|
A dozen of US states are voting, or have voted what some call "ag-gag" laws, which prohibit anyone from taping and exposing animal cruelty in american farms. It goes as far as requesting new employees to declare any links with animal rights groups, and forcing the latter to give any footage already in their possession.
On one covert video, farm workers illegally burn the ankles of Tennessee walking horses with chemicals. Another captures workers in Wyoming punching and kicking pigs and flinging piglets into the air. And at one of the country’s largest egg suppliers, a video shows hens caged alongside rotting bird corpses, while workers burn and snap off the beaks of young chicks.
Each video — all shot in the last two years by undercover animal rights activists — drew a swift response: Federal prosecutors in Tennessee charged the horse trainer and other workers, who have pleaded guilty, with violating the Horse Protection Act. Local authorities in Wyoming charged nine farm employees with cruelty to animals. And the egg supplier, which operates in Iowa and other states, lost one of its biggest customers, McDonald’s, which said the video played a part in its decision.
[...]
But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms.
Critics call them “Ag-Gag” bills.
Source
The law has been voted in Iowa, Utah and Missouri, and is expected to be voted in Indiana and Tennessee.
The initiative comes from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank also responsible for the "stand your ground" legislation showcased in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. In 2002, the ALEC had already proposed a similar law, which labeled the unauthorized taping of farming infrastructures and methods as "terrorism". The logic behind this is that the exposure of animal abuse gives a bad reputation to the agricultural industry, and that farms are private property.
However,
Factory farms, like all homes and businesses, are already protected by law against trespassing. The so-called “ag-gag” laws now being considered by several states, including California, Illinois and Indiana, have nothing to do with protecting property. Their only purpose is to keep consumers in the dark, to make sure we know as little as possible about the grim details of factory farming. These bills are pushed by intensive lobbying from agribusiness corporations and animal production groups.
The ag-gag laws guarantee one thing for certain: increased distrust of American farmers and our food supply in general. They are exactly the wrong solution to a problem entirely of big agriculture’s own making. Instead of ag-gag laws, we need laws that impose basic standards on farm conditions and guarantee our right to know how our food is being produced.
Source
![[image loading]](http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2013/02/11/534x267/1830530_3_efe9_elevage-de-poules-pondeuses-en-batterie_a4cf4234966c30d16af5e117786c6e1a.jpg)
Such is the price of cheap meat.
(NB : interesting fact, I read this on a French newspaper, only to realize that it was the direct translation of a NY Times article... without any mention of the original source. I wonder if it's a normal thing to do...?)
|
On April 12 2013 03:39 Kukaracha wrote:
requesting new employees to declare any links with animal rights groups
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of an animal rights organization?"
|
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone.
|
Doesn't this take Freedom of the Press and kick it under the bus?
|
Not surprised, sadly. This is basically governments putting on their Bill Lumbergh face and saying "Hey guys, I know we have animal welfare laws and stuff, but big farming is big money, so we don't enforce them. Actually, we don't enforce very many policies in agriculture, since our monitoring agencies are run by the entities they're supposed to be monitoring in the first place. You're telling people about that, which we don't like, as it ultimately costs us money and makes us look bad, so we're just going to make making us look bad illegal. Thanks a bunch!"
|
I think the organization behind this movement is severely discounting how pissed off animal rights folk already are and will be in the face of something as ridiculous as this.
What they ought to be focusing on is the banning of any and all Sarah McLachlan songs from animal rights commercials.
|
Reading the OP made my soul sick.
|
|
|
In 2002, the ALEC had already proposed a similar law, which labeled the unauthorized taping of farming infrastructures and methods as "terrorism"
Seriously?
That is just crazy. Any links to this too? Can't seem to find the exact info :S
|
On April 12 2013 03:41 sam!zdat wrote:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of an animal rights organization?"
I heard that freedom can only be ensured by developping the largest prison system ever seen.
On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
It's not THAT bad, it's still illegal if the understaffed administrations in charge of controlling animal cruelty in the agricultural industry catch them red-handed.
Budget cuts are coming, but there is still a chance that some will get caught. Others will win the lottery, so everything balances out.
|
lol
this is by far the most stupid thing i have ever heard from a non muslim extremist country.
|
(NB : interesting fact, I read this on a French newspaper, only to realize that it was the direct translation of a NY Times article... without any mention of the original source. I wonder if it's a normal thing to do...?)
its called plagiarism, its pretty normal :p.
Incredibly fucked up situation, contact your legislator!
|
The law is Anti PETA, ajnd/or so called "Eco Terrorists" (I don't equate filming with bomb threats or acts of violence/vandilism, but its usage in the law is hyperbolic so why not be myself) and their becoming employees of big agriculture thus circumventing a lot of the trespassing and filming in secret.
I have no issue with their filming, animal rights isn't a big pet issue for me, but if activists are getting through your presumably exhaustive screening process for employment their activities are on you as a company. Your employees shouldn't have to be made party to abuse by virtue of you not adhering to existing legislation whether they are activists or not. If employees are doing this for fun, that video should serve as excellent evidence for their termination.
If they are simply documenting industry standard slaughterhouse procedure which is within the limits of the current law I don't see any problem either (unless they have industry secrets, which I doubt but may allow for some peripheral legal case). Agriculture isn't a glamorous industry, but at some point the cow that made your burger was killed so you could have it. I eat meat and recognize this fact.
|
I think they have that all backwards...
|
On April 12 2013 03:58 ThomasjServo wrote:
but at some point the cow that made your burger was tortured so you could have it. I eat meat and recognize this fact.
fixed it
User was warned for this post
|
How does this even make sense. This world is so crazy.
|
That is pretty disgusting.
|
Well... "puts hands in air" usually I'd be floored but I've become desensitized to ridiculous laws stemming from Western Europe and North America for the past few years so I kind of feel numb as if it isn't that shocking.
|
Lol, I thought this thread would be about making you and your friends taping abusing that stray cat illegal.
Oh boy, was I wrong.
|
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job.
|
I'm disgusted by this. I hope these laws are challenged in court and thrown out as OBVIOUS violations of a free press. This is Un-American!
|
It will be interesting what kind of rationale people can come up with to defend this. Someone will, even if it's just baiting.
Edit: Too late.
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job.
A crime taking place on private property is still a crime. It's not a sanctuary where you can do as you please. Regulators cannot possible oversee the amount of farms that exist in the US today, and often don't have legal recourses to do much with the cases they actually do come across.
|
On April 12 2013 04:06 Thorakh wrote:
Lol, I thought this thread would be about making you and your friends taping abusing that stray cat illegal.
Oh boy, was I wrong.
this is exactly what I thought it would be about. Pretty surprised by the actual content.
|
On April 12 2013 03:58 ThomasjServo wrote:
I have no issue with their filming, animal rights isn't a big pet issue for me, but if activists are getting through your presumably exhaustive screening process for employment their activities are on you as a company. Your employees shouldn't have to be made party to abuse by virtue of you not adhering to existing legislation whether they are activists or not. If employees are doing this for fun, that video should serve as excellent evidence for their termination.
If they are simply documenting industry standard slaughterhouse procedure which is within the limits of the current law I don't see any problem either (unless they have industry secrets, which I doubt but may allow for some peripheral legal case). Agriculture isn't a glamorous industry, but at some point the cow that made your burger was killed so you could have it. I eat meat and recognize this fact.
Someone did point this somewhere, but there isn't however any reason to fear legal repercussions if your employees act within the law. Any campaign built on footage of legal acts can also fall under defamation condemnatios.
You can also count the taping of legal practices as a way to promote a different legislation that does not allow the torture of livestock.
I do agree that meat is tasty, but those three ribs a day come at a very big ecological price, even though the supermarket says it's cheap.
|
On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote:
I can understand that as long as regulators do there job.
they don't, of course
|
On April 12 2013 04:09 Eben wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:06 Thorakh wrote:
Lol, I thought this thread would be about making you and your friends taping abusing that stray cat illegal.
Oh boy, was I wrong. this is exactly what I thought it would be about. Pretty surprised by the actual content.
Same here. What the hell is wrong with these people?
|
my gut reaction is that this is improper.
however, then i recalled that this is not something new and unheard of under the law. you can ask whatever questions you want in a job interview concerning animal rights groups and make employment decisions based on it. you can also put whatever legal conditions you want in the employment agreement (no photos, no video), which is quite common in industry--usually where processes are protected though, not something like this.
so, what do we do about people who commit fraud (e.g., lying on employment applications) and break contracts (e.g., taking photos and video without authorization) for their own ends? i guess criminalizing (criminal not civil) the behavior is one way, but it seems excessive and supportive of cover-ups. however, breach of contract (civil) doesn't really seem sufficient to prevent the illegal behavior.
also, whistle blower laws will protect employees disclosing illegal activities, so that is not even a concern in these cases.
|
On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote:
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job.
It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright".
Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either.
|
I think what the US really needs to ban is the word "terrorism" -_-
|
On April 12 2013 03:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:58 ThomasjServo wrote:
but at some point the cow that made your burger was tortured so you could have it. I eat meat and recognize this fact. fixed it
A matter of perspective, your implication (hyperbolic as it may be) is that a significant percentage of slaughterhouse employees are sadists who would willfully inflict undue harm to an animal bred for consumption prior to its being killed. Obviously the goal of existing laws is to minimize suffering of those animals, it was be as naive of me as an omnivore to think that every slaughterhouse adhered precisely to the letter of them as it most ardent animal rights supporter to think that by the end of their life everyone will be a vegetarian.
If this filming is helping shut down those places and drive up the industry standard for the killing of live stock (that is to say, making it more human in any given fashion), let them film. I did enjoy your post
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of an animal rights organization?"
Like McCarthy was running the hiring process.
I don't have any delusions about where my food comes from, I eat vegetarian a lot because its cheaper. Realistically I think fighting for more humane treatment of livestock is more viable than a lot of the stated goals of groups this is targeted at.
|
On April 12 2013 04:13 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:58 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 03:58 ThomasjServo wrote:
but at some point the cow that made your burger was tortured so you could have it. I eat meat and recognize this fact. fixed it A matter of perspective, your implication is that a significant percentage of slaughterhouse employees is a sadist who willfully inflicts undue harm to an animal bred for consumption prior to its being killed. Obviously the goal of existing laws is to minimize suffering of those animals
who needs sadists when you have limited liability corporations that exist to legally prohibit morality? and people who work in these places DO become desensitized to suffering - they don't have to start out sadists. the places make them sadists.
the existing laws don't do shit even if they were enforced, it's all in the pocket of agribusiness. if you think that big ag isn't writing all the legislation, you're delusional. that's how democracy works comrade
On April 12 2013 04:13 ThomasjServo wrote:Realistically I think fighting for more humane treatment of livestock is more viable than a lot of the stated goals of groups this is targeted at.
indubitably. but i support hell-raising by anyone, even if they are delusional
|
time to send peta to the front lines to battle
|
We are on the same side of things really, just a matter of terminology and inches it seems. Though I am not so much for hell-raising but do stand for general tom foolery in most matters.
|
On April 12 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote:
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright". Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either.
Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property.
|
On April 12 2013 04:19 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote:
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright". Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either. Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property.
so you prefer legal and evil to illegal and good. word.
edit: why do people keep talking about "the government doing its job properly?" what a joke
|
On April 12 2013 04:19 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote:
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright". Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either. Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property.
We are talking farms that feed the entire country, do you really not see why considerations of privacy might be different in this case? Since a consumer is practically unable to see the chicken before it gets slaughtered in pursuit of making a shopping choice, why would allowing public viewing of these farms be a bad thing?
|
So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die.
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off.
|
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote:
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off.
that's what democracy is supposed to be for, dude. you shouldn't have to do everything yourself to avoid engaging in unethical behavior. openness!
|
From the New York Times Article:
"They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms. "
It sounds to me like the purpose of the law is to promote prompt disclosure to authorities. Animal rights activists have a conflict of interest. Their goal in obtaining these jobs is to acquire horrific videos to further their agenda. If given an choice to turn over what they have immediately or hold out and wait for even more terrible abuses to be recorded they have an incentive to do the latter even though ethics dictate they should do the former. The goal of at least that law is to incentive the activists to turn of the videos ASAP, although I share their concern that it would hamper undercover investigations in general. There are also free speech considerations as well as potential fifth amendment considerations if the activist has engaged in any illegal activity.
|
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote:
So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die.
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off.
This is unreasonable. I feel fully entitled to moral outrage over inhumane treatment of animals even if I'm not a farmer or hunter. I have no qualms about killing for food, it's natural, but you're damn right I'm going to complain if living, feeling creatures who have done nothing wrong are tormented needlessly.
It's immoral, and it's illegal.
|
On April 12 2013 04:19 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:12 Hitch-22 wrote:On April 12 2013 04:08 CajunMan wrote:
Well the basis of the law is that these farms are private property so they should be able to control this kind of stuff. I can understand that as long as regulators do there job. It also, however, allows the full closure of all abuses on their property... It's like simply saying "we'll have animal fighting (i.e. dog cage fights) on our private land, it's private, it's alright". Doesn't quite work that way and it shouldn't be either. Well that is different here you are just allowing people to freely go and take pictures of peoples private property and work. You and they are just assuming what they are doing is illegal. I'm not saying if they aren't seen all is good I'm saying with the government doing there job properly this is a nonissue and how it should be. Course that is not how it always is but i am more willing to side with someone's privacy and assuming the better with checkups than forcing an open door policy to anyone that wants access to your private property.
The second you leave responsibility on getting the government to do the peoples job is the second the people no longer can adequately represent their own ideologies and abuses forthwith are intensified. Those are hundreds of thousands of jobs and feed the entire country, the government has an investment in them and as such make judgement calls that the abuses are worth the price vs the abuses whereas us as citizens can interject and inform our politics that this is not the case. Laws like this remove that medium and make meaningful inquiry into abuses illegal.
|
On April 12 2013 03:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:39 Kukaracha wrote:
requesting new employees to declare any links with animal rights groups "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of an animal rights organization?"
I felt fat once and only ate salads for a month--does that count?
|
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote:
So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die.
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off. I have a better idea. Make legislation that prevents the unnecessary harming of animals and actually enforce it.
|
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote:
So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die.
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off.
these are literally the only 2 options
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these damn abolition...er...crazy animal loving peta hippies. shakes cane
|
On April 12 2013 04:29 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote:
So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die.
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off. I have a better idea. Make legislation that prevents the unnecessary harming of animals and actually enforce it.
That's crazy european talk!
|
Haha, FarmBoy sure is making a lot of friends with his response to the thread...
I'm pretty sure citizens of a country have the right to be outraged at a law created by elected individuals, particularly when the law doesn't represent anything more than a special interest group with a lot of money, rather than the collective (majority) will of the state.
EDIT: If somebody gets amazing footage from inside a slaughterhouse of workers blowing off steam by kicking the chickens for field-goals it seems really unfair that the footage is automatically illegal.
|
Oh no the terrorists are trying to stop us from horribly abusing animals for their entire lives!
I guess learning where your food comes from is terrifying for the general public.
It's not sadists that are abusing animals in factory farms. Its factory farms that are abusing animals. By the thousands daily.
|
Maybe they should work on getting rid of animal cruelty in the first place instead of criminalizing its taping
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 04:38 Ettick wrote:
Maybe they should work on getting rid of animal cruelty in the first place instead of criminalizing its taping A legislator's mind works in strange ways.
1) Sees horrible conditions in animal factories.
2) ???
3) Bans taping animal factories instead of enforcing legislation.
Hmmm, I wonder what happened in step 2!
|
The laws that US has pushed through in the recent years and are trying to push through makes me wonder what our future will be like. I think its total control with most of the people living in poverty. The worst part is that western people are mostly clueless about it since the western media is not objective at all. I couldn't even find anything about the latest wikileaks leak in Finnish media, or some of the biggest medias in the US. Kissinger just murdered people and such little things and no one gives a crap... ...SICK.
Honestly I don't think theres anything to be done. Your fine if your willing to spin in the system and not question your government. Oh and most of you will barely come along with your 5-7 day a week 8-12 hours a day jobs.
And thats the best case scenario.
Yea I'm optimistic!
|
On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY
legislators
campaign contributions by public interest groups
public interest groups funded by big ag corps
big ag corps making money off consumer purchases
consumers.
fuck the consumers!
|
On April 12 2013 04:37 ComaDose wrote:I guess learning where your food comes from is terrifying for the general public.
The only thing terrifying about this is that people still will have no respect for the animals. So many people get mad about animal's getting tortured in factory farms. They respond by crying for more laws and regulation over their food. The small guy (small farms and farming communities) take one in the nuts and big business triumph's again because people think crying to the government actually helps them.
Instead of doing something themselves (raising their own food in whatever fashion they see fit) they once again put the ball in someone else's court, then bitches about it.
|
On April 12 2013 04:47 FarmI3oy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:37 ComaDose wrote:I guess learning where your food comes from is terrifying for the general public. The only thing terrifying about this is that people still will have no respect for the animals. So many people get mad about animal's getting tortured in factory farms. They respond by crying for more laws and regulation over their food. The small guy (small farms and farming communities) take one in the nuts and big business triumph's again because people think crying to the government actually helps them. Instead of doing something themselves (raising their own food in whatever fashion they see fit) they once again put the ball in someone else's court, then bitches about it.
And for those who are unable to raise their own food, what of them?
|
On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers!
anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Is this shit for real? Somewhere something went terribly wrong; can't believe 'terrorism' is still being used as an actual valid argument - someone needs to sort their shit - this is just pathetic.
I'm by no means an animal activist - hell Ill eat those eggs and chicken raised in shoeboxes when money is low, but I wish there was a law against it or atleast means to provide a sustainable alternative. This legislation is just screaming of an industry trying to achieve carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want - and thats never ever a good thing if you claim to be a democracy...
|
On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation
samz you usually have at least debate-worthy things to say, but you know this is bullshit
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 04:54 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation samz you usually have at least debate-worthy things to say, but you know this is bullshit
why? I think the labeling of people as "consumers" is among the most despicable abuses of language in our society. we are not "consumers" and we need to stop thinking of ourselves as such. is the essence of your being really your ability to "consume" things? capitalism thinks so. do you?
it's totally demeaning to human dignity to call people "consumers"
|
On April 12 2013 04:54 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation samz you usually have at least debate-worthy things to say, but you know this is bullshit
Yea, that really is some bullshit coming from a fellow consumer.
|
On April 12 2013 03:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:39 Kukaracha wrote:
requesting new employees to declare any links with animal rights groups "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of an animal rights organization?"
This reminds me of when i joined the military.
"Do you now or have ever joined a terrorist organization?"
