Coercion is Key

Scott Lemieux on dog fighting versus factory farming:

There are, I think, some colorable substantive distinctions; in particular, Vick's actions (not just the dogfighting but the additional torture-killing of the dogs) represents a sadism for its own sake that factory farming doesn't, and hence it's reasonable for the law to treat them differently. But is this distinction enough to justify significant federal jail time for Vick in a country where factory farming is not only legal but subsidized? Seems like a hard case to make. Can eaters of mass-produced meat (or, even more so, people who see nothing wrong with mass-produced meat) justify intense outrage at Vick? It's hard to rationally justify, I think. A little humility is on order for those of us with bad faith eating practices.

But let's try this enough way. Speaking as liberals, as Scott and I are, we can (and, I think, should) simply embrace some hypocrisy on this front. It seems to me that I should probably only eat "cruelty free" meat. And it's actually the case that I eat more of such meat than I would were I totally indifferent to this issue. But I'm far, far, far away from actually living in compliance with this idea. But this is actually a common liberal phenomenon. I believe the country should adopt policies related to health care that would almost certainly represent a net transfer of resources away from a person like me toward others in greater need. I don't, however, personally transfer any resources in this direction.

Which is just to say that Michael Vick has violated some laws against animal cruelty. To observe that other kinds of cruel treatment of animals related to the industrial food process should be subjected to more stringent regulation isn't a reason for Vick to be let off the hook. That in the absence of such regulation, a lot of people who think there should be stricter ones find it difficult to live up to our own ethical ideas arguably just strengthens the case for regulation. I'm not, in general, a big believer in the idea that not living in accordance with hypothetical regulatory frameworks while still believing such frameworks should be constructed (supporting a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme while still having a large carbon footprint, for example) constitutes hypocrisy in a meaningful way.

Comments

That's one heck of a hypertext link.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 30, 2007 7:50 PM

It's one thing to say that he's a bad man for breaking the law(killing a dog is a misdemeanor, I read somewhere), and another to say he's a bad man for killing dogs in barbaric ways. Most people are taking the later position.

Lemeiux is right that humility is order; I don't see a charge of hypocrisy in the section you've quoted.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 30, 2007 7:57 PM

Did Vick "torture" dogs? I haven't heard any allegations of actions that I'd label as torture.

I don't condone dog fighting, but another thing to remember is that (as I understand it) the dogs weren't exactly forced to fight, they fought because they are bred to be mean, nasty, aggressive dogs that fight when you put them into a ring with another dog (and the nasty ones were put to death). Enjoying this kind of "combat" seems pretty twisted to me, but it seems different than enjoying simply inflicting pain, which is what the word "torture" implies.

Posted by ed | August 30, 2007 8:10 PM

Hey the megahypertext is annoying.

Posted by Anal Sex | August 30, 2007 8:15 PM

Uh, no, ed. The dogs are tormented to maximize their aggressiveness, via starvation, being on a very, very, short chain for long periods of time, electric shocks, and other charming methods. In addition, when Vick decided that some dogs still weren't aggressive enough, and thus were to be killed, instead of simply dispatching them with gunshot to the head, he sometimes would string thing up by their necks to slowly strangle, and when that failed, he'd have them drowned in buckets of water. Other times, he would wet them down and electrocute them, which is an extremely imprecise way to kill a mammal (it's nearly unbelievable that our frequently idiotic criminal justice systems once often employed the electric chair), and frequently leads to great agony.

If Vick had run a dogfighting business strictly for money, I'd still condemn it, but it would be less remarkable. People, even very rich people, do awful things for money, and often not a whole lot of money, all the time. What makes Vick's misdeeds remarkable is that he frequently inconvenienced himself to a great extent, for no other reason than to maximize the agony he could inflict on dogs. Trying to kill a dog by hanging it from a tree is a lot of work, and you really must be devoted to the infliction of agony and terror for the sheer bloody fun of it to behave in the manner Vick did.

Posted by Will Allen | August 30, 2007 8:32 PM

And this is especially true for a consequentalist like yourself. It is staggeringly unlikely that your or any individual's refusal to eat factory farmed meat will result in less actual suffering by an animal due to economies of scale that mark our current food production practices.

Posted by Patrick | August 30, 2007 8:33 PM

The health care analogy doesn't work because people (e.g. you) aren't calling for stringent regulations against "factory farming". Instead, many of those excoriating Vick seem to see nothing wrong with factory farming. As such, this is a lot more like the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity. To argue for the disparity you have to do more than just say that crack is bad. You have to identify some relevant difference between the two. To say that Vick deserves punishment requires addressing why the farms don't. And arguing that he broke the law just begs the question. Why are the laws the way they are?

