Politically Correct or Incorrect Bullshit Of The Day

[Rogerbh]

If it means cheaper prices for our food, don't expect the public to get very upset about it.

[vannax]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

On October 5th, 2017, The Intercept published an article that started with the story of two piglets gone missing. The article ended by exposing a union between certain government bodies and corporate donors seeking to suppress an animal rights movement. As The Intercept story begins, the FBI went on a full-fledged hunt to find two piglets missing from Circle Four Farm, an industrial farm in Utah. It would later be determined that an animal rights group had removed the two piglets after discovering them during an undercover project to document slaughterhouse conditions.

The Intercept is no stranger to tackling tough issues and opposing the interests of influential organizations. Launched in February 2014, the publication’s claim to fame is its reporting on NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Today, its journalists cover a wide range of issues and strive for what they call “adversarial journalism,” attempting to uncover instances of corruption and bring them to light.

The animal activists who rescued the two piglets became the victims of a campaign to intimidate those who seek to expose farm conditions. It’s with good reason on the part of the companies since practices on these large farms include burning ankles of horses with chemicals, kicking and flinging pigs, and burning and snapping the beaks off chickens, along with harsh living procedures like gestational crating.

Sometimes, however, activists are able to save or release animals living in exceptionally torturous conditions. This is what the activist group Direct Action Everywhere, the rescuers of Lucy and Ethel (the names the FBI gave to the two piglets), did. The organization would subsequently be raided by the FBI a month after The New York Times wrote a piece about the pigs’ rescue.

According to The Intercept, there are a number of other measures that have been put in place to prevent animal activists from intervening in situations of animal cruelty. Federal law dictates that a nonviolent animal rights activist who damages or interferes with the personal property of an animal enterprise can be labeled as a domestic terrorist under the American Enterprise Terrorism Act.

This falls under what The Intercept describes as a “framework” of legislation that sides with the farming corporations. Agriculture-gag laws, colloquially known as “ag-gag” laws, are a set of bills designed to prevent whistleblowers from revealing acts of animal cruelty on farms. Typically, these laws make the act of undercover filming without consent from the owner of the farm illegal.

The scope of the laws vary from state to state, but they all include one or more of the following stipulations: prohibiting documentation of agricultural practices, prohibiting misrepresentations in job applications to gain access to closed facilities, or requiring very quick reporting to authorities of illegal animal cruelty. Lobbyists hired by the agriculture industry, who are paid very highly, influence this legislation.

All of the evidence uncovered points towards a conspiracy to keep animal activists quiet and to ensure that big agriculture companies have their interests represented. Yet, the issue remains one that gets little media representation. Ag-gag laws are under major scrutiny from activist groups and legislators alike, as critics argue the laws violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and free press. But the media, and consequently, the general public steer clear of the issue entirely.

In the weeks and months following The Intercept article, Newsweek wrote a reaction to the report and stated that the story had gone “viral.” A couple of other news outlets, such as Fast Company, also had their own take on the issue. However, following the initial buzz, the article seems to have fizzled, and the issue of ag-gag laws has received little attention in the months following.

The relative silence on the part of the press means that the fight against ag-gag laws remains contained within a political sphere of lobbyists, big agriculture, and politicians, while animal activist groups are largely left to fight without the upper hand. Displays of political activism and investigative journalism threaten the profitability and image of the agriculture industry, so exposing what goes on before the food hits the consumer’s plate is undoubtedly bad for business.

In contrast, the public has shown itself to care about animal rights. A 2015 Gallup poll reported that 32% of Americans think that animals should have rights on par with humans, while 62% believe that they deserve some protection, even if they still think humans can use animals for some benefits. Yet, the public’s knowledge of the topic is being curbed by powers beyond their control.

As a result, the silencing of opponents by agriculture corporations works on two different levels. First, there’s a suppression of activist work on a legal basis. At the same time, there’s no input from the media, which keeps the problem from entering the public eye. It creates an environment that allows big agriculture to remain unaccountable for their actions.

Animal rights is not a topic that commonly finds its way into televised debates or campaign platforms.

A trail of campaign donations paints a startling picture. Meatpacking powerhouse Smithfield Foods donated $310,000 in soft money to the Republican Attorney General Association, a group that funded Utah’s Sean Reyes campaign for attorney general. After elected, it was Reyes’ office who filed criminal charges against activists who freed Lucy and Ethel from one of their farms.

It’s all part of a vicious cycle. The Intercept has already taken the first step in breaking this cycle by bringing the issue to light. Now, the question becomes, will other news outlets follow in their footsteps and give airtime to this troubling relationship between agriculture donors and politicians, or will the silencing of animal rights’ activists continue for the foreseeable future, with the public left mostly in the dark?