WHY yes i was just coming back from my Taliban meeting.. or at least i really wanted to crack that joke.
Its sort of silly, whats to stop someone from lying about it.. lol
|
On April 12 2013 05:04 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! You did it backwards, turn around and try again >.< Are you saying if consumers want to change this then they should boycott corporations that... are following the law?
i think you should lead us down this rabbit hole so we can follow the money together.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation
well.. you ARE a consumer by definition..
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i like consumer for the macabre tinge it has.
anyway, whether animal rights should be pursued is a political issue that citizens have the right to be involved in determining. this kind of legislation has no place.
|
On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition..
just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being.
|
Sigh...I hate reading news like this...Are all politicians in the pocket of lobbyist or what? Its so...argh..Filming and proving animal cruelty is now a crime? because it can hurt companies like McDonalds? God..my soul hurts now >_<
|
We are all consumers in some capacity. We are also spreading fecal matter into the air every time we fart. I prefer not to think of myself as shit-fountain, so it seems reasonable not to view yourself as a consumer as well.
|
On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are.
i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent."
oh, wait...
edit:
Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most?
that is obvious.
|
On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait...
that's totally disingenuous. that's only analogous if you think that corporations are people and should be treated like citizens of the polity. oh, wait...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i think consumer the word in popular usage is selected because it sounds official. in law etc, it is a relational term describing someone's place relative to a producer/seller. it's not meant to be totalizing in the relational usage.
but of course, this is a probable case of "when in doubt blame economics."
|
On April 12 2013 05:17 oneofthem wrote:
i think consumer the word in popular usage is selected because it sounds official. in law etc, it is a relational term describing someone's place relative to a producer/seller. it's not meant to be totalizing in the relational usage.
it's become totalizing though. people really do think of themselves as "consumers", and not just plato-style "insofar as they consume things"
|
At first reading of the title I thought it would be a bill criminalizing the posting of those videos where kids light dogs on fire and disgusting stuff like that and I was thinking "well, I could agree with that". But then I read what the law is actually for and I was disgusted.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Show nested quote +Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious.
animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force.
|
On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force.
RIAA.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA.
not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely.
it is also an american tradition that citizens can involve themselves in raising political issues. clearly criminalizing filming a practice that some people consider politically objectionable flies in the face of this whole democracy thing.
|
On April 12 2013 05:20 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... This dialogue could be much more constructive if you dropped the sarcastic attitude. For one, this isn't actually a democracy, this is a Democratic Republic. You seem to have wrongfully assumed that I want the government to have full access to information - this couldn't be further from the truth. However, I do want the PEOPLE to have us much information as they have a lawful right to. Could you please explain your position a little more clearly? edit: Show nested quote +Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. Who then? Didn't you say the consumers? Let's be clear please.
you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense.
you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind.
i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread.
|
Faith in humanity: lost. No, but this is so sad. Cant even describe the sadness im feeling right now. US man... What the fuck? No suprise, but i guess money really does rules the world. Bah 
|
On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition.. just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being.
yes if you masturbate you are a "masturbator".. so if you consume... as i know you are right now consuming electricity, internet access plus whatever else you consume..just sayin..
ehh w/e delusions float your boat buddy..
|
On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely.
take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law?
|
because daphreak corporations SHOULD be spied upon bt people and people SHOULD NOT be spied upon by corporations
|
On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense.
you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind.
i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread.
It's only a fruitless exercise when followed (deliberately) fallaciously.
There was a character in The Wire, a detective, that would have this as his motto. "Follow the money" in the sense "find the individual who benefits from this operation".
If you do follow your train of thought, there is a responsability indeed, though no linked to profitability but to moral responsability. People do have the choice of consuming less meat, and paying a higher price to ensure a quality product.
|
On April 12 2013 05:34 sam!zdat wrote:
because daphreak corporations SHOULD be spied upon bt people and people SHOULD NOT be spied upon by corporations
PETA is a corporation. oh the quandary~!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and as the article said this law is over and above trespassing laws. it's not the same as giving animal rights activists a piece of squatting territory on the factory farm floor.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law?
that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues.
you just can't see beyond the privacy issue which is not even what's being discussed by the law. it;s not a right to trespass
|
On April 12 2013 05:30 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition.. just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being. yes if you masturbate you are a "masturbator".. so if you consume... as i know you are right now consuming electricity, internet access plus whatever else you consume..just sayin.. ehh w/e delusions float your boat buddy..
His point is that our role as consumers is a small one in comparison to what we are as human beings. From an economical point of view, we are consumers, true, but this doesn't mean that it is what defines us in general.
|
On April 12 2013 05:35 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense.
you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind.
i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread. It's only a fruitless exercise when followed (deliberately) fallaciously. There was a character in The Wire, a detective, that would have this as his motto. "Follow the money" in the sense "find the individual who benefits from this operation". If you do follow your train of thought, there is a responsability indeed, though no linked to profitability but to moral responsability. People do have the choice of consuming less meat, and paying a higher price to ensure a quality product.
i'll admit that my following the money exercise was sarcastic and deliberately fallacious. thats because i think its ridiculous to say "big ag supports it, must be bad."
|
is peta for profit? That's a sophistic point and you know it.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues
so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are.
when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal.
|
|
|
so the law is bad and we should change it....
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is.
and as i've already alluded to earlier, the meshing of private property right of privacy and the right to citizen political participation is the result of a natural overlapping, the fact that laws reach over privaate castle walls. (thus animal abuse done in private is still animal abuse, provided the laws are there for animal abuse. citizen sheriff can expose that, just as they can expose a private mob deal or something and be in witness protection)
you seem to think that this is simply a privacy issue which it is not.
|
On April 12 2013 05:40 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:20 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... This dialogue could be much more constructive if you dropped the sarcastic attitude. For one, this isn't actually a democracy, this is a Democratic Republic. You seem to have wrongfully assumed that I want the government to have full access to information - this couldn't be further from the truth. However, I do want the PEOPLE to have us much information as they have a lawful right to. Could you please explain your position a little more clearly? edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. Who then? Didn't you say the consumers? Let's be clear please. you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense. you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind. i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread. I'm not upset, don't be silly, and don't tell me what I'm feeling. My one liner made plenty of sense, and believe me I'll throw them out whenever I want. --- You seem to have confused "lawful" and "legal". It is illegal - but not unlawful - to lie to your employer all you want. Big government so big $_$.
thats very curious. please tell me the difference between illegal and unlawful. also, please tell me why you believe you can lie to a prospective employer to gain access to their property for ulterior motives? that is a new one to me.
|
|
|
I really hate America. I really, really do.
|
On April 12 2013 05:39 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:30 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 05:10 sc14s wrote:On April 12 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 04:41 Barrin wrote:
FOLLOW THE MONEY legislators campaign contributions by public interest groups public interest groups funded by big ag corps big ag corps making money off consumer purchases consumers. fuck the consumers! anyone who thinks of themselves as a "consumer" deserves to be fucked. what an undignified appellation well.. you ARE a consumer by definition.. just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being. yes if you masturbate you are a "masturbator".. so if you consume... as i know you are right now consuming electricity, internet access plus whatever else you consume..just sayin.. ehh w/e delusions float your boat buddy.. His point is that our role as consumers is a small one in comparison to what we are as human beings. From an economical point of view, we are consumers, true, but this doesn't mean that it is what defines us in general.
Its also true that we all have many things that define us and they are not mutually exclusive (usually)
You can be a masterbator, a consumer, a superhero, and a heroin addict. How many groups you qualify in is not up to you, its up to the statistician who is doing the study.
|
I don't really think that animal rights activists have managed a single conviction by using illegally obtained evidence, anyway.
This isn't a matter of discerning between illegally obtained evidence and legally obtained evidence... It's like they're making it so that the gathering of evidence is suddenly illegal, which is bullshit. How does this affect the ability of investigators to do their work?
I don't give a fuck about animal rights activists' attempts to sabotage food production for some vegan agenda, I'm talking about the legality of actual investigators being able to do their job. Will the FBI, for example legally be allowed to video-tape animal cruelty for use in court against companies that allow such abuse?
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is.
i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread.
so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do....
|
On April 12 2013 05:45 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
so the law is bad and we should change it.... The law in the US is fucking fantastic. It's the legal system that needs work. I'm not an attorney and I probably shouldn't give you legal advice. I recommend looking up the difference between "legal" and "lawful" on your own.
i am an attorney. and i have never heard of this distinction. so, i am asking your advice as a layperson what i as a lawyer do not know. i am very curious.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do....
do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? the peta guys can't jump over a fence, that's clear. taking pictures and videos is different. though trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) and thus have a rather sovereignty shape, but it takes issues like this to change that.
it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here.
|
On April 12 2013 05:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:40 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:20 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... This dialogue could be much more constructive if you dropped the sarcastic attitude. For one, this isn't actually a democracy, this is a Democratic Republic. You seem to have wrongfully assumed that I want the government to have full access to information - this couldn't be further from the truth. However, I do want the PEOPLE to have us much information as they have a lawful right to. Could you please explain your position a little more clearly? edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. Who then? Didn't you say the consumers? Let's be clear please. you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense. you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind. i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread. I'm not upset, don't be silly, and don't tell me what I'm feeling. My one liner made plenty of sense, and believe me I'll throw them out whenever I want. --- You seem to have confused "lawful" and "legal". It is illegal - but not unlawful - to lie to your employer all you want. Big government so big $_$. thats very curious. please tell me the difference between illegal and unlawful. also, please tell me why you believe you can lie to a prospective employer to gain access to their property for ulterior motives? that is a new one to me.
Lawful is what a paladin does when he grabs women and children during an explosion
Unlawful is what an orc does when he grabs women and children during an explosion
And now everything is clear 
j/k
I think he's confusing criminally punishable with unlawful. You can lie to your employers all you want and so long as it can't be proven that you lied there is nothing that can be done.
So let's say you said
"I am not part of PETA"
Then your boss finds a PETA email in your inbox.
"I just joined recently to see what the fuss was about, I don't actually care"
Then your boss tags your facebook picture of you in a rally throwing blood at a minivan
"I met this girl, she's so hot, one thing led to another and suddenly the crowed was everywhere. I scored though, so worth it"
And so on and so forth.
Now your boss/police could spend time tracking spending records, cameras, etc... but at some point it will cost them more money than its worth to actually pursue you.
|
On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent."
oh, wait...
edit:
[quote]
that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here.
as i said in my first post:
1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law.
2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal.
3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws.
so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them.
as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 05:58 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:45 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
so the law is bad and we should change it.... The law in the US is fucking fantastic. It's the legal system that needs work. I'm not an attorney and I probably shouldn't give you legal advice. I recommend looking up the difference between "legal" and "lawful" on your own. i am an attorney. and i have never heard of this distinction. so, i am asking your advice as a layperson what i as a lawyer do not know. i am very curious. It's completely understandable that you don't know the distinction because you probably only ever deal with the legal side of it. And let me be honest, I'm not a historian either. However, I do have access to the internet... and boy is there a lot of information about it.
third time is the charm: whats the difference?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here. as i said in my first post: 1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law. 2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal. 3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws. so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them. as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law.
it's not only for employees though. it's targeted at anyone within premise and about taking information.
even if it's about employees, it's still dependent on your idea of contract which is clearly a political matter. contractual honesty vs spying for a political cause.
and as you've said there are whistleblower laws, which is the other side of the fence when it comes to private property rights vs citizen right to information and so on.
|
Lobbying... we should have listened to James Madison.
|
On April 12 2013 06:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here. as i said in my first post: 1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law. 2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal. 3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws. so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them. as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law. it's not only for employees though. it's targeted at anyone within premise and about taking information. even if it's about employees, it's still dependent on your idea of contract which is clearly a political matter. contractual honesty vs spying for a political cause.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stat_pdf/stusia2011hf589.pdf
thats the ag-gag law i found. it applies to anyone who takes photos and video without consent of the property owner. i am fine with that. your property, you get to control access.
contract is not a political matter, it is a legal matter. "spying for a political cause" is not a defense to lawbreaking that i am aware of. i am not sure why you are caught up on this political cause issue. "political cause" is not an excuse to lawbreaking. ask nixon.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:00 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here. as i said in my first post: 1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law. 2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal. 3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws. so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them. as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law. it's not only for employees though. it's targeted at anyone within premise and about taking information. even if it's about employees, it's still dependent on your idea of contract which is clearly a political matter. contractual honesty vs spying for a political cause. http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stat_pdf/stusia2011hf589.pdfthats the ag-gag law i found. it applies to anyone who takes photos and video without consent of the property owner. i am fine with that. your property, you get to control access. contract is not a political matter, it is a legal matter. "spying for a political cause" is not a defense to lawbreaking that i am aware of. i am not sure why you are caught up on this political cause issue. "political cause" is not an excuse to lawbreaking. ask nixon. the shape of contract law is a political matter, whichis being discussed. whether some laws are ok, and whether the legal principle behind the laws are ok.
googling ag gag laws, it seems like this started in 2011. so the issue is broader than a particular law about employees. clearly they want to seal the place up from pesky peta people.
|
why should corporations have an expectation to privacy about anything at all? That's what I don't understand. We should be spying on all of them all of the time
|
arent there some loopholes to this? like what if someone videotaped animal cruelty going on secretly to expose it and stop it? would they be held liable in this case?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
think fo all the sets! dats a set. think of a bunch of people doing stuff, that's a people.
logic, flawless
|
On April 12 2013 06:12 sam!zdat wrote:
why should corporations have an expectation to privacy about anything at all? That's what I don't understand. We should be spying on all of them all of the time
why should anyone have an expectation of privacy?
|
corporations are not anyone, because they aren't people
if they're doing something they don't want people to see, they shouldn't be doing it
|
|
|
I think it makes sense that the video taping without permission should be against the law, and even that the tapes get recalled.
How would you like it if some peeping tom or spy was recording embarrassing and/or intimate or taboo situations? If it's something you didn't want out there, you would probably want those tapes recalled, and because it was on private property without your permission, you'd have full rights to that desire.
That said, there should have to be some sort of organization that IS allowed to do inspections undercover in order to ensure proper regulations are being followed, since there is obviously an issue with the way things are going.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 06:18 sam!zdat wrote:
corporations are not anyone, because they aren't people
if they're doing something they don't want people to see, they shouldn't be doing it
Wasn't it ruled that corporations are people by the supreme court? Not that I agree with it--but aren't they "legally" people?
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 06:22 Xapti wrote:
I think it makes sense that the video taping without permission should be against the law, and even that the tapes get recalled.
How would you like it if some peeping tom or spy was recording embarrassing and/or intimate or taboo situations? If it's something you didn't want out there, you would probably want those tapes recalled, and because it was on private property without your permission, you'd have full rights to that desire.
That said, there should have to be some sort of organization that IS allowed to do inspections undercover in order to ensure proper regulations are being followed, since there is obviously an issue with the way things are going.
What I do for the glory of Moloch is my business and there is nothing you can do about it :p
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 06:22 Xapti wrote:
I think it makes sense that the video taping without permission should be against the law, and even that the tapes get recalled.
How would you like it if some peeping tom or spy was recording embarrassing and/or intimate or taboo situations? If it's something you didn't want out there, you would probably want those tapes recalled, and because it was on private property without your permission, you'd have full rights to that desire.
That said, there should have to be some sort of organization that IS allowed to do inspections undercover in order to ensure proper regulations are being followed, since there is obviously an issue with the way things are going.
It's not like they recorded the CEO having an affair or something. Your comparison makes no sense. If someone recorded a video illegally of a guy beating his wife/children I think it should be able to be used as evidence and that the women-beater should have no power over the tape whatsoever. I also think the guy recording the video should get punished for trespassing.
|
Pretty amazing to see people have the gall to play devil's advocate against this. It's completely bizarre and insane to have a law like this. Shocking.
|
On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.
edit: $_$
...
seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them.....
|
On April 12 2013 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.
edit: $_$ ... seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them.....
because the corporation has been nothing but a way for bourgeois scum to perpetrate violence by proxy ever since the british east india company. Even your boy adam smith thought they were evil
|
On April 12 2013 06:20 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:58 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:45 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
so the law is bad and we should change it.... The law in the US is fucking fantastic. It's the legal system that needs work. I'm not an attorney and I probably shouldn't give you legal advice. I recommend looking up the difference between "legal" and "lawful" on your own. i am an attorney. and i have never heard of this distinction. so, i am asking your advice as a layperson what i as a lawyer do not know. i am very curious. It's completely understandable that you don't know the distinction because you probably only ever deal with the legal side of it. And let me be honest, I'm not a historian either. However, I do have access to the internet... and boy is there a lot of information about it. third time is the charm: whats the difference? :\ If you have a birth certificate, then you are already entered into the legal system and you have to follow all legislation regardless. When you are born in the hospital, your parents don't actually have to sign this. If they don't you are not (at least not yet) entered into the legal system. Legally, this birth certificate is actually a whole new "person" that you become responsible for. Legally, an "artifical person", separate from your "real person". If you are not entered into the *cough*corporation of*cough* the united states of america, then you only have to follow whichever legislation that you GIVE CONSENT TO. Consent. Persons. I'm talking your language now, right? (Almost) every legislation has a stipulations regarding who it refers to. One legislation made it so that when every other legislation refers to a "person", they're ONLY referring to "artificial persons" and NOT "real persons". Not all real persons have an artificial person, and if you have one it is possible to get rid of it (again, I don't plan on doing this sort of thing). If you are a real person who isn't responsible for an artificial person, then unless the legislation explicit says otherwise, you do not have to give consent to the government to be governed, and they do not have the right do put you in jail or fine you or anything (lesser courts might not recognize this, but the supreme court definitely will). Let's be clear that hurting and stealing from other people is not only illegal but also unlawful. I hope I helped, rest is for you. Almost forgot: yes you can get away with more like this. no it is not convenient, especially if you're poor. BTW your "I must look better than other ppl, at all costs!" demeanor is getting annoying.
can i hazard a guess that none of this is supported by any judicial decision or legislative authority?
|
land of the free baby!
and not surprised at some of the states.
|
On April 12 2013 06:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.
edit: $_$ ... seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them..... because the corporation has been nothing but a way for bourgeois scum to perpetrate violence by proxy ever since the british east india company. Even your boy adam smith thought they were evil
So wait a minute, are you saying the Dutch East India Company is without blame in regards to the procession of the corporation?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 12 2013 06:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.
edit: $_$ ... seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them..... because the corporation has been nothing but a way for bourgeois scum to perpetrate violence by proxy ever since the british east india company. Even your boy adam smith thought they were evil
you could probably substitute just about any word with corporation in that sentence. the rich will always use their wealth and influence to their own gain. i do not know who adam smith is.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 06:35 sc4k wrote:
Pretty amazing to see people have the gall to play devil's advocate against this. It's completely bizarre and insane to have a law like this. Shocking.