Posted by Archit | August 30, 2007 8:34 PM

I should say "any particular individual's refusal." Obviously, mass changes in consumption practices would have an effect.

Posted by Patrick | August 30, 2007 8:34 PM

ed,

I like to think Vick just used "enhanced interrogation" on the dogs.

In fact, I'd heard about killing by electrocution and, I think, a botched hanging, but that's just testimony by the two other defendants. Defendants who had something to gain by making these statements in their affidavits. And, as I understand it, he pled to a conspiracy to violate federal dogfighting laws.

I don't really know if he tortured them, or just fought them. Which might be the kind of semantic distinction only the Bush Administration could embrace. Now that Fredo is free, perhaps he can thread that needle at Vick's sentencing?

Posted by keatssycamore | August 30, 2007 8:37 PM

What you're describing seems to me more a matter of shamelessness than hypocrisy, but that's just a semantic quibble.

More importantly, I'm having a hard time reconciling these two thoughts:

"...this is actually a common liberal phenomenon. I believe the country should adopt policies related to health care that would almost certainly represent a net transfer of resources away from a person like me toward others in greater need. I don't, however, personally transfer any resources in this direction."

and...

"I'm not, in general, a big believer in the idea that not living in accordance with hypothetical regulatory frameworks while still believing such frameworks should be constructed...constitutes hypocrisy in a meaningful way."

However they stack up, the latter seems the better idea. It's no inconsistency to think x should be a collective responsibility, but not a private one.

Posted by Doug | August 30, 2007 8:37 PM

What makes Vick's misdeeds remarkable is that he frequently inconvenienced himself to a great extent, for no other reason than to maximize the agony he could inflict on dogs.

Hard to believe that someone who plays a sport in which players are lionized for hurting other players (and themselves) could have an appreciation for the brutal.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 30, 2007 8:39 PM

Will Allen,

While I think you are correct about what Vick was doing, I think you have to be kind of careful with your assumptions. Because backing you up, you have only the affidavits of two admitted sadists who, arguably, produced a very implausible story to satisfy a prosecutor/public who wanted to get the disgusting celebrity and fast. In return, these admitted sadists recieved much more lenient sentences than they might have otherwise. And all Vick pled to was a dogfighting conspiracy charge and that plea deal was accepted by the U.S. Attorney and the Federal Court Judge. There's wiggle room.

I find your version more probable than not (echoes of SCMT's comment above), but can concoct enough alternative scenarios that I have a legitimate reasonable doubt about those specific allegations you have mentioned.

And as far as "he would wet them down and electrocute them, which is an extremely imprecise way to kill a mammal (it's nearly unbelievable that our frequently idiotic criminal justice systems once often employed the electric chair), and frequently leads to great agony" goes, I'd note that this is the method I've always observed being used on the aptly named "killing floor" at meat packing plants. And, if workers stories are to be believed, it's as imprecise as you say.

Posted by keatssycamore | August 30, 2007 8:54 PM

keatssycamore, in his plea statement, Vick admits that the hung and then drowned dogs came to be hung and drowned via the collective efforts of Vick and his co-conspirators. There is no Federal law prohibiting such actions, which is why an animal cruelty charge does not apply. The Commonwealth of Virginia could press such charges, and given the signed statements of those who have pled guilty in Federal court to conspiracy, it would seem to be a rather easy matter to prosecute.

Posted by Will Allen | August 30, 2007 8:54 PM

Will Allen,

Thank you for correcting me. My previous statements are worthless and I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

Posted by keatssycamore | August 30, 2007 8:59 PM

Oh, yes, keatssycamore, electrocution is used to stun animals in slaughterhouses, and I've heard, to kill small fur mammals in captivity. It really ought to be banned. I'm not vegan. Given humans are evolved to be omnivores, there is evidence to support the notion that some quantity of animal protein is healthful for humans, and even the most committed vegan cannot say he hasn't killed animals to advance his condition, I don't see veganism as a moral imperative.

I do think, however,that society rightly regulates the application of violence, and not purely for altruistic moral reasons. People who engage in deliberate cruelty, if only as a byproduct of being in pursuit of goals such as generating wealth, quite frequently learn to really, really, like inflicting the cruelty for the fun of it. That makes our society a more dangerous place; humans are just too frequently nasty little creatures in regards to violence. I thus really would prefer to see slaughterhouses, and livestock practices in general, more tightly regulated, in order to better pursue the minimization of agony and torment.

