw a comparison between the highly organized manner of the killing that occured during this period in history and the similar manner in which animals are routinely tortured and killed, everywhere nowadays.

I have no personal knowledge on whether "Concentration camp employees were ex-slaughterhouse workers." as has been stated here, but it does not surprise me. It is well documented that serial killers begin to play out their desire to cause cruelty and death on animals. One cannot deny the connection between a lack of compassion for animals and the same for humans. Again, I say to you that Bernie did not mean to insult victims of the Shoa or their relatives. She is motivated purely by a desire to end suffering, both of human and animal kinds.

by SABWATCH Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:34

Why do you need to stick up for Bernie all the time??She is well able to defend herself,or should be if she throws wild nonsense around she should answer for it or at least be able to explain herself.She is not a child and shouldnt need you to answer for her.
BTW quote some FACTS for your statement that serial killers tourtured animals before they started on human victims.Facts that is like an FBI study or a renowned criminal profiler or the like.Not "somebody told me who posted it on an animal nazi board somwhere,so it must be true!!" type facts

by Ciara Fri Aug 24, 2007 16:48 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

Well Sabwatch I thought that particular piece of information was so well known that there was no need to reference it.

I strongly suggest you have a read of: Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and Application, Lockwood and Ascione (ed's). This book is loaded with facts, underpinned by empirical research.

It shows very clearly, that there is a strong link between animal cruelty and all kinds of maltreatment of people, not least serial killers.

Incidentally, Bernie is of course well able to stick up for herself and I don't see any "wild nonsense" flung about...not by Bernie anyway.

by So Ciara Fri Aug 24, 2007 17:48

a few examples for you dearie.
The latest;Nazi concentration camp gaurds worked as slaughterhouse personel...Proof???

Illegal firearms being sold at Galway races.See other thread,where it is totally being debunked.

Immediate action called to allow gurriers and thugs to keep their pit bulls and other dangerous dogs.
Any progeseeion or has it burnt itself out????
Just more attention seeking wild nonsense,and on it goes dear Ciara.So why doesnt Bernie ever follow up any of this nonsense.????Do tell you speak for her.We would be allll intrested.Or is it just the cry of somone who is totally fustrated with their lives and needs attention???

Yeah, I figured you would quote that book/report kind of the Animal Nazis Mein Kampf isnt it???
Still going on about it despite it being dismissed as bunkum by the FBI criminal profiling unit as inconclusive proof and sloppy research???

by Catlady Fri Aug 24, 2007 18:36

The comparison of the institutionalised abuse of non-humans to the institutionalised abuse of humans under the Nazi regime is far from a new one. Authors such as JM Coetze and others have made the same, as have many Jewish intellectuals.

Nobody making the comparison intended it to be insulting to Holocaust survivors or their families.

The fact is that there are comparisons to be drawn. This does not mean that those making the comparisons are anti-semitic or do not have respect for human life.

"In relation to animals all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka."
- Isaac Bashevis Singer

by Dr Moreau Fri Aug 24, 2007 19:18

is that not true Catlady?
You are attempting to justify an equation of the mass murder of 752,000 people in 14 months in a forced labour camp with a plant which holds 900 cattle who are un-worked that has been awarded a "humane slaughter" status? Gosh. Your relativism is sickening, I'm going to cook another lobster. & then I'll feed some to my cats.

In August 1943 the inmates of Treblinka rebelled. They burned the camp and killed some guards. Oh, but you only mention the music. & now you think the magic words "anti-semitism" work? Why don't you all get together and retract your article & give us the news again "in a more palatable way".
You know they way we used to have it. "no beings with eyes harmed".

by Shoa Sat Aug 25, 2007 13:05

The Animal nazis.Their other high profile group PETA tried this same stunt a few years ago with comparing battery farms to the extermination camps of the 3rd Reich.The Jewish anti defamation leauge reacted strongly to this campain and even launched a Holocaust denial lawsuit against it in Europe.Called the height of Chutzpah[Yiddish for lies and exeggeration] PETA slunk away into the shadows with its's tail firmly between it's legs,after being soundly thrashed by the Holocaust survivors.

So for Catlady,Bernie and Ciara to try and now try and justify this as some sort of mistake and not really a comparison,is the utmost height of hyprocrisy and stupidity on their parts.Why make a comparison when you know it will offend,unless you want to use a cheap attention gathering trick.
Which is what one somtimes has to ask are these people really intrested in animal welfare ,or just looking for attention to themselves by any means possible????

by Catlady Sat Aug 25, 2007 17:27

Dr. Moreau,

I cannot retract an article which I did not post. I am entitled to post a comment outlining my views, just as you are.

Shoa,

I have not tried to justify anything as a "sort of mistake". As I said, there most certainly IS a comparison to be made between the needless slaughter and abuse of millions of human and non-human animals. The fact that this comparison may offend some is, in my opinion, no reason to ignore the obvious similarities between the two.