It technically doesn't add anything new to the books--simply forces law enforcement to execute the law more swiftly.
It does show the moral fiber of the corporations involved, which is horrible. But it's literally a law saying you can't videotape me while I'm in private property. Its simply asking police to be less lenient about it.
It's like the arizona law requiring cops to check for ID. The cops were already required to check for ID, the law simply made it so that they couldn't turn a blind eye if they wanted to.
Both this law and the Arizona law are terrible--but not the law in and of itself. Privacy laws are very important as well as law enforcement procedure to make sure warrants are needed before people poke around your house looking for evidence. I would hate for cops to break in my door looking for evidence and I would hate neighbors breaking into my house for the sake of looking for evidence. Corporations feel the same way.
It's terrible, and I hate them for it, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 06:59 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.
edit: $_$ ... seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them..... You mistake me, indeed of course it makes sense that corporations generally do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them. If they didn't they'd go bankrupt if they could ever get investors again to begin with. Tough world, gotta make money. But... legally required? Are you legally required to do whats in the best interest for you? Don't get me wrong, I think businesses owners should be held accountable to their investors. But I don't think they should be given a badge - and even be encouraged - to run around taking advantage of everything and everyone but their own investors... FOR EXAMPLE... the massive Arkansas ExxonMobil oil spill happening in Arkansas right now. You're damn right those people are doing what's in the best interest of their shareholders (unless they happen to live in Arkansas, haha oops, but they prbly don't). It's the government's job to protect the people, i.e. the people of Arkansas, from being the victims of decidedly reckless corporation policies (i.e. greedy rich people). Unless.... $_$ the government has been corrupted by greedy rich people $_$
in my corporate law class we learned an acronym, OPM. it means "other people's money." when you are spending other people's moneys, you are required to act in their best interest as long as the acts are legal. you want to be charitable with money and look out for other people's interests? go ahead, but use your own money. if you want to be charitable with the shareholders' money, you hold a shareholder's meeting and ask their permission. i dont see why this is an issue. i don't invest in ABC Corporation so that they can spend my money on charities. i invest it because i want money for retirement. shame on me for being greedy....
|
On April 12 2013 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:38 sam!zdat wrote:On April 12 2013 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 06:32 Barrin wrote:
The worst part about corporations is that they are *legally required* to do what's in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yes, required. I used to think that it was just okay for them to do it. Nope. It's required.
edit: $_$ ... seriously? of course they are legally required to do whats in the best interests of the individuals that own them..... because the corporation has been nothing but a way for bourgeois scum to perpetrate violence by proxy ever since the british east india company. Even your boy adam smith thought they were evil you could probably substitute just about any word with corporation in that sentence. the rich will always use their wealth and influence to their own gain. i do not know who adam smith is.
and so that makes it okay? That's what the revolution is for comrade. If rich people are always evil, then we should abolish rich people. If they can't behave themselves, then they can rot in hell
I can't believe you don't know who adam smith is
|
Okay everyone. So I read a very informative blog post from someone who has some genuinely good reasons behind why this bill has so much support. Ready yourselves!! (or just read it here). Edit: Actually it basically comes from the new york times article 
The New York Times mentions several reasons why meat producers object to the practice of covert filming. First, the disturbing treatment of animals depicted in the videos may actually represent ‘best practice’, and therefore does not count as mistreatment at all. Second, meat producers suspect that the true motivation in producing the videos is not to protect animals, but to persuade people not to eat meat.1 Third, they complain that the videos are made available online before the company has had an opportunity to address the abusive behaviour of its employees.
This legislation is, understandably, highly controversial. Imagine if similar legislation were proposed to restrict the activities of undercover police officers, requiring them to declare their links to the police force whenever they attempted to obtain undercover employment, and to reveal any evidence gained almost immediately, thus curtailing their ability to build a case over time. Such legislation would effectively put an end to undercover police operations, and we could expect many of the worst sort of criminals to go unpunished as a result...
There is at least one important difference...unlike the police, animal charities often publicise their evidence online before it has been evaluated by the usual legal processes, and before the animal abusers or their employers have had a chance to put their case; as a result, these charities arguably act unfairly.
Definitely some great points, and as far as I see not made in this thread at all. The solution, as the blog writer notes, is to lobby for the installation of CCTV cameras in all slaughterhouses, so they can record evidence of mistreatment of animals and have it reviewed by legal authoritative bodies. That is exactly what his being pushed for in the UK. I think we can basically tally this up to *yet another* example of the state governments taking the easy route, instead of actually trying to fix the problem. Or the more likely and cynical answer, that they simply support agribusiness more than animal rights.
|
|
|
(NB : interesting fact, I read this on a French newspaper, only to realize that it was the direct translation of a NY Times article... without any mention of the original source. I wonder if it's a normal thing to do...?)
Believe it or not it is. It actually works more like this:
Someone writes a story and it goes into a data base.
From that database of stories, other newspapers can select which stories they would like to be featured on their newspaper.
|
I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights?
|
|
|
Well, cheap meat as Anthony Bourdain said "mmm, taste like it died screaming".
|
On April 12 2013 07:41 carloselcoco wrote:Show nested quote +(NB : interesting fact, I read this on a French newspaper, only to realize that it was the direct translation of a NY Times article... without any mention of the original source. I wonder if it's a normal thing to do...?) Believe it or not it is. It actually works more like this: Someone writes a story and it goes into a data base. From that database of stories, other newspapers can select which stories they would like to be featured on their newspaper.
Its not even that romantic.
Someone writes a, and if they are employed writers as opposed to contracted writers, what they write might or might not be put into *a* database.
|
On April 12 2013 07:44 diehilde wrote:
I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights?
Hell yes they would!
"Would you do it again son?"
"Uh... no sir?"
"I'm glad you learned your lesson"
|
On April 12 2013 07:44 diehilde wrote:
I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
|
Stop crying about it and speak with your wallet, its the only way to get their attention.
|
Meh. Meat is too yummy and protein packed to give up.
|
On April 12 2013 07:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 07:41 carloselcoco wrote:(NB : interesting fact, I read this on a French newspaper, only to realize that it was the direct translation of a NY Times article... without any mention of the original source. I wonder if it's a normal thing to do...?) Believe it or not it is. It actually works more like this: Someone writes a story and it goes into a data base. From that database of stories, other newspapers can select which stories they would like to be featured on their newspaper. Its not even that romantic. Someone writes a, and if they are employed writers as opposed to contracted writers, what they write might or might not be put into *a* database.
From what I understood newspaper bough short notices from press agencies, but always rewrote them themselves. I didn't know they could simply copy paste press releases.
|
On April 12 2013 07:58 autoexec wrote:
Meh. Meat is too yummy and protein packed to give up.
It's not about cutting on your meat purchases, its about purchasing from a supplier who demonstrates that he does'nt mistreat animals rather than from MegaFarmCorp which optimizes profits (theirs, not yours obviously).
|
On April 12 2013 07:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 07:44 diehilde wrote:
I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
So there we have it. I guess animal cruelty is illegal as well? So when you film that and expose it your protected as well. So basically the law is only on paper, but in practice it doesnt mean jackshit because you are protected from legal repercussions when you actually film illegal activity like animal cruelty and expose it.
|
Gonna go down well in whore houses around the country
|
In before they outlaw criticism of government.
Ridiculous law, and the reason behind it is completely flawed aswell. When they outlaw 'whistleblowing', making it akin to terrorism because it damages a certain sector's reputation, doesn't such a law in fact damage the entire nation's reputation, instead of just a sector?
Sigh... idiots.
|
im not against killing animals for meat, but at least kill them painlessly and give them a decent life.
|
Hating on the concept of the corporate veil is cool and stuff but most likely without it we would be a century behind in progression and innovation. Nearly all successful entrepreneurs have failed multiple times and the corporate distinction is the only thing saving them from being permanently financially crippled after their first attempt.
On topic: wouldn't legalising this open a new can of worms in that someone could come into your house and take evidence of say your piracy history and that would be permissible in court?
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 08:20 yandere991 wrote:
On topic: wouldn't legalising this open a new can of worms in that someone could come into your house and take evidence of say your piracy history and that would be permissible in court?
It's already legal and people don't break into houses I believe !
|
I have no words :/ as soon as I'll have my apartment I'll start be vegetarian/vegan... can't take this anymore.
|
On April 12 2013 03:39 Kukaracha wrote:SourceSuch is the price of cheap meat.
Forgive me, but it looks that that's the price of cheap eggs. The reason I got their nutrition on a tight budget back in the late teens/early twenties. Something I draw the line as on the side of necessary for human pop and poverty and not the cheap beefs etc.
I oppose any laws banning undercover photographs and videos that go beyond existing laws, such as trespassing on private property (for non-employees) and videotaping people with audio without their consent. If you want to build support for increasing the living spaces of hens, cows, pigs, and the rest, use whatever legal means you wish.
|
On April 12 2013 08:06 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 07:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 07:44 diehilde wrote:
I dont really get it. So for privacy reasons its technically illegal to film inside a private corp. Why the need to specify "taping of animal cruelty"? Seems to me there is no difference to a simple ban on filming anything without consent from the employer, which most likely is already in place. Also its only _technically_ illegal - some judge actually has to sentence the offender. I believe no judge in their right mind would do that. To kick it up a notch lets say you - technically illegally - film some colleagues at work that are butchering and shreddering newborn children of mexican immigrants in the dozens to add to livestock food. Now you go ahead and expose that horrible crime - would any court really sentence you for breaching privacy rights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower So there we have it. I guess animal cruelty is illegal as well? So when you film that and expose it your protected as well. So basically the law is only on paper, but in practice it doesnt mean jackshit because you are protected from legal repercussions when you actually film illegal activity like animal cruelty and expose it.
But if that is true, why have interest groups relevant to the farm industry pushed for this law? Money doesn't grow on trees. Who's going to get fired for pouring money on a useless endeavor?
...wait, reading article again. What's this about a "terrorist registry"?
Ok, the disclosure requirements to law enforcement are terrible for whistleblowers trying to put together a case. Interest group support makes more sense now.
|
On April 12 2013 08:11 MrTortoise wrote:
Gonna go down well in whore houses around the country
Pun intended?
|
On April 12 2013 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:just because I do something, that means that I am an "X-er"? I masturbate, but if you started conceptualizing my basic identity as a "masturbator" then I would be a bit miffed, and I would feel that you were overlooking some more fundamental aspects of my identity as a human being.
But your identity in certain contexts only matter so much. Everyone knows you are more than just a consumer, but a person can describe you as a consumer (Whether you like it or not) among other things.
|
"In 2002, the ALEC had already proposed a similar law, which labeled the unauthorized taping of farming infrastructures and methods as "terrorism"."
lol gimme a break. everything in this country is terrorism now. it's become such an absurd catch-all phrase. i'm just waiting to read the US history textbooks in 30 years to laugh at this "police state necessary to catch the boogeyman terrorists" garbage.
|
On April 12 2013 03:53 hfglgg wrote:
lol
this is by far the most stupid thing i have ever heard from a non muslim extremist country.
Really? This isn't even in the top ten of "pants-on-head retarded bullshit that the U.S. government does, making us all lose faith in humanity."
|
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court.
|
On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court.
how so?
|
On April 12 2013 11:11 TheDraken wrote:
"In 2002, the ALEC had already proposed a similar law, which labeled the unauthorized taping of farming infrastructures and methods as "terrorism"."
lol gimme a break. everything in this country is terrorism now. it's become such an absurd catch-all phrase. i'm just waiting to read the US history textbooks in 30 years to laugh at this "police state necessary to catch the boogeyman terrorists" garbage.
the qualifications they use for determining if you might be a terrorist are hilarious. One of them is that the US govt can consider you a terrorist if you have enough food stored in your house to last you over 7 days. It's just absurd how little the govt needs to be able to call you a terrorist so I'm surprised that the proposal did not pass.
|
On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so?
In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to.
|
On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to.
so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome!
|
On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome!
Are they selling their nudity to the mass public?
|
On April 12 2013 12:00 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Are they selling their nudity to the mass public?
lol. do you really think that makes a difference?
|
On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone.
Well if you hit an animal, just don't video tape it.
|
On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome!
Actually, you'd probably have the right to do that, as long as you didn't step onto their lawn or property.
|
On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome!
You can say that but at some point in the past the supreme court most likely decided that your neighbors right to undress without being recorded, while on her own property, is greater than your right to record itallowing congress to make a law which prohibits it.
|
On April 12 2013 12:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:00 Roe wrote:On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Are they selling their nudity to the mass public? lol. do you really think that makes a difference?
"lol" yup. We're trying to have a free market here.
|
On April 12 2013 12:03 Cababel wrote:
You can say that but at some point in the past the supreme court most likely decided that your neighbors right to undress without being recorded, while on her own property, is greater than your right to record it allowing congress to make a law which prohibits it.
From what I know of similar cases concerning public videotaping, you probably have it inverted.
Doing stuff in front of a window has no expectations of privacy unless you use curtains or some other way of demonstrating privacy.
|
On April 12 2013 12:03 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Actually, you'd probably have the right to do that, as long as you didn't step onto their lawn or property.
true. let say it was trespass and i could not have done the filming without first breaking trespass laws.
|
On April 12 2013 12:04 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 12:00 Roe wrote:On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Are they selling their nudity to the mass public? lol. do you really think that makes a difference? "lol" yup. We're trying to have a free market here.
im not sure you're using that term as it applies to rational people.
|
On April 12 2013 12:06 dAPhREAk wrote:
true. let say it was trespass and i could not have done the filming without first breaking trespass laws.
Then you'd be trespassing...
|
On April 12 2013 12:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:06 dAPhREAk wrote:
true. let say it was trespass and i could not have done the filming without first breaking trespass laws. Then you'd be trespassing...
correct. the illegality was the point of the example.
|
On April 12 2013 12:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:04 Roe wrote:On April 12 2013 12:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 12:00 Roe wrote:On April 12 2013 11:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:56 Cababel wrote:On April 12 2013 11:44 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 11:42 Cababel wrote:
The only thing I have to say about it being illegal to film animal cruelty is that it is a clear violation of the first amendment and would never make it past any impartial court. how so? In the first amend ment it is stated that "congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of press" (www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment). By limiting what is legally allowed to be filmed congess would be violating the people's right of free speech and also the right of the media to display whatever they choose to. so, if i went to my neighbor's window and filmed her undressing, but congress made a law against perverts, then i can say freedom of speech/press? awesome! Are they selling their nudity to the mass public? lol. do you really think that makes a difference? "lol" yup. We're trying to have a free market here. im not sure you're using that term as it applies to rational people.
Then I guess there's no hope for a free market at all.
|
On April 12 2013 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:
correct. the illegality was the point of the example.
I don't get it.
The problem is still the property issue. But we already have laws for that...
If you were trespassing and saw your neighbor dealing with the Mafia or the local drug dealer, that would be a more related discussion. After all, the law is on property rights when it concerns the recording of illegal actions.
|
On April 12 2013 12:13 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:
correct. the illegality was the point of the example. I don't get it. The problem is still the property issue. But we already have laws for that... If you were trespassing and saw your neighbor dealing with the Mafia, that would be a more related discussion.
i suggest you stop cutting the quotes out then. it would make more sense if you read it in context.
|
On April 12 2013 12:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
i suggest you stop cutting the quotes out then. it would make more sense if you read it in context.
Still doesn't make sense. Cases like that happen all the time. The law allows the police to arrest whoever violated property rights in the first place, but it still doesn't forbid the press or the public from referencing, narrating, or even broadcasting the video. Unless it's child porn or nuclear instructions or something*.
The alternative would, quite frankly, be unenforceable.
*Actually, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to disseminate classified nuclear instructions, long as you're not government-employed.
|
On April 12 2013 12:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:13 acker wrote:On April 12 2013 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:
correct. the illegality was the point of the example. I don't get it. The problem is still the property issue. But we already have laws for that... If you were trespassing and saw your neighbor dealing with the Mafia, that would be a more related discussion. i suggest you stop cutting the quotes out then. it would make more sense if you read it in context.
It's still doesn't make any sense.
There's a difference between videotaping something as a whistleblower, and doing in it for your own pleasure.
And so private property defends people from any sort of creep wanting to film them in secret, though it does not defend an individual from exposing a corporation's illegal and/ or immoral actions.
|
Man did I misunderstand this title. That's messed up.
|
i wonder which party profits from this..
|
On April 12 2013 20:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Man did I misunderstand this title. That's messed up.
If you want to change the title, feel free !
|
On April 12 2013 04:22 FarmI3oy wrote:
So many people have problems with big agriculture and worry about how their food gets to their plate. I'm glad I don't have this problem. Every bit of meat I eat is killed, butchered, and cooked with my own two hands. People whine and complain about how animal's are treated when they are being raised for slaughter. They even have the stones to complain about how they die.
Don't like it? Do it yourself or fuck off.
Ok so say your internet keeps disconnecting and is very slow. Do you lose the right to complain because you did not set up the server and pull the wires to your house?
|
On April 12 2013 20:16 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Man did I misunderstand this title. That's messed up. If you want to change the title, feel free !
I think he missread a T with a F
|
|
|
if Lobby is the name and money is the gain then them people of america should organize themselves and have someone lobby for them.
create one nonprofit organization/association that would work for the people (?, ye it's vague but w/e), financed by voluntary donations from (all off) them americans and lobby the shit out of your political puppets.
else you can't win.
else you will never win.
it's time for 'the people' to play the game too.
|
Erhm. Just so I get this right: If "these laws are already voted on" in some states, does this mean they are in effect with the majority of citizens agreeing that videotaping animal cruelty should be outlawed?
|
Wow, what about freedom of the press?
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On April 12 2013 20:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Man did I misunderstand this title. That's messed up.
Don't worry. For many years I though your avatar was a dead fish with a big dorsal fin.
|
On April 12 2013 03:53 hfglgg wrote:
lol
this is by far the most stupid thing i have ever heard from a non muslim extremist country.
You must not be very informed.
|
yeah daPhreak was right in that it was already illegal to breech you contract with your employer.
but im wondering. If cruelty to animals is already illegal... how can they approach fimlming something illegal as illegal...
It's so specific, its transparent, its a law made to help people get away with braking the law.... like what?!
|
|
|
The terrorists. They are everywhere. They are even filming crimes of the food industry now. Is this a new plan of the terrorists to shake the very foundations of the US food production?
|
On April 12 2013 23:29 ComaDose wrote:
yeah daPhreak was right in that it was already illegal to breech you contract with your employer.
but im wondering. If cruelty to animals is already illegal... how can they approach fimlming something illegal as illegal...