Posted by Will Allen | August 30, 2007 9:09 PM

Will Allen,

Sorry to waste more space over something I've been so stupid about, but reading over the actual text of the plea statement, there's still room to thread the needle regarding Vick's actual physical involvement:

"Peace, Phillips, and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick."

One might presume that if Vick weren't even there, but simply agreed to these things being done, that he's more like the businessman you mentioned in your first comment.

I still think he was a physical participant. But, you know, what is the meaning of "is"?

Did I somehow just dig my hole deeper?

Posted by keatssycamore | August 30, 2007 9:10 PM

"I'm not, in general, a big believer in the idea that not living in accordance with hypothetical regulatory frameworks while still believing such frameworks should be constructed...constitutes hypocrisy in a meaningful way."

Of course it does. Provided it's within your power to affect a positive change on your own, you should do it.

Posted by Sean | August 30, 2007 9:27 PM

Well, keats, I'm sure Vick's counsel tried to negotiate every word and phrase to give himself a loophole to claim that his hands weren't on the dogs, but I'd be shocked if the prosecution does not have other substantial evidence that Vick was on the property on that date.

The other remarkable aspect of this matter is the notion of Federal conspiracy charge going from the Feds entering the matter in late April or early May, to everybody pleading guilty by late August. That is the like the speed of light in these matters. This tells me the Vickster and Co. weren't exactly master criminals. I can see Vick watching "The Sopranos" for years, and coming to the conclusion that those involved in criminal enterprise commonly just yak away on cell phones, send text messages, use credit cards to buy needed supplies, etc., and law enforcement is just too stupid to use records of that activity for purposes of prosecution.

I highly susspect that there is a very long trail of such records to establish Mr. Vick's whereabouts on the dates in question, and the feds had them within about 24 hours of opening their investigation. Hell, there might be a text message of Vick's phone logs saying "Don't forget to bring the rope! 'Nuthin's better than a dog hangin' by moonlight!"

Posted by Will Allen | August 30, 2007 9:29 PM

Not to talk to myself or anything, but I want to clarify that when I say "if it's within your power to affect a positive change on your own, you should do it," I'm not saying that, like, you need to become a police officer if you oppose rape, or you need to become an Army Ranger if you dislike al-Qaeda or whatever. I just know from experience that before I became a vegetarian, I was fully aware of all the moral, ethical, and environmental problems with meat-eating--and I always mentally responded "but, but, but, cheeseburgers are delicious!" It was absolutely hypocritical of me to be so upset about animal cruelty stories like this but subsidize animal cruelty myself. At a certain point I just owned up to it. If people wanna eat meat, that's fine, but in watching the rhetorical hoops being jumped through here and at Jim Henley's blog and so forth, I can't help but feel it all boils down to "but, but, but, cheeseburgers are delicious!"

Posted by sean | August 30, 2007 9:39 PM

I was immediately outraged over the outrage over the Vick deal.

This is simple: either you take issue with needlessly creating animal (human AND non-human) suffering, or you do not.

If you do, but only for certain beings, then you are a speciesist, which is exactly as contemptible and humiliating as being a racist or a sexist.

Its obvious to any adult who considers it, but unfortunately our technology has evolved faster then our awareness of the most rudimentary ethical truths.

Posted by Kyle | August 30, 2007 9:41 PM

Cheeseburgers are indeed delicious, and there could be no finer reason for eating them.

Posted by d | August 30, 2007 9:41 PM

Or rather: our affection for dogs, and strong reactions to their mistreatment may seem illogical considering our meat consumption habits but, I like dogs. And cheeseburgers.

Posted by d | August 30, 2007 9:44 PM

I believe Matthew just admitted to being a chickenhawk.

At least on the cruelty free meat issue.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 9:50 PM

I won't deny the hypocrisy here, but there are good reasons for it. Humans are by nature omnivores--in our evolutionary environment we hunted animals, just like Chimps and Bonobos do. Dogs are species created by human breeding of wolves, often to protect other animals we raised for slaughter. So though we have a certain affection for dogs, it is grounded in utility and not any ethical evaluation.

This is in no way meant as a defense of the meat industry; I personally don't eat mammals for ethical reasons. At the same time, I eat chicken, justifying it on the grounds that they have less advanced nervous systems. It's a fairly weak distinction--but I am human and we all have impulses that are undeniably natural but still ethically unjustifiable.

Posted by Robert | August 30, 2007 9:50 PM

The difference between what you won't eat today, and what you will eat tomorrow, is how many days have now gone by without eating, and yes, I've eaten dog.

