"Speciesism: The Movie" -- Looks Like a MUST SEE for True Animal Lovers

[Yorkiemom1]

[QUOTE=Maximo;4470399]The word speciesism may have origins with an individual and group with certain beliefs and goals . . . but it is also a simple word in the dictionary with the definition: "1. prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals. 2. the assumption of human superiority on which speciesism is based "

It would open a can of worms to have 'rights.' Would tougher anti-cruelty laws and ordinances achieve the same thing?

Also related -- I hate laws that consider pets as 'property' with value of only the purchase price.[/QUOTE]


I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this. We are continually petitioning for tougher, anti cruelty laws and ordinces, as well as MUCH stiffer penalties associated with laws already on the books, as well as mandatory enforcement of the laws....they make all these laws then no one enforces them, or gets serious about penalties/punishment for people guilty of cruelty or abuse against animals. I think considering animals as property is ludicrous. This attitude / position must be re-evaluated.

[gemy]

Speciesism
Stereotypes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...clogo1.svg.png Discrimination portalv
t
e

Speciesism (/ˈspiːʃiːˌzɪzəm, -siːˌzɪz-/) involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. The argument is that species membership has no moral significance.[1]
The term is not used consistently, but broadly embraces two ideas.[2] It usually refers to "human speciesism" (human supremacism), the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the protections afforded to humans.[3] It can also refer to the more general idea of assigning value to a being on the basis of species membership alone, so that "human-chimpanzee speciesism" would involve human beings favouring rights for chimpanzees over rights for dogs, because of human-chimpanzee similarities.[4]

All the underlines and highlights are from Wikipedia.

I think the laws on the books should be enforced and or strengthened. As our Federal Law here in Canada against Animal Cruelty has an "out" a big one for the defense of someone so charged. It has pretty steep consequences if found guilty, but there is this out or may I say flaw in the law.

And that is you have to prove intent on the person so charged under Animal Cruelty laws. Apparently intent is very hard to prove.

We have a case up before the courts that has dragged on for months as the defendant utilizes every legal stratagem, including denying ownership of the dogs that were seized on her premises.

I am not a lawyer by any means or form, but as much as I abhor my dogs are considered property, I am also quite leery of changes to the law that might alter their status. The law of unintended consequences..... says be very carefull of how you change things.

But back to this documentary. A piece that was in no way objective, that presented different arguments, that showed a range of different options that are right now available in our food chain, that used low tactics to make a point or buttress a point.

[Wylie's Mom]

What I find very interesting is the people speaking out the most against this movie, who both made up their minds prior to even seeing it - are both breeders. Why? I can only ponder that this movie is somehow threatening to what you perceive as your "rights" over animals or your "right" to breed. Otherwise, I'm not hearing a logical explanation for this closed mindedness. Gail, I've never heard you so closed minded in my entire time here...it's like I'm seeing another side of you, and it not only shocks me, but it hurts for some reason. I guess it hurts somehow when I see people who seemingly have their own "agendas" (a word I rather abhor, therefore, the quotations) to such an extent that they can't even see the forest for the trees...like they have blinders on or something. Saddening. Frustrating. And beyond anything else, part of the problem as to why we'll never be able to make the world a better place for animals.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this. We are continually petitioning for tougher, anti cruelty laws and ordinces, as well as MUCH stiffer penalties associated with laws already on the books, as well as mandatory enforcement of the laws....they make all these laws then no one enforces them, or gets serious about penalties/punishment for people guilty of cruelty or abuse against animals. I think considering animals as property is ludicrous. This attitude / position must be re-evaluated.

Actually, most laws get shot down because the breeders are so afraid of losing their income. I mean no disrespect to you or any other breeder....it is just that it always seems that any time a law comes around to limit the numbers of dogs a breeder has, all the breeders come out swinging. It is a well known fact that many (probably most) people who breed dogs are totally neglecting and/or abusing them.; and it takes almost an act of Congress to do anything about it.

I have seen it time and time again.

[Yorkiemom1]