It's so specific, its transparent, its a law made to help people get away with braking the law.... like what?!
They're not trying to make filming animal cruelty illegal, they're trying to make filming illegal.
The fact that they asked for this specification of the law *after* they were caught performing animal cruelty is just "by chance"
|
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws.
|
On April 13 2013 01:53 hypercube wrote:
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws.
You're allowed to ask any question you want on an interview.
You're not required to hire someone after an interview.
If it is found out that you didn't hire someone *because* of race/gender/etc... then you have committed discrimination and are punishable.
For example, say a misogynist asks "Sam" to come in, and she comes in and only then does he find out her name is Samantha and not Sam. They'll go through the interview, and he'll nitpick one thing wrong with her like "only worked 1 year at such and such" and decide he can't hire someone who can't be trusted to stay loyal to the company.
Now he probably knows that he didn't hire her because she's a woman--but so long as he has an "official" reason not to hire her they can't really fault him with anything save judgmental glares. If someone is accused of discrimination american law presumes innocence unless sufficient evidence is provided.
Now a farm *could* say "conflict of interest" as a reason--but that leads to a level of specificity that I am not comfortable discussing due to lack of expertise.
|
Protect the money, at all costs.
|
On April 13 2013 02:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 01:53 hypercube wrote:
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws. You're allowed to ask any question you want on an interview. You're not required to hire someone after an interview. If it is found out that you didn't hire someone *because* of race/gender/etc... then you have committed discrimination and are punishable. For example, say a misogynist asks "Sam" to come in, and she comes in and only then does he find out her name is Samantha and not Sam. They'll go through the interview, and he'll nitpick one thing wrong with her like "only worked 1 year at such and such" and decide he can't hire someone who can't be trusted to stay loyal to the company. Now he probably knows that he didn't hire her because she's a woman--but so long as he has an "official" reason not to hire her they can't really fault him with anything save judgmental glares. If someone is accused of discrimination american law presumes innocence unless sufficient evidence is provided. Now a farm *could* say "conflict of interest" as a reason--but that leads to a level of specificity that I am not comfortable discussing due to lack of expertise.
Dude you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, interviewers aren't allowed to ask "any" question they want.
"Federal and state laws prohibit prospective employers from asking certain questions that are not related to the job they are hiring for. Questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information.
In a nutshell, employers should not be asking about your race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age. "
Any thing that is related to these specific categories:
Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status
are illegal to ask about. Legally speaking asking if someone has ties to an animal activist group, while applying for a job in a meat processing plant is technically related to the job. That said, this is very similar to the whole "you can't video tape police" argument which effectively got shot down by the supreme court. As long as you're in a public area you can video tape what ever you want, if you're on private property though, you can only video tape what the owner wants you too lest you get charges brought against you.
|
How about discriminating based on political views? Am I allowed to not hire someone who supports Ralph Nader, for example?
I know people here (as well as other places in Europe) tend not to ask women if they want to start a family because it would strengthen any gender discrimination case the applicant might start.
As for coming up with bogus reasons, I believe the standard practice is to send in applications that are similar or identical to the turned down applicant (except for the variable that's supposedly being discriminated against). So let's say a 50-year-old is turned down from a retail position with the reason that the work is too physically demanding. An anti-discrimination group might send a 25-year-old who is in similar physical condition, and if he gets the job they have a pretty good case for age discrimination.
|
On April 13 2013 02:19 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 01:53 hypercube wrote:
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws. You're allowed to ask any question you want on an interview. You're not required to hire someone after an interview. If it is found out that you didn't hire someone *because* of race/gender/etc... then you have committed discrimination and are punishable. For example, say a misogynist asks "Sam" to come in, and she comes in and only then does he find out her name is Samantha and not Sam. They'll go through the interview, and he'll nitpick one thing wrong with her like "only worked 1 year at such and such" and decide he can't hire someone who can't be trusted to stay loyal to the company. Now he probably knows that he didn't hire her because she's a woman--but so long as he has an "official" reason not to hire her they can't really fault him with anything save judgmental glares. If someone is accused of discrimination american law presumes innocence unless sufficient evidence is provided. Now a farm *could* say "conflict of interest" as a reason--but that leads to a level of specificity that I am not comfortable discussing due to lack of expertise. Dude you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, interviewers aren't allowed to ask "any" question they want. "Federal and state laws prohibit prospective employers from asking certain questions that are not related to the job they are hiring for. Questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information. In a nutshell, employers should not be asking about your race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age. " Any thing that is related to these specific categories: Race Color Sex Religion National origin Birthplace Age Disability Marital/family status are illegal to ask about. Legally speaking asking if someone has ties to an animal activist group, while applying for a job in a meat processing plant is technically related to the job. That said, this is very similar to the whole "you can't video tape police" argument which effectively got shot down by the supreme court. As long as you're in a public area you can video tape what ever you want, if you're on private property though, you can only video tape what the owner wants you too lest you get charges brought against you.
There are MANY ways to ask those questions without asking them directly.
Such as "my kids are such a handful, you probably know" or "Have you lived in the area long? I love _____ restaurant" or "Why did you choose such and such school, was it nearby?" etc...
Employers ask those questions all the time to try to acquire those answers. Then there are those questionaires job post sites have such as Monster.com or any of the other job listing sites that ask you questions such as sex, age, etc...
Some employers simply ask "You must have started college right after high school--when did you graduate again?" And then do the math from there.
There are MANY ways to ask those questions, to think companies are too stupid to ask them sideways is a silly thought.
|
Some of those are far easier to approach in an interview than others though. In other words, its much easier to fish for family status and age than it is race, color, or religion.
|
On April 12 2013 20:00 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 12:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 12:13 acker wrote:On April 12 2013 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:
correct. the illegality was the point of the example. I don't get it. The problem is still the property issue. But we already have laws for that... If you were trespassing and saw your neighbor dealing with the Mafia, that would be a more related discussion. i suggest you stop cutting the quotes out then. it would make more sense if you read it in context. It's still doesn't make any sense. There's a difference between videotaping something as a whistleblower, and doing in it for your own pleasure. And so private property defends people from any sort of creep wanting to film them in secret, though it does not defend an individual from exposing a corporation's illegal and/ or immoral actions.
im pretty sure you are not a whistleblower if you break the law to obtain the information. whistleblower laws encourage people to speak out when they know something already, not to break the law to obtain knowledge.
|
On April 13 2013 02:35 farvacola wrote:
Some of those are far easier to approach in an interview than others though. In other words, its much easier to fish for family status and age than it is race, color, or religion.
When its a difficult to ask question--they use recruitment firms and simply keep their company name off the records unless the person sounds REALLY interested. So some CEO goes to a recruitment firm, tells them "I only want Catholics" in which case recruitment firms ask the less approachable questions such as "My client's really old fashion, I hope it doesn't bother you that he prays all the time" hoping for a reply of "Oh don't worry, I do too" and if the person says something like "I don't get bothered by people's beliefs, his business is his business" then they don't get a call back.
|
On April 13 2013 01:53 hypercube wrote:
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws.
animal rights groups are not a protected class. anti-discrimination laws apply to only protected classes.
|
On April 13 2013 02:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:00 Kukaracha wrote:On April 12 2013 12:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 12:13 acker wrote:On April 12 2013 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:
correct. the illegality was the point of the example. I don't get it. The problem is still the property issue. But we already have laws for that... If you were trespassing and saw your neighbor dealing with the Mafia, that would be a more related discussion. i suggest you stop cutting the quotes out then. it would make more sense if you read it in context. It's still doesn't make any sense. There's a difference between videotaping something as a whistleblower, and doing in it for your own pleasure. And so private property defends people from any sort of creep wanting to film them in secret, though it does not defend an individual from exposing a corporation's illegal and/ or immoral actions. im pretty sure you are not a whistleblower if you break the law to obtain the information. whistleblower laws encourage people to speak out when they know something already, not to break the law to obtain knowledge.
It's pretty gray right?
Cops can't just barge into random people's homes looking for evidence, but if a trespasser videotapes a gang rape double murder--they won't get as punished for turning in evidence as say a Sheriff kicking down the door yelling "where's the fucking drugs!"
|
On April 13 2013 02:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 20:00 Kukaracha wrote:On April 12 2013 12:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 12:13 acker wrote:On April 12 2013 12:10 dAPhREAk wrote:
correct. the illegality was the point of the example. I don't get it. The problem is still the property issue. But we already have laws for that... If you were trespassing and saw your neighbor dealing with the Mafia, that would be a more related discussion. i suggest you stop cutting the quotes out then. it would make more sense if you read it in context. It's still doesn't make any sense. There's a difference between videotaping something as a whistleblower, and doing in it for your own pleasure. And so private property defends people from any sort of creep wanting to film them in secret, though it does not defend an individual from exposing a corporation's illegal and/ or immoral actions. im pretty sure you are not a whistleblower if you break the law to obtain the information. whistleblower laws encourage people to speak out when they know something already, not to break the law to obtain knowledge. It's pretty gray right? Cops can't just barge into random people's homes looking for evidence, but if a trespasser videotapes a gang rape double murder--they won't get as punished for turning in evidence as say a Sheriff kicking down the door yelling "where's the fucking drugs!"
i dont know what you mean by "gray." you're confusing two issues: whether you will get prosecuted for violating the law or another person's privacy rights, and whether the evidence is admissible in court. those are not the same thing.
|
On April 13 2013 02:19 hypercube wrote:
How about discriminating based on political views? Am I allowed to not hire someone who supports Ralph Nader, for example?
I know people here (as well as other places in Europe) tend not to ask women if they want to start a family because it would strengthen any gender discrimination case the applicant might start.
As for coming up with bogus reasons, I believe the standard practice is to send in applications that are similar or identical to the turned down applicant (except for the variable that's supposedly being discriminated against). So let's say a 50-year-old is turned down from a retail position with the reason that the work is too physically demanding. An anti-discrimination group might send a 25-year-old who is in similar physical condition, and if he gets the job they have a pretty good case for age discrimination.
political views are a state by state issue. some states allow such discrimination, some states don't. federal govt allows such discrimination.
just as an fyi, "discrimination" has a negative connotation, but its not actually inherently negative. i discriminate between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, because i prefer vanilla.
edit: after typing that, i thought it was probably a bad example. ;-)
|
If you are against this legislation (as any reasonable person should be), consider signing this federal petition to criminalize the passing of Ag Gag laws...
Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - http://tinyurl.com/bnlnwu3 - #AgGagBad
|
On April 13 2013 02:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:19 hypercube wrote:
How about discriminating based on political views? Am I allowed to not hire someone who supports Ralph Nader, for example?
I know people here (as well as other places in Europe) tend not to ask women if they want to start a family because it would strengthen any gender discrimination case the applicant might start.
As for coming up with bogus reasons, I believe the standard practice is to send in applications that are similar or identical to the turned down applicant (except for the variable that's supposedly being discriminated against). So let's say a 50-year-old is turned down from a retail position with the reason that the work is too physically demanding. An anti-discrimination group might send a 25-year-old who is in similar physical condition, and if he gets the job they have a pretty good case for age discrimination. political views are a state by state issue. some states allow such discrimination, some states don't. federal govt allows such discrimination. just as an fyi, "discrimination" has a negative connotation, but its not actually inherently negative. i discriminate between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, because i prefer vanilla. edit: after typing that, i thought it was probably a bad example. ;-)
Chocolate Ice Cream is lazy fool 
j/k
|
United States5162 Posts
|
On April 13 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:19 FromShouri wrote:On April 13 2013 02:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 01:53 hypercube wrote:
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws. You're allowed to ask any question you want on an interview. You're not required to hire someone after an interview. If it is found out that you didn't hire someone *because* of race/gender/etc... then you have committed discrimination and are punishable. For example, say a misogynist asks "Sam" to come in, and she comes in and only then does he find out her name is Samantha and not Sam. They'll go through the interview, and he'll nitpick one thing wrong with her like "only worked 1 year at such and such" and decide he can't hire someone who can't be trusted to stay loyal to the company. Now he probably knows that he didn't hire her because she's a woman--but so long as he has an "official" reason not to hire her they can't really fault him with anything save judgmental glares. If someone is accused of discrimination american law presumes innocence unless sufficient evidence is provided. Now a farm *could* say "conflict of interest" as a reason--but that leads to a level of specificity that I am not comfortable discussing due to lack of expertise. Dude you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, interviewers aren't allowed to ask "any" question they want. "Federal and state laws prohibit prospective employers from asking certain questions that are not related to the job they are hiring for. Questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information. In a nutshell, employers should not be asking about your race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age. " Any thing that is related to these specific categories: Race Color Sex Religion National origin Birthplace Age Disability Marital/family status are illegal to ask about. Legally speaking asking if someone has ties to an animal activist group, while applying for a job in a meat processing plant is technically related to the job. That said, this is very similar to the whole "you can't video tape police" argument which effectively got shot down by the supreme court. As long as you're in a public area you can video tape what ever you want, if you're on private property though, you can only video tape what the owner wants you too lest you get charges brought against you. There are MANY ways to ask those questions without asking them directly. Such as "my kids are such a handful, you probably know" or "Have you lived in the area long? I love _____ restaurant" or "Why did you choose such and such school, was it nearby?" etc... Employers ask those questions all the time to try to acquire those answers. Then there are those questionaires job post sites have such as Monster.com or any of the other job listing sites that ask you questions such as sex, age, etc... Some employers simply ask "You must have started college right after high school--when did you graduate again?" And then do the math from there. There are MANY ways to ask those questions, to think companies are too stupid to ask them sideways is a silly thought.
Ya there is definitely a difference between you voluntarily giving up that information by being asked a "small talk" question and them outright asking you it. It is completely clear you haven't been to many interviews or had any sort of interviewer training. The thing with monster isn't even relevant because they aren't hiring you so of course they'd ask for all that information, doesn't mean you have to give it to them.
|
On April 13 2013 03:11 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 02:19 FromShouri wrote:On April 13 2013 02:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 01:53 hypercube wrote:
I don't understand how even asking if someone is a member of an animals' rights organization on a job interview is legal.
Seems like it should be against non-discrimination laws. You're allowed to ask any question you want on an interview. You're not required to hire someone after an interview. If it is found out that you didn't hire someone *because* of race/gender/etc... then you have committed discrimination and are punishable. For example, say a misogynist asks "Sam" to come in, and she comes in and only then does he find out her name is Samantha and not Sam. They'll go through the interview, and he'll nitpick one thing wrong with her like "only worked 1 year at such and such" and decide he can't hire someone who can't be trusted to stay loyal to the company. Now he probably knows that he didn't hire her because she's a woman--but so long as he has an "official" reason not to hire her they can't really fault him with anything save judgmental glares. If someone is accused of discrimination american law presumes innocence unless sufficient evidence is provided. Now a farm *could* say "conflict of interest" as a reason--but that leads to a level of specificity that I am not comfortable discussing due to lack of expertise. Dude you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, interviewers aren't allowed to ask "any" question they want. "Federal and state laws prohibit prospective employers from asking certain questions that are not related to the job they are hiring for. Questions should be job-related and not used to find out personal information. In a nutshell, employers should not be asking about your race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disabilities, ethnic background, country of origin, sexual preferences or age. " Any thing that is related to these specific categories: Race Color Sex Religion National origin Birthplace Age Disability Marital/family status are illegal to ask about. Legally speaking asking if someone has ties to an animal activist group, while applying for a job in a meat processing plant is technically related to the job. That said, this is very similar to the whole "you can't video tape police" argument which effectively got shot down by the supreme court. As long as you're in a public area you can video tape what ever you want, if you're on private property though, you can only video tape what the owner wants you too lest you get charges brought against you. There are MANY ways to ask those questions without asking them directly. Such as "my kids are such a handful, you probably know" or "Have you lived in the area long? I love _____ restaurant" or "Why did you choose such and such school, was it nearby?" etc... Employers ask those questions all the time to try to acquire those answers. Then there are those questionaires job post sites have such as Monster.com or any of the other job listing sites that ask you questions such as sex, age, etc... Some employers simply ask "You must have started college right after high school--when did you graduate again?" And then do the math from there. There are MANY ways to ask those questions, to think companies are too stupid to ask them sideways is a silly thought. Ya there is definitely a difference between you voluntarily giving up that information by being asked a "small talk" question and them outright asking you it. It is completely clear you haven't been to many interviews or had any sort of interviewer training. The thing with monster isn't even relevant because they aren't hiring you so of course they'd ask for all that information, doesn't mean you have to give it to them.
http://www.techyville.com/2012/11/news/unemployed-black-woman-pretends-to-be-white-job-offers-suddenly-skyrocket/
Whether you give it or not to those places actually matters--and in this example it mattered a LOT. Even her deciding not to state her race negatively affected her.
EDIT: You deciding not to answer small talk questions affect the interview process, a LOT actually. Especially if they're deciding whether or not they want non-job related specifics.
|
Is there a law that says (sorry i´m no lawyer can´t express the correct words here):
We know you did something wrong and normaly you should get a punishment
but in the process you did something wrong you unrevealed a bigger crime
so you are free to go
?
|
On April 13 2013 02:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
im pretty sure you are not a whistleblower if you break the law to obtain the information. whistleblower laws encourage people to speak out when they know something already, not to break the law to obtain knowledge.
Whistleblower law is patchwork and contradictory in the United States. However, AFAIK, there's no reference to methods in the laws governing whistleblowing, only supplied information.
In practice, prosecution basically comes down to the magnitude of the crime you commit compared to the magnitude of the crime discovered. Breaking into someone's house and finding out they do child pornography is understandable. Breaking into someone's house and finding out they own a gravity knife is not.
|
On April 13 2013 03:48 Nachtwind wrote:
Is there a law that says (sorry i´m no lawyer can´t express the correct words here):
We know you did something wrong and normaly you should get a punishment
but in the process you did something wrong you unrevealed a bigger crime
so you are free to go
?
Yes, if a defendant has information that prosecutors want badly enough, prosecutors may offer a plea bargain that reduces punishment or avoids it altogether. This depends highly on the local district attorney (prosecutor) though.