Posted by Will Allen | August 30, 2007 9:57 PM

While we can debate endlessly and emotionally over killing dogs, isn't Vick doing serious jail time for organized crime (RICO) and gambling violations? The dog stuff sells the papers and gets the blog hits, but it is secondary to the RICO stuff.

BTW, hunters can discern a taste quality difference in meat related to how stressful the animal in question lived and died. Beyond the humane arguments, our food might simply be tastier and more nutritious if we treated farmed animals in a better way. You are what you eat.

Posted by PK | August 30, 2007 10:07 PM

So Matt, does this mean that you think calling war supporters chickenhawks and Yellow Elephants is invalid, since they can support the idea of the war, and believe the government should continue to prosecute the war, but have no intention of getting personally involved?

I am not asking this as a "gotcha" way, because I honestly can't remember if you've ever used that particular epithet, and I do seem to recall some other progressive blogger(s) taking issue with the chickenhawk concept. I'm asking just to bang on the chickenhawk concept and see if it's sound enough to perpetuate.

I do think that there is a difference between sending soldiers to die in a war you won't fight and sending animals to die in a slaughterhouse because you refuse to go vegan, but I know many wouldn't.

[For the record, I'm against the Iraq war, and I love to eat cheeseburgers even though I don't think it's morally justifiable.]

Posted by Eric | August 30, 2007 10:32 PM

Let me see if I have this straight:

Some people find current factory farming abhorrent. I agree.

Those people then argue, that what Vick did was approximately the same as people who eat the meat from current abhorrent practices of factory farming . I don't agree.

They further argue, that Vick is being punished too severely, because really, we're all just hypocrites because we eat the meat garnered from current abhorrent practices . Again, I don't agree, further it sets in motion a race to the bottom, not a more ethical treatment of animals, but a justification for further cruelty.

You disagree. Okay, try this:

The Iraq war is bad thing, people are getting killed for a presidential photo-op, but you pay taxes to support it. Perhaps like some pundits you supported the war initially, maybe not, but still, you pay taxes.

When a somebody kills somebody on the road through sheer carelessness, they shouldn't be punished severely because it really isn't so different than taxpayers supporting a war. Neither killing was intentional.

Does that work for you? You say, hold on, way different, taxes are extracted through coercion. True, but only if you make decent money...you could live on much less...no?

Moral comparisons, where only one side has true unlimited choice [Vick], while the other side [meateaters] chooses between possibilities set by others are false, meant to mislead and excuse.

Posted by S Brennan | August 30, 2007 11:10 PM

I think the main distinction here is that factory farming brings us food, a necessity for life. Vick, on the other hand, killed for entertainment. That, for me, is distinction enough and I see no hypocrisy in it.

Compare this to war. Our culture dictates that in a war you can kill by necessity. But even the military says you cannot kill just for 'fun.'

Posted by Jeremy | August 30, 2007 11:18 PM

"I think the main distinction here is that factory farming brings us food, a necessity for life."

Nope, not even close. Food is necessary for life; meat is not. Being a healthy vegetarian or vegan is quite easy.

Posted by Ashish George | August 30, 2007 11:31 PM

But as Levar Burton used to say on Reading Rainbow, you don't have to take my word for it.

"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence."

http://www.adajournal.org/article/PIIS0002822303002943/fulltext

Posted by Ashish George | August 30, 2007 11:49 PM

Jeremy - Except that meat is not necessary for a healthy diet. (Ask the average Indian.) Even if you insist that meat is required for protein, factory farming is not "required". Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. could be raised and killed more humanely and less efficiently, and we could pay higher prices for our meat. What's that? Oh, you "need" those low prices to better fit your budget? Well, a chicken needs to stretch its legs now and then.

Posted by nbt | August 30, 2007 11:55 PM

Hmmm, Ashish beat me to the point while I was brushing my teeth.

Posted by nbt | August 31, 2007 12:02 AM

A veal calf can't turn itself around, is kept anemic, and in many places the only time they get any light is when operators stop by to feed them, twenty minutes, a few times a day.

That's excluding the psychological torture.

A British court even forced McDonald's food suppliers to change their factory farm practices because they determined that the treatment amounted to "physical and psychological torture." Its torture. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that the treatment of the dogs was way, way worse than the treatment of a McDonald's pig.

(Specifically to you juicy hamburger people: cooked-on-the-grill Boca patties are indistinguishable from actual flesh. Give 'em a try next time!)

Posted by Kyle | August 31, 2007 12:09 AM

Oddly, I don't think the treatment in question meets the international standard definition for "torture" because it wasn't intended to elicit any information from the dogs in question.

