It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.
Not all farms treat their animals badly. Our Turkeys, for instance, had the run of 300 acres, as did our cattle, goats, and sheep. The chickens had a pen for their own protection, but one larger than an average house with a large roost house they had free access to and from. The all had proper veterinary treatments. All in all, they had a much better life than many humans with the exception of the freedom to leave the property.
Most children in the world live in worse conditions than the animals at OUR farm, and have a MUCH more painful, lingering death. The only atrocity about the situation to me is that there are so damn many human children.
And mentally handicapped people aren't animals. It may be true, forcing naked, mentally handicapped (or non-mentally handicapped) children to be outside 24/7 might be considered abuse...doing so with an animal is not.
Beyond that, you are making HUGE mistaken assumptions to make your point, mistaken assumptions about 1) how 100% of farmers treat their animals and 2) how 100% of parents treat their children.

Ahh...and my sustenance is more important to me than another being's minimal suffering....that's how a food web works, and it doesn't make me an asshole, it makes me an omnivore.

Edited propaganda, but thanks for the general warning.

Anyhow, either we can protect our borders or our way of life will soon end. Mexicans dont want to destroy the USA. Black people in the USA just want to live a normal life. Muslims definitely appear to be set to destroy our society one way or another.

What I do not understand is why they (muslims) want to do this (besides being batshit crazy religious people). Most refugees run from something bad to a better place, adapt and do their best to live happily ever after. These morons run from a horrible place with the aim of making another area just as bad or worse than what they run from. Strange people.

American natives were (are) not very happy about how america was colonized. If we cant start doing a better job of protecting our interests we will end up much like they have - a minority living by the rules of a foreign religion. And any jewish people left will be ****ed, again.

RedSky: 1) we (Europe, specifically Sweden, Germany and France, also Belgium, possibly others) are not managing the situation and have not been for a couple of decades, the situation is well out of hand in many city boroughs. One can not integrate people who dont want to be integrated.
2) extremism is not a solution, that is part of the problem.
3) the only way forward is to start doing what we were meant to be doing from the start, protect "Schengen" borders, throw any country that does not comply with "Schengen" rules out of "Schengen" immediatelly and let it keep any refugees that want to stay. Of course we have to help countries that already have more refugees than they can handle (even though they invited them and now they complain). Obviously we want to help war refugees but we cant possibly invite them all.

No sane person in Europe wants more illiterate muslim economic refugees - no economic sense, no national security (public safety) sense, and no humanitarian sense - they dont want our help, they want our income level and they want us to be muslims. If we do want to help these people can we please help them to try to live better in their own countries?

Political correctness and NATO interest in Greece and Turkey are not insurmountable obstacles, after all we still have democratic elections every 4 or 5 years in most european countries. People rarely vote that stupidly but right now anything is possible.

"Southern look" is incredible newspeak.

Perhaps SOME farmers kill their animals like this in the US, but certainly not all. My family doesn't, and we've raised cattle, goats, lambs, chickens, turkeys, etc. We shoot the large animals first and knock out the smaller ones....and have done so ourselves for over 40 years, and I have been involved numerous times. People who kill like in this video are uncaring animal abusers. People who condone it are condoning animal abuse.

When you make an assumption you've made an ass out of you and Mption....and what did Mption do to deserve that?

This was not "slashing the carotid artery", this was a near decapitation. Slashing the jugulars can be done with a small knife, it doesn't require a chainsaw. You only need to make 2 small puncture cuts, not a 2-3foot long slice 1/2 decapitating the animal but leaving it conscious. They're doing it wrong.

Anything going through the camel's brain will kill it, they don't need a gun to not abuse this poor animal to death, although it certainly makes it easier on everyone.

I didn't even notice they were butchering the camel until I read the comments. And then I watched it again and I was horrified.

But then I thought about why I was horrified and it really has more to do with the fact that we simply don't see where our meat comes from anymore in society. If I want some turkey for Christmas dinner, I can just head to the grocery store and buy one that's ready to cook (or already cooked). I don't have to go out in the backyard and chop one's head off, bleed it, pluck it, and pull its innards out with my bare hands.

So really, the horror comes from just not seeing it happen everyday (even though I'm guessing millions of animals are butchered for food worldwide every day).

The comments in YouTube suggest this camel was being killed in a Halal fashion (which would require the butchering to be done the way we see in the video--a swift cut to the carotid artery followed by a bleeding out). Turkeys are killed in the same way, I believe (though hung upside down first before having their throat slit).

So to the people who are against this video (or are actually downvoting it) I say: humans are omnivores. It's scientific fact. Most humans eat animals and that usually means killing them first. This video shouldn't be shocking and probably the reason it is to you is that 1) you never thought to eat a camel since you grew up in a country where that wasn't common and/or 2) you've forgotten that animals actually have to be butchered before showing up on your local grocery store shelf and/or 3) you've chosen to be vegetarian (good on you) but forgotten that a large number of other people have chosen to embrace their omnivorism.

(I know omnivorism isn't an actual dictionary word but if vegetarianism can be a word, why not?)

I'm confused - people are saying that Trump gets coverage so that the media group in question make more money (through bigger audiences). But what makes more money in the long run than a useful ally in a position of power?

A little bit naive to think that personal politics (of the owner, who chooses the editor, etc.) plays no part in media coverage. They don't call Rupert Murdoch a king maker for nothing, and it isn't like the Murdoch family has a list as long as my arm of shady dealings, bribery, corruption, etc.

The turkeys don't vote for christmas, and Murdoch isn't going to advertise for someone who believes in workers rights, equality and making sure huge multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Exchange Murdoch for any billionaire media mogul you like - the Barclay brothers for example, also not very interested in equality and paying a fair share of tax. Yes it's sensationalism, but it's also powerful men using their influence to protect their interests. As the man in the video himself says.

Anyway, it worked for us over here - we got Jeremy Corbyn in despite the best efforts of every prominent news outlet. I'm not sure if America is ready for a bit socialism just yet, but the tide is changing in worldwide public opinion, i hope.

Happy belated turkey day

A belated happy turkey day to you

In Soviet Russia Airforce during Thanksgiving, Turkey shoots you!




Ya. That was stretching it.

Only weird part about this is how a plane shot down for violating Turkish airspace ends up crashing in Syria.
I'd love to see the flight path.

Hopefully Turkey is done propping up ISIS (which they have been doing in the past [and maybe still] because ISIS is solving Turkey's 'Kurdish problem'), else this is a pretty brazen move.

(Check out the VICE interviews with Syrians living on the Turkish border, how they talk about arms and fighters pouring in across the Turkish border headed to ISIS...)

-scheherazade

That turkey musta been a helluva shot -- and so apropos of the holiday, too!

Your video, Russian Su-24 Shot Down By Turkey, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, but how do I cook a turkey with it?