Edit: listen to the lawyer below
|
On April 13 2013 03:48 Nachtwind wrote:
Is there a law that says (sorry i´m no lawyer can´t express the correct words here):
We know you did something wrong and normaly you should get a punishment
but in the process you did something wrong you unrevealed a bigger crime
so you are free to go
?
no. but four principles (maybe more) are at play: (1) prosecutor discretion--they dont have to charge you with a crime if they dont feel its warranted; (2) immunity--prosecutor can give you immunity in exchange for testimony regarding the "bigger crime;" (3) plea agreements--they can give you a slap on the wrist (e.g., probation saying dont do it again); and (4) jury nullification--if the jury doesnt want to punish you then you are free to go. there may be others that dont pop up into my mind now.
|
On April 13 2013 03:48 Nachtwind wrote:
Is there a law that says (sorry i´m no lawyer can´t express the correct words here):
We know you did something wrong and normaly you should get a punishment
but in the process you did something wrong you unrevealed a bigger crime
so you are free to go
?
There's no specific law for this. Application is largely arbitrary depending on the judge, prosecution, and jury.
For example, a lot of whistleblowers and investigative journalists in politics technically violate the Espionage Act in the course of their research and actions, but prosecutors seldom try to pull it on them.
There was a great case a year or two ago where a bunch of burglars broke into someone's home, found child pornography, and alerted the authorities. They weren't charged for obvious reasons.
|
On April 13 2013 02:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:19 hypercube wrote:
How about discriminating based on political views? Am I allowed to not hire someone who supports Ralph Nader, for example?
I know people here (as well as other places in Europe) tend not to ask women if they want to start a family because it would strengthen any gender discrimination case the applicant might start.
As for coming up with bogus reasons, I believe the standard practice is to send in applications that are similar or identical to the turned down applicant (except for the variable that's supposedly being discriminated against). So let's say a 50-year-old is turned down from a retail position with the reason that the work is too physically demanding. An anti-discrimination group might send a 25-year-old who is in similar physical condition, and if he gets the job they have a pretty good case for age discrimination. political views are a state by state issue. some states allow such discrimination, some states don't. federal govt allows such discrimination.
Interesting, and a little unsettling. Does this mean they can ask you who you supported in the last election, and if you lie about it they can sue you?
|
On April 12 2013 20:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Man did I misunderstand this title. That's messed up.
Me too
Thought this was going to be a good thing when I first read the title.
|
On April 13 2013 04:06 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2013 02:19 hypercube wrote:
How about discriminating based on political views? Am I allowed to not hire someone who supports Ralph Nader, for example?
I know people here (as well as other places in Europe) tend not to ask women if they want to start a family because it would strengthen any gender discrimination case the applicant might start.
As for coming up with bogus reasons, I believe the standard practice is to send in applications that are similar or identical to the turned down applicant (except for the variable that's supposedly being discriminated against). So let's say a 50-year-old is turned down from a retail position with the reason that the work is too physically demanding. An anti-discrimination group might send a 25-year-old who is in similar physical condition, and if he gets the job they have a pretty good case for age discrimination. political views are a state by state issue. some states allow such discrimination, some states don't. federal govt allows such discrimination. Interesting, and a little unsettling. Does this mean they can ask you who you supported in the last election, and if you lie about it they can sue you?
I remember reading an article of a woman fired for voting for obama. Don't know how it ended, but lots of ceo's were threatening to fire people if they voted.
|
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job)
|
On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job)
this is not the most honest description of going veg/vegan
I know some that decided to go vegan and spent their days eating french fries and salad and they balooned since they didn't have the protiens to stay full and just gorged on carbs and salad.
A high protien diet (beans, tofu, etc...) + regular activity (walking around, not a desk job, etc...) + portion control (don't eat extra large fries, etc...) = weight loss.
The protein so you don't gorge.
The activity so you don't build up fat.
Portion control to prevent shenanigans.
but yes, most vegans (since they care about diet and have the self control to regulate food intake) will lose weight. But a strict "I'm not eating meat, I should lose weight" is a fallacy.
|
On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job)
Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean.
|
|
|
On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean.
Eating Vegan is eating normally.
Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down.
And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight.
So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control.
|
On April 13 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean. Eating Vegan is eating normally. Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down. And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight. So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control.
We should probably return to the topic at hand, but this is actually not quite true. Vegetable proteins and meat proteins are fundamentally different in terms of amino acid composition; furthermore, bioavailability along with a number of other qualities vary dramatically between the two as well. I am not suggesting that one cannot eat healthily on a vegan or vegetarian diet, merely that the quality of the food is going to be different than that of a carnivorous diet.
|
well, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
|
On April 13 2013 04:06 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 02:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2013 02:19 hypercube wrote:
How about discriminating based on political views? Am I allowed to not hire someone who supports Ralph Nader, for example?
I know people here (as well as other places in Europe) tend not to ask women if they want to start a family because it would strengthen any gender discrimination case the applicant might start.
As for coming up with bogus reasons, I believe the standard practice is to send in applications that are similar or identical to the turned down applicant (except for the variable that's supposedly being discriminated against). So let's say a 50-year-old is turned down from a retail position with the reason that the work is too physically demanding. An anti-discrimination group might send a 25-year-old who is in similar physical condition, and if he gets the job they have a pretty good case for age discrimination. political views are a state by state issue. some states allow such discrimination, some states don't. federal govt allows such discrimination. Interesting, and a little unsettling. Does this mean they can ask you who you supported in the last election, and if you lie about it they can sue you?
if you lie about anything "material" on an employment application then yes they can sue you. it is simple fraud. most likely they will just fire you though. there are limitations on what information you can request on an employment application though.
|
On April 13 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean. Eating Vegan is eating normally. Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down. And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight. So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control. We should probably return to the topic at hand, but this is actually not quite true. Vegetable proteins and meat proteins are fundamentally different in terms of amino acid composition; furthermore, bioavailability along with a number of other qualities vary dramatically between the two as well. I am not suggesting that one cannot eat healthily on a vegan or vegetarian diet, merely that the quality of the food is going to be different than that of a carnivorous diet.
It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh, not simply different. Anyone who disagrees should read The China Study, which is the most comprehensive study done on flesh consumption to date. You should also be aware that there's a long line of bodybuilders, NFL stars, models, and so on who live very healthy and fit lives on vegetarian and vegan diets. This isn't even taking into account the fact that most people who consume flesh do so in a very unhealthy way or the fact that those studies that conclude flesh eating is healthy also note that people should limit their consumption to a few times a week at most--which is not what the majority of Americans do. This is also to say nothing as to the ethics of flesh consumption. Any doubt on it being unethical I urge you to watch this video before commenting.
Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad
|
On April 14 2013 03:48 sailorferret wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On April 13 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean. Eating Vegan is eating normally. Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down. And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight. So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control. We should probably return to the topic at hand, but this is actually not quite true. Vegetable proteins and meat proteins are fundamentally different in terms of amino acid composition; furthermore, bioavailability along with a number of other qualities vary dramatically between the two as well. I am not suggesting that one cannot eat healthily on a vegan or vegetarian diet, merely that the quality of the food is going to be different than that of a carnivorous diet. It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh, not simply different. Anyone who disagrees should read The China Study, which is the most comprehensive study done on flesh consumption to date. You should also be aware that there's a long line of bodybuilders, NFL stars, models, and so on who live very healthy and fit lives on vegetarian and vegan diets. This isn't even taking into account the fact that most people who consume flesh do so in a very unhealthy way or the fact that those studies that conclude flesh eating is healthy also note that people should limit their consumption to a few times a week at most--which is not what the majority of Americans do. This is also to say nothing as to the ethics of flesh consumption. Any doubt on it being unethical I urge you to watch this video before commenting. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad
Sorry, but in the realm of "good science", one should not need to buy some book on Amazon in order to access the information. Furthermore, the notion that a single study or piece of information is enough to justify saying "It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh." when there also exist literally hundreds of studies and pieces of information that say differently is silly.
|
On April 14 2013 03:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 03:48 sailorferret wrote:On April 13 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On April 13 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean. Eating Vegan is eating normally. Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down. And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight. So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control. We should probably return to the topic at hand, but this is actually not quite true. Vegetable proteins and meat proteins are fundamentally different in terms of amino acid composition; furthermore, bioavailability along with a number of other qualities vary dramatically between the two as well. I am not suggesting that one cannot eat healthily on a vegan or vegetarian diet, merely that the quality of the food is going to be different than that of a carnivorous diet. It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh, not simply different. Anyone who disagrees should read The China Study, which is the most comprehensive study done on flesh consumption to date. You should also be aware that there's a long line of bodybuilders, NFL stars, models, and so on who live very healthy and fit lives on vegetarian and vegan diets. This isn't even taking into account the fact that most people who consume flesh do so in a very unhealthy way or the fact that those studies that conclude flesh eating is healthy also note that people should limit their consumption to a few times a week at most--which is not what the majority of Americans do. This is also to say nothing as to the ethics of flesh consumption. Any doubt on it being unethical I urge you to watch this video before commenting. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad Sorry, but in the realm of "good science", one should not need to buy some book on Amazon in order to access the information. Furthermore, the notion that a single study or piece of information is enough to justify saying "It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh." when there also exist literally hundreds of studies and pieces of information that say differently is silly.
Sorry for providing a link to a book that would require someone to read more than a blog entry. That books sites tons of figures studies, etc and is way more comprehensive than anything you can find on the internet.
Here's some lower quality sites-
Someone who grew up on a dairy farm eating flesh, who now does nutritional research - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587174077811182.html
Here's a collection of information -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htm
And two more links -
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0512-03.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.html
But, again, buy the book (or go to a library) since it's more comprehensive, more conclusive, less biased, and better than almost anything else out there.
Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad
|
*Sigh* Another piece of legislation getting slammed through by big business... I'm very much so against this bill I don't think that it is right to not allow people to know how their food gets made. I'm a big advocate of free range / organic foods after watching Food INC. Super Size Me, etc. More people should know about how their food gets made, and this bill restricts that, not a good time in my book.
|
On April 14 2013 04:21 sailorferret wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 03:58 farvacola wrote:On April 14 2013 03:48 sailorferret wrote:On April 13 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On April 13 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean. Eating Vegan is eating normally. Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down. And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight. So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control. We should probably return to the topic at hand, but this is actually not quite true. Vegetable proteins and meat proteins are fundamentally different in terms of amino acid composition; furthermore, bioavailability along with a number of other qualities vary dramatically between the two as well. I am not suggesting that one cannot eat healthily on a vegan or vegetarian diet, merely that the quality of the food is going to be different than that of a carnivorous diet. It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh, not simply different. Anyone who disagrees should read The China Study, which is the most comprehensive study done on flesh consumption to date. You should also be aware that there's a long line of bodybuilders, NFL stars, models, and so on who live very healthy and fit lives on vegetarian and vegan diets. This isn't even taking into account the fact that most people who consume flesh do so in a very unhealthy way or the fact that those studies that conclude flesh eating is healthy also note that people should limit their consumption to a few times a week at most--which is not what the majority of Americans do. This is also to say nothing as to the ethics of flesh consumption. Any doubt on it being unethical I urge you to watch this video before commenting. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad Sorry, but in the realm of "good science", one should not need to buy some book on Amazon in order to access the information. Furthermore, the notion that a single study or piece of information is enough to justify saying "It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh." when there also exist literally hundreds of studies and pieces of information that say differently is silly. Sorry for providing a link to a book that would require someone to read more than a blog entry. That books sites tons of figures studies, etc and is way more comprehensive than anything you can find on the internet. Here's some lower quality sites- Someone who grew up on a dairy farm eating flesh, who now does nutritional research - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587174077811182.htmlHere's a collection of information - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htmAnd two more links - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0512-03.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.htmlBut, again, buy the book (or go to a library) since it's more comprehensive, more conclusive, less biased, and better than almost anything else out there. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad
No, stop hocking your pseudo-science and derailing the thread please. You can throw hyperlinks at the forum until you are blue in the face, but none of them will do the footwork of proving that vegetarian diets are inherently superior to carnivorous ones for you.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587174077811182.html
The above link makes it incredibly obvious that proving vegetarianism the superior diet is practically impossible; it provides information that supports both sides of the debate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htm
The above is in reference to the environmental effects of meat eating; while certainly interesting, it in no way proves meat unhealthy to eat (I mean come on, the article is being published in the journal Earth Interactions lol).
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0512-03.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.html
These two barely even deserve a comment. One strange article with conflicting dates that references a small study on adolescent diets in Minnesota does not say much, whereas the url http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.html speaks for itself.
As to your insistence that we read "The China Study", I'm afraid that just isn't going to cut it. With only a little bit of searching around, I've found heaps of criticism leveled towards the work, mostly in regards to Campbell's biased interpretation of science that does not say what he'd like it to. Since you suggested we read a book, here, read this.
+ Show Spoiler +The China Study is an attempt by Campbell to promote veganism as a dietary lifestyle through scientific research. Unfortunately the scientific basis of the book if full off misinterpretations, omissions of conflicting data, and conclusions and statements based on unreferenced facts (possibly not facts?). I began reading the book with an open mind but from the outset it was clear that Campbell had one mantra - animal based food is bad, plant based food is good, and this is repeated over and over throughout the book.
Let's first look at Campbells own laboratory studies. In the presence of Aflatoxin, a carcinogen, rats fed a diet of 20% casein, a milk protein, develop cancer while those that are fed 5% casein do not. Okay, I am willing to accept that study on face value. How much casein causes cancer then? In a dose response study Campbell found that 10% casein doesn't contribute to cancer development, but above 10% does. Again, I am happy to accept that. A diet made up of 10% casein contributes to cancer development. How does that apply to humans? After describing a study about nitrosamines and how the dose wasn't relevant to the human population (page 45), Campbell has done the exact same thing with his Casein study. Casein is a milk protein. In 100ml of whole milk, the macro nutrient content is 5.2g of carbohydrate, 3.25g of fat and 3.2g of protein that equals 11.65g of nutrients, the rest of the 100ml mostly made up of water. Milk protein is 80% casein, 80% of 3.2g is 2.56, so out of that 11.65 total, 2.56 is casein which equals 22% of the total. Oh no! Milk will cause us to develop cancer! But don't worry, as long as we get the casein down to 10% we will be safe. How do we do that? Eat 13.95g of anything that is not casein. Pretty easy to do. So as long as we are not living of more than about 50% milk, then we are safe from cancer as a result of the casein in the milk. Do you know anybody that has that much milk? And that is ignoring the fact that casein extracted from milk for the purposes of his study is not exactly a healthy, natural source of protein purely as a result of the chemical extraction.
But hang on, what if other proteins contribute to the development of cancer? Campbell thought that so he investigated gluten and soy and found that neither of them had the same impact as casein. That clearly shows that not all proteins contribute to cancer, and having tested 2 plant proteins and 1 of the many animal proteins, we must therefore conclude that ALL animal proteins lead to cancer and ALL plant proteins do not. Does anybody else see a problem with this? All that we can conclude from these studies is a diet made up of above 10% casein, may contribute to the development of cancer and a diet below 10% casein does not contribute. That is all. Other proteins, both animal and plant, like gluten and soy, may behave differently and unless you have a milk fetish or you are downing large amounts of casein based protein powder (like the rats in the study) then the study is largely irrelevant to your diet or your health.
Before moving on I have one more observation; To test the impact of decreased protein from 20 to 5% they replaced some of the protein with carbohydrates to keep the calories the same. Commenting on the addition of carbohydrate he says "the extra starch and glucose in the low-protein diets could not have been responsible for the lower development of foci because these carbohydrates, when tested alone, actually increase foci development" (page 351). So carbohydrates, which come from plants, increase the development of foci? PLANTS CAUSE CANCER TOO?? Could this be something worth elaborating on or including in a conclusion? No, better not, lets keep that brief mention of carbohydrates causing cancer stuck away in an appendix in case anybody gets the wrong idea.
It is apparent from his casein studies that Campbell has come to the conclusion that "20% casein causes cancer, therefore all animal protein is bad". It is with this mindset that he then set out on the giant study of the China Project, a commendable effort that could have had many beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, possibly as a result of his previous work, Campbell has gone in with blinders on, and all he can see is animal protein and the negative health outcomes associated with its' consumption. The project itself and the original publication arising from it produced a vast amount of data that provides some interesting insight into health and disease. However, what Campbell has shown in the China Study is but a fraction of the information to be gained from the project. It would require a whole new study (unbiased this time preferably) to go into all the beneficial knowledge we could gain, but I will touch on a few things here.
Campbells main conclusion in the China Study is that all animal protein contributes to disease and all plant protein prevents disease. In the original project, they performed a diet survey over 3 days, analyzing all the food consumed per person in that time. Guess how many of the measured mortality factors (about 50 of them), were associated with animal protein consumption measured from the diet survey. Zero. Zero. Zero. Okay, so Campbell can't have come to his conclusions from there. They also had study participants fill out a questionnaire that included one question on meat consumption. Guess how many mortality factors correlated with that? One type of cancer (naso-pharyngeal or something I think it was). An example of some of the many other inclusions in the questionnaire are canola oil and potatoes (not sweet potatoes) which both had a number of positive associations with the development of different types of cancer. Apparently that wasn't worth mentioning in the China Study. Speaking of oil, Campbell makes reference to %fat in the diet being a good indicator of animal protein consumption, despite the fact they clearly use enough canola oil (a vegetable fat) to measure in the study.
So a 3 day food consumption survey shows no association between animal protein and mortality and a questionnaire shows an association between meat and one of many cancers measured. From where can Campbell come to his evil animal protein conclusion then? They also took plasma samples and measured them for blood biomarkers of animal protein consumption. These biomarkers, listed in the references for chapter 4 #39 are "plasma copper, urea nitrogen, estradiol, prolactin, testosterone and, inversely, sex hormone binding globulin, each of which has been known to be associated with animal protein intake from previous studies". No mention of these previous studies of course. So the associations with most of those biomarkers and mortality rates are dubious, and the only biomarker statistically associated with cancer mortality is copper. Many places show food sources of copper and I went to [...] find the best sources of copper. The best? Calfs liver. The next 40 best? All from plants. 42 and 43 are shrimp and venison, the only other animal source in the list on the site. So for copper to be a biomarker of animal consumption then the participants in this study must be eating a lot of calf liver and avoiding a lot of vegetables. Sound realistic?
So from an association between blood biomarkers, the only real one being copper, and cancer mortality, Campbell has concluded that animal protein gives you cancer, despite the fact that the majority of dietary sources of copper are actually from plant sources. So that basically leaves Campbell with no actual evidence between animal consumption and mortality as a result of the original China project.
A final note. In his eating right section Campbell says supplements are bad (principle 2). Principle 3 then says "there are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants"(page 230), but over the page he says plants are not a good source of vitamin B12 and you probably should take a supplement. What? Then in the how to eat section on page 242 he says "the findings from the China Study indicate that the lower percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits-even when the percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories". As I've clearly shown, the China Study does not show this, and his own study with Casein proved that there was no benefit in eating less then 10% of your diet from Casein.