Posted by brooksfoe | August 31, 2007 12:56 AM

Throwing in factory farming obscures the real issue here, which is cultural: Michael Vick comes from a ghetto black culture, and part of that culture involves cruel treatment of animals, and taking pleasure in their suffering. Ghetto black dog owners usually don't take this to the grandiose extremes that Michael Vick did, but go to an ghetto black neighborhood and you will see dogs routinely abandoned, beaten, malnourished, chained outside in harsh weather, etc.

Most of you lefties have probably never seen this, because if you grew up in such close proximity to lower class blacks you wouldn't be lefties today.

Posted by Harry | August 31, 2007 1:05 AM

Believe it or not, but McDonald's has been a leader in driving the beef industry to implement humane slaughtering methods, based on the research of animal science prof. Temple Grandin. McDonald's audits all its beef suppliers to ensure compliance.

For those who want to eat non-factory farmed meat, there are often local options. In many places owners of rural property need to raise animals to qualify for lower property tax rates, even if they aren't professional farmers. You can often buy free range, grass-fed beef from these farmers.

Posted by Fred | August 31, 2007 1:18 AM

If only white people caused this kind of uproar when the police beat and kill brown folk. But I guess brown folk aren't as cute and don't wag their tails enthusiastically when white folks walk by.

Its pretty disgusting that so many people were so eager to have a guy have his freedom and career taken away because he mistreated and killed some dogs. I bet Michael Vick sure wishes he spent his leisure time beating on a(preferably brown skinned) girlfriend instead, that way he woulda been back on the field by week 5.

But yes, yes, he sure is a monster, not at all as good as those nice folks that buy tickets and Direct TV packages and scream with great appreciation when a 250 pound linebackers with 4.4 speed blindside Michael Vicks at full speed on Sundays. Nor those people who read through the injury reports eagerly trying to figure out how the injured players are gonna affect the spread on this weeks game...

Posted by Twan | August 31, 2007 3:00 AM

Question of the day:

If tomorrow 90% of American blacks suddenly packed up and moved to Brazil, would the United States be better or worse off? Why?

Honest answers only please...

Posted by Politically Incorrect Thought | August 31, 2007 3:09 AM

I want to correct a misconception about "cruelty-free" meat. Just because an animal is not raised on a factory farm does not mean there is no cruelty involved. Simply the act of separating a calf from its mother is emotionally wrenching for a mother--I hear their frantic moos every November, and believe me, you want to close your ears to that horrible sound.

Second, most importantly, organically raised animals are killed in exactly the same way that non-organically raised animals are. (By law, animals must be slaughtered at UDSA slaughterhouses.) And this method differs very little from the way VIck's dogs were killed. Cows are strung up by one or two hoofs and their throats slit. They then bleed to death. The fortunate ones are stunned first to make them easier to hoist.

This, folks, is your "cruelty-free", "humane" meat.

Posted by KathyF | August 31, 2007 4:46 AM

nbt said:

"What's that? Oh, you "need" those low prices to better fit your budget? Well, a chicken needs to stretch its legs now and then."

If the choice is between a) chickens being able to move around and b) poor people having cheaper food, then my choice is with (b) and I don't think it is close. Human beings have staggering moral priority over animals.

Perhaps that is a false dichotomy as some vegetarians assert that vegetable and grain replacement of factory farming (or even eating meat in general) would be cheaper way of getting protein. Perhaps...but it strikes me as somewhat implausible.

Posted by Patrick | August 31, 2007 5:15 AM

""Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.""

Just a side note, but that's a vegan fantasy, unless "well planned" means "includes large quantities of artificial supplements replacing nutrients that would normally be derived from animal sources." It is, in fact, virtually impossible for a child to avoid malnutrition while eating a purely plant derived diet. And making up the difference artificially is going to involve a LOT of pills.

We ARE omnivores, not herbivores. Deal with it. Or expect a mentally retarded child, if you're lucky.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 31, 2007 7:09 AM

KathyF,

That's misleading description of how cows are slaughtered in McDonald's-compliant slaughterhouses (which, due to McDonald's market position, is probably the vast majority of them).

First, due to re-design of the process, the cows have no idea that they are about to be slaughtered before it happens (think before you try to come up with a clever retort here; this was not always the case). The ramps and lines cows walk through are similar to ones they have walked through before for for other reasons (e.g., inoculations), and research shows they exhibit similar, non-frightened, non-anxious behavior on their to getting slaughtered.