(Response to Anns post) And now the real "agenda" of animal rights activist rears its head! Attack breeders...anti breeders....anti breeding....you agree THAT is what this movie is all about... Speciesism really is a threat to responsible breeders, breeders of any kind....They already have radical animal rights activist that are scurrying around, actively destroying dog breeding programs, under the guise of "irradicating puppy mills"...never mind they are not having any effect on puppy mills at all, they are driving responsible breeders that keep records, that can be tracked through the registeries, the vets, advertising, etc...those are the breeders they go after. Never mind they are not utilizing the vast amounts of money donated to their "cause", is NOT utilized to strengthen laws and enforcement of laws that are already on the books.... People that breed dogs, selling sick, unvaccinated animals, genetically inferior pups, from sick breeding pairs, sold out of car trunks, out of boxes in parking lots, flea markets, garage sales....continue to dump these pitiful dogs on unsuspecting people....these people have no concern about this movement of animal rights or animal welfare.....nothing is done to THOSE people...no they go after the breeders that are trying to produce healthy, sound pups that at least LOOK like the breed they are supposed to represent.....those are the people they are driving out of business, because they have no "right" to breed these animals. The movement for Speciesism is just another insidious branch that radical activists are gradually infusing into the psyche of "true animal lovers"....What you say IS accurate, and this movement clearly does "threaten" my "rights" to breed animals, so I agree with you, it is even worse infringement on breeders everywhere, regardless of what or why you are breeding...food source, or dog shows or continuing to keep purebred dogs and breed standards true to the breed. They have one goal, to irradicate, by any means, breeders of any kind, for any reason. They attack responsible breeders and they attack the notion that a human is higher on the food chain than an animal, ie Speciesism. Never mind if the animals are very well cared for, treated with compassion and fed well, with no animal abuse or cruelty running rampant....we have no "right" to raise meat for food. Yes, I have been upset watching this whole program develop over many years....I was devastated about MY rights as a breeder that was doing it all correctly, producing wonderful, healthy, gorgeous Yorkies for families that adore them and dont end up with sick, unhealthy pups that die at premature ages because of genetic abnormalities....but I am over that now, and I have chosen to spend my money and time and effort caring for my pets, rather than chasing all over Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi, fighting these animal rights activists at every turn of the screw....it is no longer worth it to me....I have my dogs, everyone else will have to take up fighting these fanatics that are quietly, systematically destroying animal production rights.... If anyone understand what is behind the theory of "Speciesism", what the goals and objectives and methods to meet their goals are, then they too will be upset and "close minded" and resolute to not be herded like lemmings with a cult mentality, into believing humans have NO rights when it comes to interacting with animals.....this has nothing to do with treating animals humanely, with compassion......this has to do with the belief you have no rights as a human to interact with any animal in any way that the animal believes infringes or impedes on its rights. Does the book "Animal Farm" sound familiar? So, as I stated before, this whole message of this "movie" may be a totally new concept to many, it has been around for years, and I KNOW it well....I abhore it and do not believe in it, and will not be swayed by pitiful lamentations and stunned and shocked realizations that I do not subscribe to this movement, any more than I support religious cults, human or animal sacrifices, specific political viewpoints, cannabolism, slavery, murder, rape, stealing, etc. My rejection of these practices as well as others, is based on my knowledge of the practices, from my interpretation of these movements and their intended goals, not from closed mindedness or obstreperousness. My personal moral compass will not allow me to go down those paths. We all have our belief systems and because a person will not sit and listen to the advantages of robbing banks from a bank robber, or the ease of survival of stealing from a welfare system from someone that has become proficient in scamming the system, does not make nor mean that person is "closed minded" or "cant see the forest for the trees" or "wearing blinders"....it simply means they have set their own belief system, their own values, their own choice of what they consider right and wrong, and will not waste their time trying to be swayed or persuaded to deviate from their own moral direction. You always have people of different values, trying to persuade you THEIR way is better, and standing steadfast to your own belief system gets insults hurled at you....falling on deaf ears here! As I see it, rather than trying to persuade people as "true animal lovers", to watch a movie that is trying to advance the theory of radical animal rights activists, Gail and I have simply advocated people understand what this movie is about....understand the movement of Speciesism before buying into it, based on the proponents (of this theory) own books and publications on the topic and not on an insidious little fluffy documentary that would insinuate you dont love animals if you dont agree with this movement. No blinders, no anger, no paranoia, no closed mindedness, no obstreperous stance.....just encouraging people to become informed about this age old theory that is once again, being "run up the flag pole" to test the winds of acceptance from the masses....A person is not crazy or afraid of imaginary boogymen because they have spent years educating themselves and fighting an insidious movement that threatens the belief system that as a human, you have no "rights" to produce meat for food.

[ladyjane]

Judy, all you have done is make me want to watch this movie more. I don't know why you feel so strongly that you must stop people from watching it. There is no harm in that....and people will draw their own conclusions.

This quote from you, " Gail and I have simply advocated people understand what this movie is about....understand the movement of Speciesism before buying into it," concerns me. You are so adamant that it makes me want to watch now to see why. Perhaps I will think just as you do after viewing it, perhaps not; but I do want to see it now for sure!

[mimimomo]

I am an animal lover. Alls I know is: you can't treat God's creatures that way...there's something very wrong, twisted, inhumane & very dark about the people that abuse these poor souls that give up their lives to feed us. It makes me sick.

I don't eat red meat, I don't like it. I don't drink milk, I hate it.