Clearly Campbell is a vegetarian, as he states in the book, and promoting vegetarianism is his main goal, which he tries to back up with scientific research that actually disagrees with him, but that he has interpreted in a way that makes it agree with him. Bad science, bad book and definitely bad recommendations as far as health. While I'm not saying go out and live on animal products alone, I don't think you should stop eating them, especially because they are tasty, but even if only for a natural source of vitamin B12.
If you actually read all of that, it becomes plain to see that Campbell's conclusion that science most certainly points to vegetarianism being the superior diet is actually nonsense fueled by an agenda.
If you'd like to continue with this, PM me. No need to continue with this in this thread.
|
dAPhREAk I can't believe you fed a troll for over 3 pages.... you make some good points but please don't respond to nonsensical posts. I understand the point of the bill as someone has explained it, the animal farms are pissed off at the sensationalist motives of the undercover video takers and not at the fact that they are exposing illegality. There is so much sensationalism going both ways its hard to parse fact from fiction here. The flow of information that concerns that population at large (such as the state of the nations food source) should not be censored except under the most extreme conditions thus I think bills like this should be illegal in principle. This is the same type of journalism that ended horrid working and food safety conditions in the past and has had a very beneficial effect on society as a whole so it should be protected.
|
On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone.
Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother.
Goddamn fucked up is all this is,
God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too.
Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world.
Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them.
(I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^)
|
On April 12 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote:
I think the organization behind this movement is severely discounting how pissed off animal rights folk already are and will be in the face of something as ridiculous as this.
What they ought to be focusing on is the banning of any and all Sarah McLachlan songs from animal rights commercials.
In the aaaaaaaaaarms of an aaaangeeel
|
This could be a thinly veiled attempt at protecting suppliers by corporations or those who would benefit by such 'efficiency over humanity' food production.
If you consider that they (lawmakers) would know that any pro animal cruelty bill would get laughed out of the room, this is a more oblique way of preventing the discovery of new animal cruelty cases. The guys in charge know about the recent momentum of food 'cleanup' campaigns and the PR shitstorms that happen when McD and co have, you know whatever obscene thing in their food, or are found to be buying these super mass produced hitler style chickens or whatever, and know they cant just plop out a bill that says all that stuff is ok. But what they can do is quote or appeal to whatever privacy ideals are out there existing in people, and say that videotaping this stuff is not okay-- to make it exponentially harder for new such PR shitstorms to see light.
Edit:
Ah, just noticed that part in the OP.
Scratch the above, though its not wrong :D
|
"Instead of ag-gag laws, we need laws that impose basic standards on farm conditions and guarantee our right to know how our food is being produced."
No, you don't need either. You need an increase in civil action matching your interest in the subject. If others wish to participate in civil actions with you, that ought to be their choice. If others simply want to fund your action, that also ought to be their choice. Monitoring and preventing animal abuse must be a matter of choice. People should be allowed to buy from farms which have been proven to practice animal cruelty if they wish, or to simply ignore what is going on without a cent of tax money being spent on their behalf.
|
Edit: LOLWUT completely misunderstood this, it's actually not that much against animal cruelty.
Wtf.
|
On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^)
the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded.
"animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains.
|
On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains.
That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous.
|
On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains.
Recording crimes: morally corrupt or simply illegal?
|
On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous.
thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law.
|
On April 14 2013 06:13 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. Recording crimes: morally corrupt or simply illegal?
you forgot to add "breaking the law to record alleged crimes."
you do realize that a lot of the stuff that is being recorded is not actually animal abuse, right? so, these guys are breaking the law, not recording animal abuse and then using the records for their own ends. most of the purported "animal abuse" that is recorded is not actually animal abuse. so, you have people breaking the law to uncover legal activity, which they then misrepresent to the world.
|
On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains.
The problem is one of the most dependable methods of gathering evidence of animal abuse (video taping it) will be made illegal if these measures pass, which is completely ridiculous.
|
On April 14 2013 06:17 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. The problem is one of the most dependable methods of gathering evidence of animal abuse (video taping it) will be made illegal if these measures pass, which is completely ridiculous.
whistle blowing remains legal.
|
This is jacked! While I definately do not agree with most of the tenets of animal rights groups, clearly they serve as a checks and balance against some of the worst types of animal cruelty.
|
On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law.
Alright, let's look at it step by step:
-Person X abuses animals.
-Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public.
-Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals.
---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious.
What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task.
|
On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task.
why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law...
this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts....
also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay?
|
On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay?
Charge them with trespassing, charge them with fraud. Because that's what someone who illegally videotapes someone under those conditions in any other industry gets charged with. We don't criminalize someone videotaping a cop that beats someone - we salute him and aim to punish the cop.
If person X's acts were legal? No one cares about a video showing a cop that arrests someone legitimately without any incident on either side. Did Y still trespass or commit fraud to get into the position to make the tape? Most likely. Feel free to charge them with it.
|
On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay?
What law is person Y breaking if he just video tapes the abuse taking place? Let's assume that he's not breaking any laws unrelated to the taping such as trespassing on the farm.
|
dude, you can lawyer the crap out of people but it doesn't matter, people know that some of the laws are shit.
you hiding behind them doesn't help; also, no one cares when you are legally right if something is morally (even subjectively) wrong.
|
On April 14 2013 06:32 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay? What law is person Y breaking if he just video tapes the abuse taking place? Let's assume that he's not breaking any laws unrelated to the taping such as trespassing on the farm.
fraud and contract law appear to be the primary violations, but there may be additional ones based on the person's actions (e.g., breaking and entering).
|
On April 14 2013 06:30 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay? Charge them with trespassing, charge them with fraud. Because that's what someone who illegally videotapes someone under those conditions in any other industry gets charged with. We don't criminalize someone videotaping a cop that beats someone - we salute him and aim to punish the cop. If person X's acts were legal? No one cares about a video showing a cop that arrests someone legitimately without any incident on either side. Did Y still trespass or commit fraud to get into the position to make the tape? Most likely. Feel free to charge them with it.
so, you agree that they should be charged for their criminal act, but you dont like that the ag-gag law charges them with a criminal act? i don't get it. we don't criminalize someone videotaping a cop that breaks the law because the videotaper isnt breaking the law to videotape the illegal activity. is this distinction that abstract?
or, are you saying that they should be charged with the criminal act, but the videotape should be usable in criminal proceedings? if that is the case then you should approve this law, because the videotapes have to be turned over to the authorities apparently.
the problem with the animal movement is that they break the law to obtain video (sometimes) and then defame the farms, etc. by airing the tapes when the activities on the tape are completely legal (and a lot of the time sanctioned by the federal gov't). i am sure you dont care if they get defamed, but they damn care and thats why they are pushing for these laws.
|
On April 14 2013 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:32 Tewks44 wrote:On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay? What law is person Y breaking if he just video tapes the abuse taking place? Let's assume that he's not breaking any laws unrelated to the taping such as trespassing on the farm. fraud and contract law appear to be the primary violations, but there may be additional ones based on the person's actions (e.g., breaking and entering).
And that's fine. This is about pro-property and pro-contract laws.
If I break into your house, that's illegal. If I suspect you're abusing children, break into your house and install a video camera, that's still illegal. It's good that these things are illegal. If I then successfully videotape you in the middle of the act after illegally entering your house and illegally installed a video camera I might theoretically even still get charged with those illegal acts.
However, there is no position at all to argue that the act of videotaping abuse should be illegalized.
|
On April 14 2013 06:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:30 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay? Charge them with trespassing, charge them with fraud. Because that's what someone who illegally videotapes someone under those conditions in any other industry gets charged with. We don't criminalize someone videotaping a cop that beats someone - we salute him and aim to punish the cop. If person X's acts were legal? No one cares about a video showing a cop that arrests someone legitimately without any incident on either side. Did Y still trespass or commit fraud to get into the position to make the tape? Most likely. Feel free to charge them with it. so, you agree that they should be charged for their criminal act, but you dont like that the ag-gag law charges them with a criminal act? i don't get it. we don't criminalize someone videotaping a cop that breaks the law because the videotaper isnt breaking the law to videotape the illegal activity. is this distinction that abstract? or, are you saying that they should be charged with the criminal act, but the videotape should be usable in criminal proceedings? if that is the case then you should approve this law, because the videotapes have to be turned over to the authorities apparently. the problem with the animal movement is that they break the law to obtain video (sometimes) and then defame the farms, etc. by airing the tapes when the activities on the tape are completely legal (and a lot of the time sanctioned by the federal gov't). i am sure you dont care if they get defamed, but they damn care and thats why they are pushing for these laws.
Oh, they care about defamation? First of all that's a civil matter, not a criminal. Now, if it's possible to "defame" someone because of what he's allowed to do legally makes people not buy his products then we have an entirely different issue. Truth as a defense isn't all that viable anymore if said truth makes people not buy your products.
|
On April 14 2013 06:39 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:32 Tewks44 wrote:On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone. Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother. Goddamn fucked up is all this is, God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too. Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world. Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them. (I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay? What law is person Y breaking if he just video tapes the abuse taking place? Let's assume that he's not breaking any laws unrelated to the taping such as trespassing on the farm. fraud and contract law appear to be the primary violations, but there may be additional ones based on the person's actions (e.g., breaking and entering). And that's fine. This is about pro-property and pro-contract laws. If I break into your house, that's illegal. If I suspect you're abusing children, break into your house and install a video camera, that's still illegal. It's good that these things are illegal. If I then successfully videotape you in the middle of the act after illegally entering your house and illegally installed a video camera I might theoretically even still get charged with those illegal acts. However, there is no position at all to argue that the act of videotaping abuse should be illegalized.
have you bothered to even read one of these so-called ag-gag laws?
|
On April 14 2013 06:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:39 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:32 Tewks44 wrote:On April 14 2013 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:20 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 06:11 r.Evo wrote:On April 14 2013 05:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 05:00 Capped wrote:
[quote]
Im with this guy, fuck, we can even hit eachother.
Goddamn fucked up is all this is,
God damn, retards on this planet, get the fuck out of america's law system kthxbye and take your forgien friends in europe, asia and wherever else with you too.
Every day i hear about some strange shit going on in the world.
Lets let the animals punish them and make it illegal not to film them.
(I am in no way slandering a country in my post, retards exist everywhere ^_^) the first post was retarded, but you ended up making it even more retarded. "animal abuse" remains illegal. you guys don't need to punch things, but you do need to learn to use your brains. That still means said law is fundamentally pro animal abuse which makes it ridiculous. thats an absurd assertion. the federal govt has laws that regulate these types of things and agencies that oversee the laws; there are most likely state laws and regulators as well. this is just an attempt to stop vigilantes who want to do it themselves outside the bounds of the law. Alright, let's look at it step by step: -Person X abuses animals. -Person Y videotapes X abusing animals with the intent of making it public. -Legislator steps in and makes law that forbids Y from videotaping X abusing animals. ---> The legislation just made a "pro animal abuse law". Feel free to substitute "animal" with "children" to make it even more obvious. What happened here is that the documentary of an illegal act gets outlawed. You're right, "ridiculous" or "retarded" are wrong descriptions. "Batshit insane" sounds more up to the task. why do people keep ignoring the fact that "Person Y" is breaking the law as it exists before the ag-gag law... this doesnt legalize Person X's acts, it criminalizes Person Y's already illegal acts.... also, why dont you try replacing Person X's illegal acts with legal acts. still think Person Y's activities are okay? What law is person Y breaking if he just video tapes the abuse taking place? Let's assume that he's not breaking any laws unrelated to the taping such as trespassing on the farm. fraud and contract law appear to be the primary violations, but there may be additional ones based on the person's actions (e.g., breaking and entering). And that's fine. This is about pro-property and pro-contract laws. If I break into your house, that's illegal. If I suspect you're abusing children, break into your house and install a video camera, that's still illegal. It's good that these things are illegal. If I then successfully videotape you in the middle of the act after illegally entering your house and illegally installed a video camera I might theoretically even still get charged with those illegal acts. However, there is no position at all to argue that the act of videotaping abuse should be illegalized. have you bothered to even read one of these so-called ag-gag laws?
Is this description incorrect?
But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately (...)
|
here is an "ag-gag law" for you guys to educate yourselves before speaking:
(b) A person commits the offense of agricultural facility fraud if the person,
19 with the intent to commit an act that the person knows is not authorized by the
20 facility’s owner:
1 (1) knowingly obtains access to an agricultural facility by false
2 pretenses; or
3 (2) makes a knowingly false statement or representation as part of an
4 application to be employed at an agricultural facility.
5 (c) A person who violates subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to
6 an administrative penalty of up to $1,000.00 in accordance with section 15 of
7 this title.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/Intro/S-162.pdf
edit: thats all it does in VT. nothing more, nothing less.
|
Why do you link me an example of a law that exclusively talks about "obtaining access" or "make a knowingly false statement to be employed" when I'm talking about "covertly videotaping" and "having to disclose ties to animal groups"?
If you can show me an example of an actual law talking about the latter to convince me the article in the OP is bullshit and no one is trying to illegalize those things I'd actually be grateful.
|
Got one. Not sure if it's the real deal because the source isn't super legit. Maybe someone who knows the right pages can find an official source.
15 Sec. 9. NEW SECTION. 717A.2A Animal facility interference.
16 1. A person is guilty of animal facility interference, if
17 the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal
18 facility to willfully do any of the following:
19 a. (1) Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound
20 occurring at the animal facility as follows:
21 (a) The record must be created by the person while at the
22 animal facility.
23 (b) The record must be a reproduction of a visual or audio
24 experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not
25 limited to a photographic or audio medium.
26 (2) Possess or distribute a record which produces an image
27 or sound occurring at the animal facility which was produced as
28 provided in subparagraph (1).
29 (3) Subparagraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an animal
30 shelter, a boarding kennel, a commercial kennel, a pet shop, or
31 a pound, all as defined in section 162.2.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stat_pdf/stusia2011hf589.pdf
|
|
|
On April 14 2013 06:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:53 r.Evo wrote:
Why do you link me an example of a law that exclusively talks about "obtaining access" or "make a knowingly false statement to be employed" when I'm talking about "covertly videotaping" and "having to disclose ties to animal groups"?
If you can show me an example of an actual law talking about the latter to convince me the article in the OP is bullshit and no one is trying to illegalize those things I'd actually be grateful. thats a so-called ag-gag law. this is what everyone is upset about. i cant link you to the made up law you are debating about.
What you linked sounds fine, honestly. It's a bit weird that it's specifically about the animal industry since I imagine the things mentioned are illegal in other areas too, but whatever. Check above for what is most likely referred to in the OP.
OKAY ILL WAIT. =P
|
On April 14 2013 06:57 r.Evo wrote:Got one. Not sure if it's the real deal because the source isn't super legit. Maybe someone who knows the right pages can find an official source. Show nested quote +15 Sec. 9. NEW SECTION. 717A.2A Animal facility interference.
16 1. A person is guilty of animal facility interference, if
17 the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal
18 facility to willfully do any of the following:
19 a. (1) Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound
20 occurring at the animal facility as follows:
21 (a) The record must be created by the person while at the
22 animal facility.
23 (b) The record must be a reproduction of a visual or audio
24 experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not
25 limited to a photographic or audio medium.
26 (2) Possess or distribute a record which produces an image
27 or sound occurring at the animal facility which was produced as
28 provided in subparagraph (1).
29 (3) Subparagraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an animal
30 shelter, a boarding kennel, a commercial kennel, a pet shop, or
31 a pound, all as defined in section 162.2.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stat_pdf/stusia2011hf589.pdf
here is a more official source, but its essentially the same.
http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/linc/84/external/HF589_Reprinted.pdf
the law makes it illegal to trespass on property to take video.
|
Bolded ones seem to be voted on soon, the ones in Iowa/Utah already passed. http://animalvisuals.org/projects/data/investigations
New York: Oppose Senate Bill 5172, and take action here
Missouri: Oppose House Bill 1860
Minnesota: Oppose Senate Bill 1118 and House File 1369 (Defeated)
Iowa: Oppose House File 589, and take action here Update 3/3/12: this law has passed and has been signed by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad.
Nebraska: Oppose LB915 (Defeated)
Indiana: Oppose Senate Bill 0184 (Defeated)
Utah: Oppose House Bill 187 Update: this law passed and was signed into law by Governor Gary Herbert
Here's the Utah one:
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0187s03.pdf
(2) A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person:
(...)
(c) (i) applies for employment at an agricultural operation with the intent to record an
40 image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation;
41 (ii) knows, at the time that the person accepts employment at the agricultural operation,
42 that the owner of the agricultural operation prohibits the employee from recording an image of,
43 or sound from, the agricultural operation; and
44 (iii) while employed at, and while present on, the agricultural operation, records an
45 image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation; or
46 (d) without consent from the owner of the operation or the owner's agent, knowingly or
47 intentionally records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation while the person is
48 committing criminal trespass, as described in Section 76-6-206, on the agricultural operation.
So, yes. Those are the made up laws I'm debating about.
|
they are all the same. if you trespass or enter premises by fraudulent representations to take video, you are breaking the law.
edit: are you intentionally leaving out the parts where it says "without consent?"
|
The Iowa bill specifically outlaws videotaping (and possessing/distributing) in an animal facility without the owners consent. The Utah bill outlaws applying with the intent to make a record (debatable, sounds reasonable) and recording while being employed and while trespassing.
Actually this is even worse than what I talked about with you earlier. It's not just about covertly going in there and videotaping it. This bill includes someone who works there, witnesses animal cruelty and seeks to make video footage as proof.
Edit: Ctrl+f "without consent" or "without the consent". It helps highlight it!
|
On April 14 2013 07:11 r.Evo wrote:
The Iowa bill specifically outlaws videotaping (and possessing/distributing) in an animal facility without the owners consent. The Utah bill outlaws applying with the intent to make a record (debatable, sounds reasonable) and recording while being employed and while trespassing.
Actually this is even worse than what I talked about with you earlier. It's not just about covertly going in there and videotaping it. This bill includes someone who works there, witnesses animal cruelty and seeks to make video footage as proof.