Second, it's not just the "lucky ones" who are stunned first: all are "stunned", or more accurately, shot in the head with a pneumatic gun designed to render them insensate with one shot (due to the redesign of the process, the cows don't see this happen to the cows in front of them; neither do they see anything that follows.) The part about the hoof and the throats being slit afterwards is correct.

Posted by Fred | August 31, 2007 8:19 AM

Brett Bellmore, the violence forever maniac, with advice on nutrition and healthy children. Hi, Maniac Brett.

Posted by Jennifer | August 31, 2007 8:36 AM

Hi, B12 deficient Jennifer! Be sure you get enough choline, that's really, really difficult for pregnant vegans.

BTW, human physiology was my 2nd major in college. I called it "reading my operating manual". ;)

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 31, 2007 9:11 AM

And making up the difference artificially is going to involve a LOT of pills.

No. B-12 is basically it, and it's not a water-soluble, immediately-excreted vitamin. In fact, in most people, B-12 is reclaimed by the body and re-used. Unless you're bleeding from the gut or donate blood regularly, you can get by with a couple of pills a month. And there are non-animal sources for B-12. Unless you consider yeast to be an animal.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 31, 2007 9:11 AM

When your ethics argues with few million years of evolution, there's a problem with your ethics, and the same applies to religion.

Posted by Will Allen | August 31, 2007 9:25 AM

Nah, an occasional B12 pill will do it for a non-pregnant adult, and you won't even need that if you're a bit careless about how you clean your veggies. But the quote was talking about pregnant women, and young children, and their nutritional needs are a bit more rigorous than those of an old fart like myself. (Truth is, even us omniverous old farts need supliments; There's a difference between optimal nutrition and just getting by.) You can get by on a diet of plant materials and supliments, but it's not going to be easy.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 31, 2007 9:29 AM

An issue that I'd to see addressed more in this thread is the "Race to the Bottom" issue brought up by S Brennan in an earlier post.

I don't know about y'all, but I've read a lot of threads on this issue on more sports-themed pages (which I hazard to guess, are more representative of the general population than the page for this fine magazine) and I've seen a lot more posts along the lines of "So what, they're just dogs" than "Factory farming practices are also abhorrent and should be banned."

So while I am neither a fan of dog fighting nor factory farming, I'm a little leery of arguments for the equivalence of those two things. I think that if one were successful in convincing the general public that they're pretty much the same we would end up with more dog fighting rather than less factory farming.

Posted by Just Another Greg | August 31, 2007 9:39 AM

Again, I'm all for better regulation of slaughterhouse practices, along with livestock management in general, and if McDonalds is truly having the effect on slaughter practices as described above, that's good. However, there is a real difference bewteen a slaughterhouse which ruthlessly pursues the bottom line, and thus engages in cruelty for a few pennies on a pound of meat, and Michael Vick, who actually went of his way to inflict agony, because he thought inflicting agony was fun. Intent matters in how we view the gravity of an offense. Now, I have no doubt, human beings being the often nasty creatures they are, that there are some people in slaughterhouses who begin to enjoy the infliction of agony which started out as a cheap method of laughter, which is one reason why the state rightly can tightly regulate the application of violence, on humans or on non-humans. People who begin to enjoy the infliction of agony for it's own sake are pretty damned dangerous.

Posted by Will Allen | August 31, 2007 9:56 AM

We like to put this idea in simpler terms:

It's the abuse of power, stupid!

(Since Republicans are into such abuse not only on the theoretical plane of the unitary executives, but personally, as with the advocacy of torture, and so forth. I mean, what's the point of having power if you can't use it for the kinds of abuse you enjoy?)

Posted by lambert strether | August 31, 2007 10:03 AM

However, it's not like the production of grain doesn't end up killing millions of field animals every year. However they are easy to overlook by vegans, so don't count. There is no way to feed our country (or the world for that matter) without causing animals to suffer.

Posted by JordanT | August 31, 2007 10:40 AM

Second, most importantly, organically raised animals are killed in exactly the same way that non-organically raised animals are. (By law, animals must be slaughtered at UDSA slaughterhouses.) And this method differs very little from the way VIck's dogs were killed. Cows are strung up by one or two hoofs and their throats slit. They then bleed to death. The fortunate ones are stunned first to make them easier to hoist.
This, folks, is your "cruelty-free", "humane" meat.
Posted by KathyF

Garbage.
That is only the method used by Muslims and Jews that get a religious exception to humane slaughter practices to get the "halal" or "kosher" meat they want by throat-slitting. Jews have been more open in recent years to introduce more humane methods, (ultra-sharp knives to reduce pain, stunning & not hauling the animal up before dead) - and factions that question the practical and religious utility of ancient tribal law in a modern world of good hygiene and better slaughter methods.

