I can't beleive what this idiot said

[No Imagination]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

But then wouldn't it be fair to say that things like Prop 2 are evidence that the social conscious is starting to disdain factory-farming-type practices like battery cages, veal crates, farrowing crates, etc?

I think to make an assertion like that, you need to be sure that the people who's social conscience is being questioned understand both the rationale of the polocies as well as the consequences of the new law (Prop 2)

Millions give money to PETA, doesn't mean Millions of people agree with PETA philosophies concerning their right to eat meat, use lab animals, save endangered wildlife (something PETA is against BTW), and keep pets! They just get all warm and fuzzy in side because they are giving money to an organization which promotes animal rights, which in their minds usually mean "Animal Wellbeing/welfare"

Perception doesn't always equate to reason - People who voted for Prop 2 may or may not have understood the issues or the consequences of the action. Like another poster said - who would vote against a law known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, esp. if you didn't understand it.

EDIT: I am not saying you are wrong by the way, I do believe that public perception is changing in respect to the issues you mentioned, but I don't believe that the passing of a (this) bill is evidence of that change.

 

[nyanko]

Millions give money to PETA, doesn't mean Millions of people agree with PETA philosophies concerning their right to eat meat, use lab animals, save endangered wildlife (something PETA is against BTW), and keep pets! They just get all warm and fuzzy in side because they are giving money to an organization which promotes animal rights, which in their minds usually mean "Animal Wellbeing/welfare"

Yep. Speaking of the general lack of understanding in the public eye, this bill was pushed by the HSUS, which is an animal rights organization that is very dishonest in its name. Most people think that the HSUS is like their local humane society when in reality it's an AR organization.

Perception doesn't always equate to reason - People who voted for Prop 2 may or may not have understood the issues or the consequences of the action. Like another poster said - who would vote against a law known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, esp. if you didn't understand it.

I know for a fact that most people I spoke to after the fact voted yes on 2, and then were surprised when I explained everything to them and said they wouldn't have voted for it if they had known more about it.

 

[BR549]

Ok, maybe it's a little insensitive, with the debate on horse slaughter and all, but I couldn't stop laughing: Apparently some people, like my boss, didn't get the memo on the ban of horse slaughter and animal abuse in the U.S. He's still beating that same dead horse every faculty meeting! LOL!

 

[pyxystyx]

I think to make an assertion like that, you need to be sure that the people who's social conscience is being questioned understand both the rationale of the polocies as well as the consequences of the new law (Prop 2)

Millions give money to PETA, doesn't mean Millions of people agree with PETA philosophies concerning their right to eat meat, use lab animals, save endangered wildlife (something PETA is against BTW), and keep pets! They just get all warm and fuzzy in side because they are giving money to an organization which promotes animal rights, which in their minds usually mean "Animal Wellbeing/welfare"

Perception doesn't always equate to reason - People who voted for Prop 2 may or may not have understood the issues or the consequences of the action. Like another poster said - who would vote against a law known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, esp. if you didn't understand it.

EDIT: I am not saying you are wrong by the way, I do believe that public perception is changing in respect to the issues you mentioned, but I don't believe that the passing of a (this) bill is evidence of that change.

Exactly. And, to a certain degree, I think the public/voters can be a bit hypocritical- we all want to have our cake and eat it too.

They want to pay Wal-Mart prices for their eggs, and at the same time believe that the chickens that laid them are being safely tucked in to bed at night by Joe Farmer. 🙂

 

[jglovicz]

I'm really interested in hearing from someone who was against prop 2 for reasons other than finances and why they think this proposition may not help the situations animals are kept in.

One thing that you should keep in mind is that the horrific images that pro-prop 2ers portrayed on their tv ads showcased situations that are already illegal, as well as images that had nothing to do with prop 2 (I saw the video of the cow being pushed around by a skid steer at a slaughter house...while awful, prop 2 isn't doing anything about cattle in slaughter houses). There are already laws about animal welfare of those animals.
If you are interested, the AVMA (against prop 2) posted a statement http://www.avma.org/press/releases/080826_avma_statement_california_proposition2.pdf
and some pros and cons from the avma
http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/california_proposition2_QA.asp

 

[StealthDog]

Perception doesn't always equate to reason - People who voted for Prop 2 may or may not have understood the issues or the consequences of the action.

Exactly, but people who purchase factory-farmed meat probably also don't understand the consequences of their actions. I just think it's a double-standard to say that customers drive the market to produce cheap, high-quality protein without considering the consequences (and thus it's our own doing that we have things like battery cages), but voters are horrible for voting for prop 2 because they don't consider the consequences of their vote (higher prices to remove battery cages). Consumers are often blind to the consequences of their actions, but I think things like Prop 2 are evidence that the social conscious is starting to recognize and reject the notion of industrial-style farming. Even Temple Grandin (who is no stranger to industrial-style farming) thinks that farm and slaughter operations should be able to pass the "out of town relative" test, where you should be able to give your urban relative a tour of your farm without them being disturbed by what they see. Dr. Grandin thinks cattle farm and slaughter operations would generally be able to pass that test, but chicken and pig farms would not. It's not just crazy animal-rights folks that think we've gone too industrial with some species.