Edit: Ctrl+f "without consent" or "without the consent". It helps highlight it!
i am not sure what you are upset about. if you work there, witness animal cruelty and seek to make video footage of it as proof, you are protected by whistleblowing laws. i have seen nothing that changes the whistleblowing laws.
as for the laws themselves, trespass is illegal, fraud is illegal, etc. these new laws are specific to ag, but there are already existing laws making them illegal so they are just making it specific to ag.
edit: and you can stop harping on the made up laws point, because i have yet to see a law that makes the mere videotaping of animal abuse illegal. they make actions in violation of premise owner's consent unlawful, not the mere act of videotaping of animal abuse.
|
I wish there was gruesome/graphic info warning on this posr, I feel sick after reading some of that. Sick people.
|
On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
i am not sure what you are upset about. if you work there, witness animal cruelty and seek to make video footage of it as proof, you are protected by whistleblowing laws. i have seen nothing that changes the whistleblowing laws.
as for the laws themselves, trespass is illegal, fraud is illegal, etc. these new laws are specific to ag, but there are already existing laws making them illegal so they are just making it specific to ag.
edit: and you can stop harping on the made up laws point, because i have yet to see a law that makes the mere videotaping of animal abuse illegal. they make actions in violation of premise owner's consent unlawful, not the mere act of videotaping of animal abuse.
dAPhREAk, I'm still not sure if you're trolling or not.
Firstly, which whistleblower law governs the actions related to this state law?
Secondly, where exactly did previous trespass laws omit agribusiness from protection from trespassers? If they did not, why is trespass to document animal cruelty so heinous that it should be given extra-special punishment on top of the normal penalties for normal trespass?
On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
i am not sure what you are upset about. if you work there, witness animal cruelty and seek to make video footage of it as proof, you are protected by whistleblowing laws. i have seen nothing that changes the whistleblowing laws.
This is illegal under the passed law unless the videotaping is authorized by the facility owner. Unless you're saying that whistleblower laws supercede this law, in which case you'd have to explain why someone spent so much time passing a contradictory law.
|
As a Missourian, I'm sick to my stomach right now....
|
On April 14 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 04:21 sailorferret wrote:On April 14 2013 03:58 farvacola wrote:On April 14 2013 03:48 sailorferret wrote:On April 13 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On April 13 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 13 2013 04:31 AeroGear wrote:On April 13 2013 04:12 Alpino wrote:
I love when things get ridiculous to the point that people that wouldnt care about things end up caring and feeling something about them. Go vegan. It feels good. I lost 30 pounds of fat after going vegan while only doing my daily life exercises(a lot of walking at university and on the way to job) Sorry but that only means you were fat/lazy and ate unhealthy? You can live and eat normally without doing much if any exercise and stay lean. Eating Vegan is eating normally. Whether your body gets its proteins from beans or it gets it from cows doesn't matter--you're body can't tell the difference once its been broken down. And people who usually switch to Vegan usually have to become more aware of their eating habits. This awareness makes them better at portion control, dietary intake, etc... Which leads to losing weight. So although staying away from meat is not the reason he lost weight--going Vegan *did* help him lose weight. Mostly because of better control. We should probably return to the topic at hand, but this is actually not quite true. Vegetable proteins and meat proteins are fundamentally different in terms of amino acid composition; furthermore, bioavailability along with a number of other qualities vary dramatically between the two as well. I am not suggesting that one cannot eat healthily on a vegan or vegetarian diet, merely that the quality of the food is going to be different than that of a carnivorous diet. It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh, not simply different. Anyone who disagrees should read The China Study, which is the most comprehensive study done on flesh consumption to date. You should also be aware that there's a long line of bodybuilders, NFL stars, models, and so on who live very healthy and fit lives on vegetarian and vegan diets. This isn't even taking into account the fact that most people who consume flesh do so in a very unhealthy way or the fact that those studies that conclude flesh eating is healthy also note that people should limit their consumption to a few times a week at most--which is not what the majority of Americans do. This is also to say nothing as to the ethics of flesh consumption. Any doubt on it being unethical I urge you to watch this video before commenting. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad Sorry, but in the realm of "good science", one should not need to buy some book on Amazon in order to access the information. Furthermore, the notion that a single study or piece of information is enough to justify saying "It is healthier to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle than one that consumes flesh." when there also exist literally hundreds of studies and pieces of information that say differently is silly. Sorry for providing a link to a book that would require someone to read more than a blog entry. That books sites tons of figures studies, etc and is way more comprehensive than anything you can find on the internet. Here's some lower quality sites- Someone who grew up on a dairy farm eating flesh, who now does nutritional research - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587174077811182.htmlHere's a collection of information - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htmAnd two more links - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0512-03.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.htmlBut, again, buy the book (or go to a library) since it's more comprehensive, more conclusive, less biased, and better than almost anything else out there. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - Please sign and spread the word - http://wh.gov/M6yq - #AgGagBad No, stop hocking your pseudo-science and derailing the thread please. You can throw hyperlinks at the forum until you are blue in the face, but none of them will do the footwork of proving that vegetarian diets are inherently superior to carnivorous ones for you. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587174077811182.htmlThe above link makes it incredibly obvious that proving vegetarianism the superior diet is practically impossible; it provides information that supports both sides of the debate. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htmThe above is in reference to the environmental effects of meat eating; while certainly interesting, it in no way proves meat unhealthy to eat (I mean come on, the article is being published in the journal Earth Interactions lol). http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0512-03.htmhttp://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.htmlThese two barely even deserve a comment. One strange article with conflicting dates that references a small study on adolescent diets in Minnesota does not say much, whereas the url http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/study-vegetarian-diets-healthier-in-every-way-than-diets-with-meat.html speaks for itself. As to your insistence that we read "The China Study", I'm afraid that just isn't going to cut it. With only a little bit of searching around, I've found heaps of criticism leveled towards the work, mostly in regards to Campbell's biased interpretation of science that does not say what he'd like it to. Since you suggested we read a book, here, read this. + Show Spoiler +The China Study is an attempt by Campbell to promote veganism as a dietary lifestyle through scientific research. Unfortunately the scientific basis of the book if full off misinterpretations, omissions of conflicting data, and conclusions and statements based on unreferenced facts (possibly not facts?). I began reading the book with an open mind but from the outset it was clear that Campbell had one mantra - animal based food is bad, plant based food is good, and this is repeated over and over throughout the book.
Let's first look at Campbells own laboratory studies. In the presence of Aflatoxin, a carcinogen, rats fed a diet of 20% casein, a milk protein, develop cancer while those that are fed 5% casein do not. Okay, I am willing to accept that study on face value. How much casein causes cancer then? In a dose response study Campbell found that 10% casein doesn't contribute to cancer development, but above 10% does. Again, I am happy to accept that. A diet made up of 10% casein contributes to cancer development. How does that apply to humans? After describing a study about nitrosamines and how the dose wasn't relevant to the human population (page 45), Campbell has done the exact same thing with his Casein study. Casein is a milk protein. In 100ml of whole milk, the macro nutrient content is 5.2g of carbohydrate, 3.25g of fat and 3.2g of protein that equals 11.65g of nutrients, the rest of the 100ml mostly made up of water. Milk protein is 80% casein, 80% of 3.2g is 2.56, so out of that 11.65 total, 2.56 is casein which equals 22% of the total. Oh no! Milk will cause us to develop cancer! But don't worry, as long as we get the casein down to 10% we will be safe. How do we do that? Eat 13.95g of anything that is not casein. Pretty easy to do. So as long as we are not living of more than about 50% milk, then we are safe from cancer as a result of the casein in the milk. Do you know anybody that has that much milk? And that is ignoring the fact that casein extracted from milk for the purposes of his study is not exactly a healthy, natural source of protein purely as a result of the chemical extraction.
But hang on, what if other proteins contribute to the development of cancer? Campbell thought that so he investigated gluten and soy and found that neither of them had the same impact as casein. That clearly shows that not all proteins contribute to cancer, and having tested 2 plant proteins and 1 of the many animal proteins, we must therefore conclude that ALL animal proteins lead to cancer and ALL plant proteins do not. Does anybody else see a problem with this? All that we can conclude from these studies is a diet made up of above 10% casein, may contribute to the development of cancer and a diet below 10% casein does not contribute. That is all. Other proteins, both animal and plant, like gluten and soy, may behave differently and unless you have a milk fetish or you are downing large amounts of casein based protein powder (like the rats in the study) then the study is largely irrelevant to your diet or your health.
Before moving on I have one more observation; To test the impact of decreased protein from 20 to 5% they replaced some of the protein with carbohydrates to keep the calories the same. Commenting on the addition of carbohydrate he says "the extra starch and glucose in the low-protein diets could not have been responsible for the lower development of foci because these carbohydrates, when tested alone, actually increase foci development" (page 351). So carbohydrates, which come from plants, increase the development of foci? PLANTS CAUSE CANCER TOO?? Could this be something worth elaborating on or including in a conclusion? No, better not, lets keep that brief mention of carbohydrates causing cancer stuck away in an appendix in case anybody gets the wrong idea.
It is apparent from his casein studies that Campbell has come to the conclusion that "20% casein causes cancer, therefore all animal protein is bad". It is with this mindset that he then set out on the giant study of the China Project, a commendable effort that could have had many beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, possibly as a result of his previous work, Campbell has gone in with blinders on, and all he can see is animal protein and the negative health outcomes associated with its' consumption. The project itself and the original publication arising from it produced a vast amount of data that provides some interesting insight into health and disease. However, what Campbell has shown in the China Study is but a fraction of the information to be gained from the project. It would require a whole new study (unbiased this time preferably) to go into all the beneficial knowledge we could gain, but I will touch on a few things here.
Campbells main conclusion in the China Study is that all animal protein contributes to disease and all plant protein prevents disease. In the original project, they performed a diet survey over 3 days, analyzing all the food consumed per person in that time. Guess how many of the measured mortality factors (about 50 of them), were associated with animal protein consumption measured from the diet survey. Zero. Zero. Zero. Okay, so Campbell can't have come to his conclusions from there. They also had study participants fill out a questionnaire that included one question on meat consumption. Guess how many mortality factors correlated with that? One type of cancer (naso-pharyngeal or something I think it was). An example of some of the many other inclusions in the questionnaire are canola oil and potatoes (not sweet potatoes) which both had a number of positive associations with the development of different types of cancer. Apparently that wasn't worth mentioning in the China Study. Speaking of oil, Campbell makes reference to %fat in the diet being a good indicator of animal protein consumption, despite the fact they clearly use enough canola oil (a vegetable fat) to measure in the study.
So a 3 day food consumption survey shows no association between animal protein and mortality and a questionnaire shows an association between meat and one of many cancers measured. From where can Campbell come to his evil animal protein conclusion then? They also took plasma samples and measured them for blood biomarkers of animal protein consumption. These biomarkers, listed in the references for chapter 4 #39 are "plasma copper, urea nitrogen, estradiol, prolactin, testosterone and, inversely, sex hormone binding globulin, each of which has been known to be associated with animal protein intake from previous studies". No mention of these previous studies of course. So the associations with most of those biomarkers and mortality rates are dubious, and the only biomarker statistically associated with cancer mortality is copper. Many places show food sources of copper and I went to [...] find the best sources of copper. The best? Calfs liver. The next 40 best? All from plants. 42 and 43 are shrimp and venison, the only other animal source in the list on the site. So for copper to be a biomarker of animal consumption then the participants in this study must be eating a lot of calf liver and avoiding a lot of vegetables. Sound realistic?
So from an association between blood biomarkers, the only real one being copper, and cancer mortality, Campbell has concluded that animal protein gives you cancer, despite the fact that the majority of dietary sources of copper are actually from plant sources. So that basically leaves Campbell with no actual evidence between animal consumption and mortality as a result of the original China project.
A final note. In his eating right section Campbell says supplements are bad (principle 2). Principle 3 then says "there are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants"(page 230), but over the page he says plants are not a good source of vitamin B12 and you probably should take a supplement. What? Then in the how to eat section on page 242 he says "the findings from the China Study indicate that the lower percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits-even when the percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories". As I've clearly shown, the China Study does not show this, and his own study with Casein proved that there was no benefit in eating less then 10% of your diet from Casein.
Clearly Campbell is a vegetarian, as he states in the book, and promoting vegetarianism is his main goal, which he tries to back up with scientific research that actually disagrees with him, but that he has interpreted in a way that makes it agree with him. Bad science, bad book and definitely bad recommendations as far as health. While I'm not saying go out and live on animal products alone, I don't think you should stop eating them, especially because they are tasty, but even if only for a natural source of vitamin B12. If you actually read all of that, it becomes plain to see that Campbell's conclusion that science most certainly points to vegetarianism being the superior diet is actually nonsense fueled by an agenda. If you'd like to continue with this, PM me. No need to continue with this in this thread.
Yes, a lot of people have hated on The China Study.--In fact, the meat industry has spent a lot of money discrediting it. However, it is just as easy to find praise for the book as well if you search the internet. Beyond that, it's assigned in at least three different med schools as reading on how to promote preventative health care. Even if that wasn't true, you have no evidence showing that flesh eating is healthy.--Certainly not flesh eating to the extent that Americans eat or the types that they typically eat. Your quoted attacks on The China Study are easily answered. I won't waste my time with it since you can clearly search the internet as well as the next person, but for example B12 is readily available. Many many people are vegetarian and vegan and live long and happy lives.
REGARDLESS- All of this is secondary to the point of this thread which has to do with ag gag laws. The immorality of factory farms is undeniable and allowing the industry to cover it up is absurd. The claims by others that it is already illegal and should remain so is likewise absurd because
1) If I torture someone in my house and you film it, you are free to release that info and turn it into the police. The same holds true with animal abuse in the home... even if I didn't invite you in.
2) There are no other groups outside of whistle blowers and animal rights groups willing to release this information. Preventing them from doing so keeps consumers ignorant of the suffering animals and workers ensure within factory farms.
3) Torturing is worse than the violation of corporate privacy, especially when that privacy protects unethical actions and keeps consumers in the dark on practices that, when exposed, are almost universally rejected.
4) Ag gag laws are part in parcel with a long line of anti-animal rights legislation that threaten to criminalize those bringing justice instead of those inflicting pain.
Weigh the impacts. Keep Ag Gag laws off the books... sign the petition and spread the word: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/criminalize-ag-gag-laws/KQWSvsKr #AgGagBad
|
On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:11 r.Evo wrote:
The Iowa bill specifically outlaws videotaping (and possessing/distributing) in an animal facility without the owners consent. The Utah bill outlaws applying with the intent to make a record (debatable, sounds reasonable) and recording while being employed and while trespassing.
Actually this is even worse than what I talked about with you earlier. It's not just about covertly going in there and videotaping it. This bill includes someone who works there, witnesses animal cruelty and seeks to make video footage as proof.
Edit: Ctrl+f "without consent" or "without the consent". It helps highlight it! edit: and you can stop harping on the made up laws point, because i have yet to see a law that makes the mere videotaping of animal abuse illegal. they make actions in violation of premise owner's consent unlawful, not the mere act of videotaping of animal abuse.
So if I outlaw videotaping children in a private home under any circumstance I'm not outlawing the videotaping of child abuse at the same time?
You admittedly talked about an entirely different law, you admittedly had no idea that the laws referred to in the OP even existed (which suggests you completely ignored the article in the OP talking about these specific laws), you then get to see those laws you called "made up" five minutes earlier and your response is "Oh, well, that doesn't change anything".
These laws are made to oppress the recording of any sound and any video in animal facilities. That's what's outrageous. These laws are made to specifically protect animal farms from the harm that might be inflicted on them when a consumer of their products might see those videos. If such a law would be reasonable it would be worded similar to the law regarding taking video footage of policemen on duty in Germany. In that case, it's generally outlawed with a specific exception for when the policeman in question is in the process of performing an illegal act.
What are those laws that protect someone taking video footage of actual animal abuse that you speak of?
|
On April 14 2013 07:26 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
i am not sure what you are upset about. if you work there, witness animal cruelty and seek to make video footage of it as proof, you are protected by whistleblowing laws. i have seen nothing that changes the whistleblowing laws.
as for the laws themselves, trespass is illegal, fraud is illegal, etc. these new laws are specific to ag, but there are already existing laws making them illegal so they are just making it specific to ag.
edit: and you can stop harping on the made up laws point, because i have yet to see a law that makes the mere videotaping of animal abuse illegal. they make actions in violation of premise owner's consent unlawful, not the mere act of videotaping of animal abuse. dAPhREAk, I'm still not sure if you're trolling or not. Firstly, which whistleblower law governs the actions related to this state law? Secondly, where exactly did previous trespass laws omit agribusiness from protection from trespassers? If they did not, why is the documentary of animal cruelty so heinous that it should be given extra-special punishment compared to normal trespass? Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
i am not sure what you are upset about. if you work there, witness animal cruelty and seek to make video footage of it as proof, you are protected by whistleblowing laws. i have seen nothing that changes the whistleblowing laws. This is illegal under the passed law unless the videotaping is authorized by the facility owner. Unless you're saying that whistleblower laws supercede this law, in which case you'd have to explain why someone spent so much time passing a contradictory law.
there are federal and state whistleblower laws. they make otherwise illegal activity (e.g., breach of contract) permissible where illegal activity is uncovered.
trespass laws did not omit agribusiness. why does this get special attention? because big-ag is a powerful lobby.
if you act on private property without consent = trespass. whistleblower doesnt supersede this law. it makes an otherwise illegal act permissible under certain circumstances. if you break this law, but dont uncover illegal activities, enjoy your fine.
every time someone in general calls me a troll for pointing out obvious issues, i seriously consider their mental abilities.
|
On April 14 2013 07:30 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 07:11 r.Evo wrote:
The Iowa bill specifically outlaws videotaping (and possessing/distributing) in an animal facility without the owners consent. The Utah bill outlaws applying with the intent to make a record (debatable, sounds reasonable) and recording while being employed and while trespassing.
Actually this is even worse than what I talked about with you earlier. It's not just about covertly going in there and videotaping it. This bill includes someone who works there, witnesses animal cruelty and seeks to make video footage as proof.
Edit: Ctrl+f "without consent" or "without the consent". It helps highlight it! edit: and you can stop harping on the made up laws point, because i have yet to see a law that makes the mere videotaping of animal abuse illegal. they make actions in violation of premise owner's consent unlawful, not the mere act of videotaping of animal abuse. So if I outlaw videotaping children in a private home under any circumstance I'm not outlawing the videotaping of child abuse at the same time? You admittedly talked about an entirely different law, you admittedly had no idea that the laws referred to in the OP even existed (which suggests you completely ignored the article in the OP talking about these specific laws), you then get to see those laws you called "made up" five minutes earlier and your response is "Oh, well, that doesn't change anything". These laws are made to oppress the recording of any sound and any video in animal facilities. That's what's outrageous. These laws are made to specifically protect animal farms from the harm that might be inflicted on them when a consumer of their products might see those videos. If such a law would be reasonable it would be worded similar to the law regarding taking video footage of policemen on duty in Germany. In that case, it's generally outlawed with a specific exception for when the policeman in question is in the process of performing an illegal act. What are those laws that protect someone taking video footage of actual animal abuse that you speak of?
stop focusing on the end and focus on the means. they are breaking the law to videotape. it doesnt outlaw videotaping, it disallows videotaping without consent (e.g., trespass, fraud, etc.).
i didnt talk about a different law. these are all so-called ag-gag laws. each state has its own. i had read the law you referred beforehand. but it doesnt state what you are alleging it states. it states you cant videotape without consent. note how you didnt bold the consent part in your first post, and completely omitted it in following posts. not sure why you keep willfully ignoring the real issue.
yes, these laws oppress the recording where they are done without consent (e.g., trespass, fraud). keep distracting yourself from the consent issue though.
|
On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are federal and state whistleblower laws. they make otherwise illegal activity (e.g., breach of contract) permissible where illegal activity is uncovered.