Most hooved livestock is killed instantly by a gunshot (home slaughter) or electro-stun then by a fired metal rod that stops the brain..(slaughterhouse). They are not hauled up while still living. Poultry except the Muslim&Jew religiously excepted is killed by decapitation or
by stunning then decapitation after bleedout..

********************
With Vick, remember he is a dumb thug from a family of thugs inclined to all sorts of dysfunctionalism. But despite his low IQ, and immoral inner-city lifestyle - still should be expected to be intelligent enough to know the dog fighting and interstate gambling conspiracy could wreck his career and freedom.

Of course the problem is far bigger than Vick. 5 of the world's 6 billion have no problem with bloodsport and gambling in THEIR culture and the Lefty love and worship of MultiCulti means that many immigrants are inclined to "celebrate their diversity" by having fights to the death with animals. Especially cock-fighting. Which is huge in Asia and Latin America and now goes on in most Western cities thanks to mass immigration the Globalists and Transnational Elites are shoving on 14-16 now-white "1st World countries".

I can't get worked up about chickens, Siamese fighting fish, even Chinese cockroaches that tens of thousands of dollars are spent on quite like I do about the ghetto dog-killing culture...but thats likely because I don't "embrace diversity in all it's aspects" and I have a species bias - I care more about dogs than fighting chickens, and more about those fighting cocks of Japan, Mexico, Chicago - than I do about cockroach fights..

Posted by Chris Ford | August 31, 2007 10:43 AM

Good post... it is ok to be a smoker as long as you are aware of the externalities that you are causing...

Today - most smokers know that smoking is harmful to themselves and those around them. This is why there has been a downward trend for decades...

When it comes to how we tr(eat) animals - the situation is very sad... the link between heart disease was discovered at the same time as the link between smoking and cancer (the first extensive nurse studies?)

As I have argued before - I believe institutional torture to be even worse than individual one...

an individual who has no issue with torturing animals also has less inhibition to do the same with humans.. a society who has enslaved animals had no issues to enslave humans..

But we have forgotten that we have enslaved animals just like humans. That is maybe due to crackpots like Descartes - who considered animals as machines.. and indeed - today they do not count as slaves anymore - but as mere objects and products when they could be free agents, consumers & producers of ecology..

The reason why we feel more with dogs (house negro) than with pigs (field negro) is that one is an animal (friend or slave) and the other one is a product (that can optimized, used and abused for anything not even related to survival.. taste, fashion).

Has anybody read/heard Malcolm X's speech:

Malcolm X - Field Negro vs House Negro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zUIjP4KWok

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 10:45 AM

Matt, your hypocrisy vs. policy point is just excellent here and ties in nicely with my recurring beef with the way, say, the Larry Craig business has been discussed.

Unlike you who presumably at least *intends* to alter your behavior should your carbon tax or health care policies be implemented, Larry Craig *actually implemented* multiple anti-gay policies yet continued to engage in homosexuality. (Or, since that's a little unfair, he didn't just advocate but *actually implemented* "family values" policies without adhering to them himself.)

Sure, superficially that's hypocritical but for me the scandal is that he wasn't just *subject* to his in homosexuality "prevention" and family values promotion policies but actually *expert* in them yet they *failed to influence him!* Even *after* implementation.

In other words the real scandal ought to be the policy failings, not Craig's personal failings.

You can apply this all the way back. Deborah Jean Palfrey's clients David Vitter and (especially) Randall L. Tobias weren't just hypocritical johns, they were experts in anti-prostitution policy (Tobias especially) yet the policies didn't work on them! Let alone those less expert in or committed to the success of those policy.

Again, policy unworkability, not personal failing, is the real scandal.

figleaf

Posted by figleaf | August 31, 2007 10:49 AM

JordanT: However, it's not like the production of grain doesn't end up killing millions of field animals every year. However they are easy to overlook by vegans, so don't count.

Veganism is about reducing suffering. No diet is completely pure. If one truly cares about the field animals, one should stop consuming the factory farmed animals that require vast quantities of grains to reach slaughter weight.

Posted by Adam in Rochester | August 31, 2007 10:52 AM

Fred, you are aware that McDonald's hasn't been entirely forthcoming in the past about their practices, aren't you?

And every time an investigator goes undercover inside a slaughterhouse, he or she finds that stunning is not always occurring, as well as other horrendous abuses I won't mention here, as this is a family blog.