Are the nobel prize winning authors who made this comparison before anyone here also guilty of cheap tricks and attention seeking? If so, I am happy to share in their company, and make no apologies for it. Anyone who holds the view that concern for the plight of non-humans equates with a lack thereof for the plight of humans has missed the point. I personally respect all life and believe that the pointless abuse of any sentient being is morally wrong and ethically indefensible.

by Shoa Sun Aug 26, 2007 00:18

6 million sentinent thinking human beings DONOT equate the value of one cow.

And who are these Nobel prizwe winning people who make these comparisions????
It is fine to lecture and pontificate from the comfort of ivory towers and the halls of acadameia.Where ANY of them in the death camps????If they were they must be total hyprocrites to compare themselvesa nd their fellow inmates to the value of cattles lives.Being a nobel prize winner is no great
resaon to give anyone more credence for common sense or world realisim.Personally I think most of them couldnt walk and chew gum at the same time.So going by your arguement ,just because some Nobel prize winner says it is so it must be fact and right???
So if say the Nazis had won WW2 and Doctor Mengele won the Nobel prize for his study of the genetics of twin births,courtsey of the hundreds of twins he could experiment on in the camps,it would be justifable then they he would be able to preach against animal abuse in experiments.Thats going by your arguement.
Morals also are subjective.Your morals are not mine,and what gives you a right to force yours on anyone else????I eat meat,but dont force it on Vegans. I belive animal useage is justified to feed ,hunt humanely and control.But I dont go around pushing these views on others.It seems that you Animal rights people cannot get this point into your minds,that many of us DO NOT WANT your morals and would be obliged if you kept them to yourselves.But no,if that does not work you must go to violence or making cheap and nasty comparisons to human tragedy.So then it is okay by you if we compare all vegans to Adolf Hitler????

by Catlady Wed Oct 31, 2007 16:03

Shoa you seem to have some difficulty in comprehending the points I have made. The conclusions you draw from things that I have written are unfathomable...

The assumptions you make about others (in this case holocaust survivors and academics) are both unfounded and insulting to the individuals involved. The fact that a person has suffered does not render them unsympathetic to the suffering of others. (Indeed I suspect the opposite to be true - it certainly is in my case).

Mengele, in the fantastical scenario you have conjured up, would be a participant in animal abuse rather than an opponent of it, humans being animals themselves. Morally he would be on a par with today's vivisectors.

I 'force' neither my morality nor my veganism upon others. Commenting on an indymedia article cannot be said to be 'forcing' anything on anyone, by any stretch of the imagination...!

You however, (despite your assertions to the contrary) do indeed force your attitudes on others in the sense that you are responsible for the brutal taking of innocent lives, as are all those who choose to consume the flesh of others simply to satisfy their taste buds. And you have the audacity to insinuate that I am the violent one...?

I am curious to know... if I leave a comment on a human rights topic, say for example, criticizing the way the average Irish consumer contributes to the horrific exploitation of children in sweatshops, would you accuse me of 'forcing' my morality on you? Would you request, as you have done here, that I keep my views to myself? Or are there certain cases where you find it acceptable to leave comments which express a desire to see a reduction of unnecessary suffering in the world?

I ask these questions as those involved in animal abuse, either 'passively' or actively, persistently come across as feeling threatened in some way by the mere existence of vegans and activists who hold demos and distribute information regarding an alternative lifestyle which is more compassionate (both to humans and non-humans), more environmentally friendly, cheaper and healthier than the dominant western one. They feel that being offered vegan or even vegetarian recipes free of charge, or being offered a leaflet with information about where fur/meat/leather etc comes from, amounts to some imaginary breach of their human rights...

Apparently, this obsession with the infringement of their 'right' not to be exposed to a new way of thinking extends to indymedia posts... Simply, if you do not want to be exposed to alternative views, do not read threads which may expose you to them, do not accept a leaflet or a recipe. You do indeed have this right and I am certainly not about to start tying you in front of your pc monitor to 'force' you to read such threads.

Personally, I like to have my views challenged and not just my views relating to AR. I feel no insecurity surrounding my morality and where solid argument is presented I am willing, eager even, to revise it. My views on everything from feminism to capitalism to religion and Animal Rights are constantly evolving, which is exactly how it ought to be with any human actively engaged with his or her world.

I have yet to come across a remotely convincing argument for either the perpetuation or indeed the tolerance of unnecessary suffering. However, if you or anyone else can offer any plausible explanation as to why we as conscious individuals have a moral obligation to tolerate or ensure the perpetuation of this suffering, I will certainly give it my full consideration.

by Sage & Thyme Wed Oct 31, 2007 17:07

I find this AR subject although carrying a lot of perceived sensivity towards animals rather illogical.

Animals kill each other for their food, that is except for those that grave or browse.

Man kills generally the grazing animals for food.

Vegans & Vegetarians are as we know non-carnivors.

Now if all the poeople of the world adopted the principles of V or V, there would be mass starvation in the world and we would still have to feed the all of the many herds and off-spring.
There would simply not be sufficient growing space to keep all the humans alive.

I am a recent Veggie for dietary reasons and at times during my life I have been very poor with a family to feed. In order to do so I have killed animals with my bare hands, honouring their life by drinking a drop of their blood.
I also have several relations who died in the holocaust - but I am not a Jew.... I am an English Gypsy now resident in Ireland.