I asked you for these alleged laws you mention every two sentences. I have personally looked through Wikipedia for the obvious before asking you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_United_States
...and have not found them. I am not an expert on this subject, and you have yet to provide these laws you are so sure pertain to this situation.
If these laws do exist and supercede this law, then why was a contradictory law passed?
On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
trespass laws did not omit agribusiness. why does this get special attention? because big-ag is a powerful lobby.
If trespass laws did not omit agribusiness before this one, you have yet to answer the obvious: why is trespass for documenting animal cruelty so egregiously bad that it deserves extra punishment on top of the laws that already exist for normal trespass?
|
On April 14 2013 07:39 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are federal and state whistleblower laws. they make otherwise illegal activity (e.g., breach of contract) permissible where illegal activity is uncovered. I asked you for these alleged laws you mention every two sentences. I have personally looked through Wikipedia for the obvious before asking you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_United_States...and have not found them. You have yet to provide these laws you are so sure pertain to this situation. Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
trespass laws did not omit agribusiness. why does this get special attention? because big-ag is a powerful lobby. If trespass laws did not omit agribusiness before this one, you have yet to answer the question: why is trespass for documenting animal cruelty so egregiously bad that it deserves extra punishment on top of the laws that already exist for normal trespass?
there are most likely 51 whistleblower laws in the united states. one federal and 50 state. i am not going to find them for you. go find them yourself.
i already told you why this is a special circumstance--big ag has a powerful lobby. i doubt there is anything more to it than that. moreover, i already said in this thread that i dont think extra protection is necessary.
edit: actually, someone made a list.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/state-whistleblower-laws.aspx
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-whistleblower.htm
|
On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
i already told you why this is a special circumstance--big ag has a powerful lobby. i doubt there is anything more to it than that. moreover, i already said in this thread that i dont think extra protection is necessary.
Do you seriously think "big ag has a powerful lobby" is a justifiable reason why trespass for documenting illegal activities should be punished beyond that for normal trespass?
On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are most likely 51 whistleblower laws in the united states. one federal and 50 state. i am not going to find them for you. go find them yourself.
There are at least half a dozen national laws for different types of whistleblowing under different conditions. I can't comment on state laws. The national and state laws I've looked through pertain to government whistleblowing, appearances before Congress, and national defense industries: not agribusiness.
Please find this law you are so certain exists for agribusiness.
|
On April 14 2013 07:49 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
i already told you why this is a special circumstance--big ag has a powerful lobby. i doubt there is anything more to it than that. moreover, i already said in this thread that i dont think extra protection is necessary. Do you seriously think "big ag has a powerful lobby" is a good reason why trespass for documenting illegal activities should be punished beyond that for normal trespass? Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are most likely 51 whistleblower laws in the united states. one federal and 50 state. i am not going to find them for you. go find them yourself. There are at least half a dozen national laws for different types of whistleblowing under different conditions. I can't comment on state laws. The national and state laws I've looked through pertain to government whistleblowing and national defense industries: not agribusiness. Please find this law you are so certain exists for agribusiness.
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative.
|
On April 14 2013 07:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative.
According to the article, Iowa's one of the states that passed a variant on this law. Look at Iowa's whistleblower protection, per the link you just posted:
It is unlawful to discharge or take personnel action against a state employee in reprisal for a disclosure of a violation of a law or rule, mismanagement, abuse of fund, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law.
Would you look at that. A specific law forbidding disclosure now exists.
Utah:
Employees of the state or political subdivisions cannot be discharged, threatened, disciplined or discriminated against for reporting to a public body the existence or suspected existence of waste of public funds, property or manpower; or for a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law; or for refusing to comply with a directive the employee reasonably believes to be illegal. Employees are not protected if they fail to give written notice of the violation to the employer, unless they reasonably believe notice to be futile; fail to comply with administrative reporting procedures; or make the report knowing that it is malicious, false or frivolous. Aggrieved employees may file suit within 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action and can seek reinstatement, back-pay, benefits, court costs and attorney fees. Violating employers can be fined up to $500.
Public employees only. Oops.
Missouri:
State agencies cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for disclosing information which the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety. Protections do not apply if the employees know the disclosure to be false or if it was made in reckless disregard for the truth.
Hey, that looks good! Oh wait, it only covers state employees.
Haven't found anything through OSHA yet, though they have a cover program for whistleblowers that don't get caught.
|
I always find these discussions especially interesting.
I grew up in an environment where chicken houses, a lot like the picture in the OP, were common place. I've always had the belief that animals were here for our benefit and their discomfort in life was inconsequential. Also, it was understood that if your dog got out and was chasing the neighbor's live stock, the neighbor was going to shoot it. Tired of a pet dog/cat? The answer was always to take it out and shoot it. Cat/Dog had kittens/puppies that you didn't want? The answer was always to kill them. The logic was that it was better to just kill them rather than waste a day trying to give them away or pass them off on someone else to deal with them. For a lot of people this cold indifference to animals is incomprehensible, but that is how life was growing up.
Because of this, its hard for me to understand why people care so much about the living conditions of live stock and why anyone would care if someone wanted to film it in the first place. I say let them take all the pictures they want. I'm not a big fan of censorship.
|
On April 14 2013 08:01 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative. According to the article, Iowa's one of the states that passed a variant on this law. Look at Iowa's whistleblower protection, per the link you just posted: Show nested quote +It is unlawful to discharge or take personnel action against a state employee in reprisal for a disclosure of a violation of a law or rule, mismanagement, abuse of fund, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law. Would you look at that. A specific law forbidding disclosure now exists, supported by people like you. Utah: Show nested quote +Employees of the state or political subdivisions cannot be discharged, threatened, disciplined or discriminated against for reporting to a public body the existence or suspected existence of waste of public funds, property or manpower; or for a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law; or for refusing to comply with a directive the employee reasonably believes to be illegal. Employees are not protected if they fail to give written notice of the violation to the employer, unless they reasonably believe notice to be futile; fail to comply with administrative reporting procedures; or make the report knowing that it is malicious, false or frivolous. Aggrieved employees may file suit within 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action and can seek reinstatement, back-pay, benefits, court costs and attorney fees. Violating employers can be fined up to $500. Public employees only. Oops. Missouri: Show nested quote +State agencies cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for disclosing information which the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety. Protections do not apply if the employees know the disclosure to be false or if it was made in reckless disregard for the truth. Hey, that looks good! Oh wait, it only covers state employees. Haven't found anything through OSHA yet, though they have a cover program for whistleblowers that don't get caught. Remain safe and secure, dAPhREAk.
we can continue on Monday if i have time. leaving for the weekend.
and, no, i dont support the law, but thanks for repeatedly misstating my position.
|
On April 14 2013 08:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
we can continue on Monday if i have time. leaving for the weekend.
and, no, i dont support the law, but thanks for repeatedly misstating my position.
Understood.
Sorry for the snark, that was definitely out of line. I'll delete that.
|
On April 14 2013 08:01 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative. According to the article, Iowa's one of the states that passed a variant on this law. Look at Iowa's whistleblower protection, per the link you just posted: Show nested quote +It is unlawful to discharge or take personnel action against a state employee in reprisal for a disclosure of a violation of a law or rule, mismanagement, abuse of fund, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law. Would you look at that. A specific law forbidding disclosure now exists, supported by people like you. Utah: Show nested quote +Employees of the state or political subdivisions cannot be discharged, threatened, disciplined or discriminated against for reporting to a public body the existence or suspected existence of waste of public funds, property or manpower; or for a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law; or for refusing to comply with a directive the employee reasonably believes to be illegal. Employees are not protected if they fail to give written notice of the violation to the employer, unless they reasonably believe notice to be futile; fail to comply with administrative reporting procedures; or make the report knowing that it is malicious, false or frivolous. Aggrieved employees may file suit within 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action and can seek reinstatement, back-pay, benefits, court costs and attorney fees. Violating employers can be fined up to $500. Public employees only. Oops. Missouri: Show nested quote +State agencies cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for disclosing information which the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety. Protections do not apply if the employees know the disclosure to be false or if it was made in reckless disregard for the truth. Hey, that looks good! Oh wait, it only covers state employees. Haven't found anything through OSHA yet, though they have a cover program for whistleblowers that don't get caught.
You're awesome, thanks for those links. :>
e: Goddamn, I hate not supporting snarky-ness. Edited out as well.
|
Final thoughts, as I'll be busy for a while.
I have few doubts that people who break this law will be able to find a lawyer who can defend them through legalese; lawyers have defended clients against clearer, more egregious breaches of law outside of the nebulous field of whistleblowing. It will certainly be harder and cost more, but I can't comment on how much harder or costlier it will be.
However, that doesn't excuse the passage of laws like this. The best case scenario is that they contradict laws already passed and skew criminal incentives in a manner unfitting the principle of proportionate retribution. The worst case scenario involves shielding criminal behavior by elements of the farm industry.
|
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
|
On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
Yea we're not giving up sex or violence any time soon either so deal with it.
edit: so sick of this quote being used in animal rights discussions by people who have no idea what the man said or did.
|
they should rewrite the text of the american anthem to:
"land of the fee"
or something like that.
American politics have been bought by the co-operations and they also make the laws for them.
Its time for people to awaken and claim their country like their forefathers did and take it back into their hands away from the co-operations that take your money, give you a shitty job and tell you to be grateful for it.
For me this is not an animal rights issue, but a cooperation power issue ...
I hope to yet see the day when wash the filth of money away with blood from everywhere in the world, or the day when these people see their faults and decide to stop leeching on the population its resources and nature.
I'd prefer the second option but its more likely to be the first if the financial crises continues and people start to realize how they have been cheated, used and abused by co-operations, rich people and their minions.
|
On April 14 2013 09:57 Holy_AT wrote:
they should rewrite the text of the american anthem to:
"land of the fee"
or something like that.
American politics have been bought by the co-operations and they also make the laws for them.
Its time for people to awaken and claim their country like their forefathers did and take it back into their hands away from the co-operations that take your money, give you a shitty job and tell you to be grateful for it.
For me this is not an animal rights issue, but a cooperation power issue ...
I hope to yet see the day when wash the filth of money away with blood from everywhere in the world, or the day when these people see their faults and decide to stop leeching on the population its resources and nature.
I'd prefer the second option but its more likely to be the first if the financial crises continues and people start to realize how they have been cheated, used and abused by co-operations, rich people and their minions.
This is one of the big reasons that reading about this made me angry. I'm not for mistreatment of animals and I don't like to see them being abused but man the average American doesn't even know how much their country is being ran by big business. This bill is 100% to protect big-ag. It is really sickening that it was able to get through so easily and that when a large firm wants something done, it is very easy for them to get it done.
Americans need to get a little more educated that many important issues aren't being decided by some congressman, but by the corporations who back them.
|
On April 14 2013 09:53 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi Yea we're not giving up sex or violence any time soon either so deal with it. edit: so sick of this quote being used in animal rights discussions by people who have no idea what the man said or did.
Don´t let me die dump. Tell me.
edit: And either i just don´t have a clue about your first sentence. What have sex and violance to do with how i treat animals or food. Enlighten me.
|
On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
But isn't it about giving a fuck, indeed?
The overconsumption of meat is not only an ethical problem, but also an ecological one. We cannot produce enough meat for everyone, and the cost of the current production is huge.
Ag business makes it sound like it's a "vegan problem", so they can dismiss it as a simple matter of diverging, marginal opinions. But the truth is that we can't expect to keep up once demand in countries like China or India rises up. We don't even know how we can feed these countries in the next decades, so how in hell can we provide them with cheap hamburgers for billions and billions of people?
The shift isn't that we need to stop eating meat, it's to realize that there were products that weren't common a century ago, and never were supposed to be common in our everyday lives. Same with cheap cheese or eggs. We simply need to realize that cheap meat is an atrocity. Meat needs to be a small part of our input, and I'm not even questioning daily consumption, I'm questioning those endless barbecues some cultures like to have.
|
Well i´m only saying that the majority of end consumers’ doesn´t give a fuck. If they don´t give a fuck about their food why should you fight a law that doesn´t concern anyone in the end.
You can sell them shit with flavor enhancer, as long as they don´t know, they eat their "fresh yumy cheap" cheeseburgers.
edit: Most even doesn´t wana hear it. Like all those videos and shit. Flesh and meat you buy in the supermarket like they come from tree´s or shit. People nowadays don´t want to hear that meat comes from animals. And that plays into the hands of the industry. If you don´t change the customer you won´t change the industry and it laws. Oh, and that´s only a subjective observation but women have this opinion more than men that women don´t give a fuck where the meat is from.
ez pz
|
On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden).
|
On April 14 2013 13:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden).
By his religion.... Aha. Hindu mostly eat vegetables but that doesn´t mean meat is a dogma for them. Gandhi though said for himself that he would not eat any meat of animals because he equals both, human and animals.
But well what ever you people in the internet are telling. First you miss the point. Then you wanna fight about things that wasn´t my point.
Then you talking things like "great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers" while i would say those "great" nations are making the biggest failures right now and are giving right to what that man said.
Well whatever you people say. You´re right.
|
On April 14 2013 13:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden).
More affordable? Do you realize how much rice you can get from the energy that's needed for a steak? Meat production is among the most cost- and energy-inefficient ways to feed a nation.
You can only truly judge someones character if you give him absolute power over something. Considering what is happening to the one thing we claim absolute power over - the animals which feed us - we're failing as a species. Horribly.
|
This is 16 pages long.... So should the OP have been told to at least put in some links showing what he is saying is true. At least a link to the law which is getting voted on?
.Opps. I didn't see that word source was a hyperlink.
|
On April 14 2013 14:55 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 13:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden). More affordable? Do you realize how much rice you can get from the energy that's needed for a steak? Meat production is among the most cost- and energy-inefficient ways to feed a nation. You can only truly judge someones character if you give him absolute power over something. Considering what is happening to the one thing we claim absolute power over - the animals which feed us - we're failing as a species. Horribly.
Consumers in first world countries can afford to buy meat. Most people in 3rd world countries cannot, or at least not much. That was my point.
So, is your solution that we all become vegetarians/vegans? Because without the current meat processing system, we won't be able to produce a fraction of the meat that is currently produced. It's not something I like, but it's just the way it is. Treating meat production in something other than the current form would severely cut down on supply and drive up prices radically. Thanks but no thanks. I like Canadian bacon with my eggs.
How are we failing as a species, by the way? We number 7 billion and we control the world, and except in a future scenario of global nuclear winter or environmental collapse, we're doing by far the best as a species on this planet. In fact, we are the only sapient species, at that; at least, no other creature comes anywhere close in that regard. Barring discovery of sapient alien species, there is currently no known species anywhere near as successful as humans.
On April 14 2013 13:55 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 13:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden). By his religion.... Aha. Hindu mostly eat vegetables but that doesn´t mean meat is a dogma for them. Gandhi though said for himself that he would not eat any meat of animals because he equals both, human and animals. But well what ever you people in the internet are telling. First you miss the point. Then you wanna fight about things that wasn´t my point. Then you talking things like "great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers" while i would say those "great" nations are making the biggest failures right now and are giving right to what that man said. Well whatever you people say. You´re right.
So Germany is one of the biggest failures right now, you say? I don't follow. I assume you're living well off even for a German. That aside, the poor in Germany and the US and other advanced nations live a lot better than the average people in third world countries. And somehow you claim that the most advanced and wealthiest nations are the greatest failures? I am sincerely interested in hearing why you say this. It's a rather radical idea.
|
On April 14 2013 14:55 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 13:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden). More affordable? Do you realize how much rice you can get from the energy that's needed for a steak? Meat production is among the most cost- and energy-inefficient ways to feed a nation. You can only truly judge someones character if you give him absolute power over something. Considering what is happening to the one thing we claim absolute power over - the animals which feed us - we're failing as a species. Horribly.
Before declaring that we are failing as a species you should probably define the purpose of a species first.
|
yea I dunno about that most successful argument, there are more bacteria cells than human cells in your body and you would die if you got rid of them.
|
On April 14 2013 15:40 woody60707 wrote:
This is 16 pages long.... So should the OP have been told to at least put in some links showing what he is saying is true. At least a link to the law which is getting voted on?
.Opps. I didn't see that word source was a hyperlink.
If you're looking for links and more information on Ag Gag laws visit the Institute for Critical Animal Studies website at http://icasnorthamerica.wordpress.com/projects/ . They provided links to the NPR interview that represents both sides of the debate, which then provides additional links to all the legislation under consideration.
Also, I think the OP assumed people knew how to use google to find the information since it's out there all over the Internet. A bunch of people have also posted links within this thread... but it is a shame someone has to sift through it all in order to find what they're looking for.
Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - http://tinyurl.com/bnlnwu3 - #AgGagBad
|
On April 14 2013 23:08 sailorferret wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 15:40 woody60707 wrote:
This is 16 pages long.... So should the OP have been told to at least put in some links showing what he is saying is true. At least a link to the law which is getting voted on?
.Opps. I didn't see that word source was a hyperlink. If you're looking for links and more information on Ag Gag laws visit the Institute for Critical Animal Studies website at http://icasnorthamerica.wordpress.com/projects/ . They provided links to the NPR interview that represents both sides of the debate, which then provides additional links to all the legislation under consideration. Also, I think the OP assumed people knew how to use google to find the information since it's out there all over the Internet. A bunch of people have also posted links within this thread... but it is a shame someone has to sift through it all in order to find what they're looking for. Stop Ag Gag Laws from Passing - http://tinyurl.com/bnlnwu3 - #AgGagBad
I never heard about laws like this till now. Thanks for the other links.
|
On April 12 2013 03:41 plated.rawr wrote:
What? They're making taping of animal mistreatment illegal, but the actual treatment is a-ok?
What the motherfuck. AFK, I need to hit something, or someone.
I read all these threads just to read the first response by someone from Norway or Sweden who always responds like this and have no clue what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