1. Animals don't have rights.
2. Start your own "lefty politics" thread to post crap like that, because it doesn't belong here.
3. I look forward to see the raging popularity of your "lefty politics" thread.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

If it means cheaper prices for our food, don't expect the public to get very upset about it.

Fair argument. You also got to understand it may not be just about lower food prices but a question of Public Safety if they're cut Corners end up making you sick down the line Will as lower prices end up being worth it?

Originally Posted by vannax

1. Animals don't have rights.

it wasn't the animals right I was talking about

Originally Posted by vannax

2. Start your own "lefty politics" thread to post crap like that, because it doesn't belong here.
3. I look forward to see the raging popularity of your "lefty politics" thread.

actually, I am glad that you are making my point for me. This is the way they go about slowly stripping away the rights we have they start out by tekening either a marginalized group and when they can win that situation they have already set up precedence for when they want to attack the larger group's rights. This what was the reason the ACLU would fight for hate groups Free Speech rights they didn't like them but they knew if they were able to infringe upon their rights it was a threat to everybody's rights as a whole.

[bowlinggreen]

If this thread is only for "politically correct bullshit of the day", I suggest the creation of a "PC Brigade" thread to which improper posts can be moved by the mods, rather than closing this one.

Or we could title it "The Well of PC Sorrows" or some such.

I'm not interested in the welfare of pigs, I just want their bacon.

If food industry executives make us sick, then lets just sit them down to a big plate of the contaminated food they were selling and make them scarf it all down.

A few televised episodes of that and the ensuing gastrointestinal consequences will work miracles in the matter of commercial food safety.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by vannax

1. Animals don't have rights.
2. Start your own "lefty politics" thread to post crap like that, because it doesn't belong here.
3. I look forward to see the raging popularity of your "lefty politics" thread.

Let's start off with the observation that if God didn't want people to eat animals, She wouldn't have made them out of meat.

WTF. Where do you get off with personal attacks in what is supposed to be be a light hearted thread? BTW. I am very tired of the right's use of pejorative labels in lieu of reasoned discussion and objective evidence as a debate tactic. Most of us regard animal rights activists as lunatic fringe as is demonstrated by the polling numbers. I will submit that even some of the 32% would kill and eat an animal rights activist if they got hungry enough. Can't you come up with humor and sarcasm in lieu of bullying?

If we are going to turn political, my atavistic Canadian fellow VEF member, it would be well for you to consult the polls. A quick look will reveal that many of your opinions are held by a minority of the voters, and that minority is eroding with the influx of younger voters. People of color whose values are more traditional and conservative have found themselves pushed to the liberal camp by the racist attacks from the right.

Frankly, a great deal of the nonsense on the left frustrates me, but the misogyny, racism, and bad faith of the right make it impossible to have any kind of dialogue.

Estreeter go ahead and shut this thread down again.

BTW kudos to the Monaco Grand Prix for its imaginative deployment of sponsorship representatives. Some folks confused them with Grid Girls.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/63905...d-girls-axing/

[bawjaws]

Wow getting a bit heavy in here
Let's get back to a good old -this will never fail- Woman with cock story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...suspended.html

[lothian]

Dogs are a patriarchal , hetero normative , gender stereotyping , toxic masculinity enablers best friend ...

https://youtu.be/vo1QSkznrZQ

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Estreeter go ahead and shut this thread down again.

I would, again if the need came about.

See, here we just had an incident .... but before I continue I'll add that I shouldn't single member out openly but it's my call and will to expose some hypocrisy

"Freedom carries a terrible price, but it's still a bargain compared to every alternative."

yet that same member that has that in his signature just told another member his views are not welcome

Should anyone agree or not with diamelsx's thoughts or any members thoughts are irrelevant ... but I won't have members openly told they are not welcome by anyone.

I don't care what he might think of myself doing this openly, has himself to blame and I won't close the thread as with that one comment seems to think he has taken some kind of ownership of it .... I started it, barely post in it anymore, don't own it either..... But can take it away , or worse

I don't want to see any comments about my post here, if anyone has a problem we have a PM system....

Now back to topic .

[lothian]

And the latest news from deepest Trans-insania . Genderless " theybies" . Well I suppose its less of a mouthful than " future smackheads , suicides and spree killers . "

https://youtu.be/AfzL8BrNSLQ

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

BTW kudos to the Monaco Grand Prix for its imaginative deployment of sponsorship representatives. Some folks confused them with Grid Girls.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/63905...d-girls-axing/

I prefer the Monster Energy Girls from NASCAR. They aren't in danger of being confused with 14 year old boys like their Grand Prix counterparts.