Go ahead and tell yourself your meat is humane, if you must--I did, for years, so I understand the impulse. But the truth is the truth, and animals do feel pain the same way we do, and the way that our dogs and cats do.

Posted by KathyF | August 31, 2007 11:13 AM

Please don't miss Malcolm X talk about the abuse of dogs vs the abuse of food animals...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zUIjP4KWok

Afterthoughts: During slavery – it would have been suspicious to see a slave-owner tread his house negro like a field negro. It happened – house negroes were also beaten and abused – but people tried to hide this?

Neither Vick nor the modern-day farmer and consumer need animal services or products for survival, health or happiness…

Yes – dog fighting seems to pose some utility for Vick. Yes – locking animals up seems to pose some utility to the farmer as he gets money for it and can buy movie-tickets with this money.. but in both cases – we generate a huge dead-weight loss.. blacks could be free agents of the economy such as the slave-owner himself.. animals could be free agents of the ecology just like the farmer himself.. there is no economic need for slavery - quite the contrary..

Animal agriculture is the least efficient from of agriculture anyway.. profit margins could not be lower. The farmer is the victim of bad information and distorted markets… Vick is the victim of a bad inferiority complex.. you know the saying: slaves do not want to be free – they want to be slave masters (they do not anything else like freedom)

The only difference: Vick must pay - the farmer gets $20 billion per year from the Government (our taxes)...

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 11:19 AM

Hell, every time you buy cotton clothing you are contributing to the killing of animals. No animal on earth can live without contributing to the killing of other animals, and if you believe that what happens in a slaughterhouse is exceptional, in terms of the amount of agony animals suffer prior to dying, you are pretty insulated from the animal world in it's natural habitat. That doesn't argue against better livestock practices, but good grief there is a lot of ignorant, smug, preening surrounding the practice of veganism.

Posted by Will Allen | August 31, 2007 11:41 AM

"cooked-on-the-grill Boca patties are indistinguishable from actual flesh"

This is the least true statement written on any blog, ever.

Posted by too many steves | August 31, 2007 11:48 AM

It goes without saying that if you don't sleep under the stars, you've contributed mightily to the suffering of animals. Humans fight for their niche in the ecosystem, and have a biological drive to expand it, just like mice, shrew, moles, dogs, cats, birds, lizards, snakes, deer, mountain lions, fish, bears, etc.,etc., etc. Let's not forget our insect cousins, either.

Posted by Will Allen | August 31, 2007 11:50 AM

Hell Will

Hell, every time you buy cotton clothing you are contributing to the killing of animals.

This is not about absolutes. Just an observation that slaves are less efficient in economic terms than are free agents...

No animal on earth can live without contributing to the killing of other animals, and if you believe that what happens in a slaughterhouse is exceptional, in terms of the amount of agony animals suffer prior to dying, you are pretty insulated from the animal world in it's natural habitat. That doesn't argue against better livestock practices, but good grief there is a lot of ignorant, smug, preening surrounding the practice of veganism.

why do you try to distract from a serious discussion with your toll like arguments?

I am not sure what you are referring to but this is not about death per se - everybody dies - but about slavery and life...

We confine animals who long for autonomy so that they cannot move or turn around. They cannot see daylight and sleep in their own excrements all their lives.. Even if they are organic free range animals - we still their babies at birth (calves so that we their baby milk, or eggs so that hens can never nest and are near death after 2 years instead of 10+)... Animals are being routinely raped and fisted.. most of them go insane before their are killed. their death, no matter how agonising, is often the best thing that has happened to them...

Which other animal does that to another? You must know that? Why do you, on purpose, distract with "we all must die".. yes - but that does not give me the right to go around killing anybody I please for fun and pleasure?

my parents risked their lives over freedom of speech and what have you.. the animals cannot even turn around or see daylight!!!!

Other apes, like silver back gorillas, can live long and healthy lives without killing a single soul.. Why look at the lion as a role model when we are clearly more apes than cats? Clint Eastwood, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci..

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 11:59 AM

Hugo, why do pretend that a discussion in which it is asserted that there exist primates which do not contribute to the pain, suffering, and death, of other animals, or to adopt your nomenclature, "souls", is a serious discussion?

Posted by Will Allen | August 31, 2007 12:13 PM

I for one would never buy poultry from a company that routinely fists its chickens.

Posted by Just Another Greg | August 31, 2007 12:14 PM

You are right Will - I should not have responded to your trolling... now I am just as guilty.. now it turns out it was all only an ironic joke of yours.. sorry (and good humour!!)!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 1:37 PM