Kristin, I googled 'how do they make veal?" & saw the video... it has to stop. Made me think of The Walking Dead & how the seaon finale ended w/cannibalism...imagine that horror happening to humans & humans eating babies, it's the same thing to me!

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Actually, most laws get shot down because the breeders are so afraid of losing their income. I mean no disrespect to you or any other breeder....it is just that it always seems that any time a law comes around to limit the numbers of dogs a breeder has, all the breeders come out swinging. It is a well known fact that many (probably most) people who breed dogs are totally neglecting and/or abusing them.; and it takes almost an act of Congress to do anything about it.

I have seen it time and time again.

The attempts to affect change in the breeding world is aimed directly at responsible breeders, NOT puppy mills, where the problem actually lies. It is NOT the puppy mills that come out swinging, it is the responsible breeders that are trying to make it right and do it correctly, that are attacked and driven out of business by imposing laws and regulations and restrictions that, unless you are independently wealthy, there is no way you can continue. All these laws and regulations and restrictions have NO effect on puppy mills, the ones that should be driven out of business....but this has become a mute point for me! I have learned this past week that my property in Colorado that my father bought way back in 1960, is actually floating in oil, just like my father had always said, and they now have the technology to get to the oil......I am thankful, and a very happy camper and will finally be starting to build my new home and travel and do all the things I have sacrificed, to do what I loved more than anything else in the world....breeding my Yorkies and selling them (contrary to popular belief, NOT making any money, instead burning through my inheritance a CD / annuity at a time, trying to provide healthy babies to adoring people, working in the red for years), and missing out on family vacations, etc because this is like running a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week job! God closes one door, and opens another! I hope and pray people become informed and aware of what is going on around them, and continue to fight for what THEY as humans have the right to pursue.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

(Response to Anns post) And now the real "agenda" of animal rights activist rears its head! Attack breeders...anti breeders....anti breeding....you agree THAT is what this movie is all about...

Judy, I can't even read beyond this sentence bc 1) it's just sounding like more paranoid propaganda rather than just a calm discussion and 2) I can't read things when you don't use paragraphs...can you please please please use paragraphs to divide up what your points are, so that people's brains can read and process it? I don't mean that as any sort of insult, it's just impossible to read this humongous paragraph...and I'd like to be able to read it.

As far as some real "agenda" being anti-breeding, that just sounds crazy. No one here is attacking breeders, at all. Nor is that what this movie is "ALL about", my goodness! Where are you getting this stuff from this movie? For the record, I'm not anti-breeding and never have been and never will be. I am against the way breeding is currently rampant, most often cruel and tortuous, and completely unregulated in our country - it's BARBARIC for God's sake. It truly is.

As I said, I couldn't read your whole paragraph - but it seems you do believe you have "rights" to breed animals. We differ a great deal there, I guess I don't believe anyone has "rights" over these poor animals, such as in breeding. Rather, I think it should be a privilege for those who are able to treat these poor animals humanely....and that is NOT happening 90% of the time. If you can't even agree to that (or somewhere in the ballpark), then I can't see how you ever could proclaim to be part of a solution....someday, somehow.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

I hope and pray people become informed and aware of what is going on around them, and continue to fight for what THEY as humans have the right to pursue.

See, I think this attitude of having these "rights" over all animals, in practically ANY way we please is one of most damaging beliefs currently held in humans toward animals.

I'm reminded yet again of that quote by Milan Kundera: "Humanity's true moral test, its fundamental test, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect humankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it."

I think fundamentally, we humans are SO colossally misguided in our attitude toward animals - that it makes any appreciable change virtually impossible. Until we're willing to REALLY look at what we do to animals, admit it, and make real changes -animals will continue to be "lorded over" by humans who treat them horribly.

[Wylie's Mom]

Btw, I feel I now need to clarify the title of this thread since it's been mentioned several times now as if it's something to be suspicious of --> when I wrote "Looks like a must see for TRUE ANIMAL LOVERS" -- I in no way thought it'd be somehow interpreted as meaning you had to agree w/ the premise of the movie in order to be a 'true animal lover'. I didn't say that, insinuate that ever, or imply that. In fact, I think this movie is for *any* type of true animal lover, regardless of whether you support the movie's premise or not. Okay?

Was just reading the Amazon reviews, which are mostly positive...which surprised me given the extent of some of the negativity on this thread: Amazon.com: Speciesism: The Movie: Peter Singer,...

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by mimimomo

I am an animal lover. Alls I know is: you can't treat God's creatures that way...there's something very wrong, twisted, inhumane & very dark about the people that abuse these poor souls that give up their lives to feed us. It makes me sick.

I don't eat red meat, I don't like it. I don't drink milk, I hate it.

Kristin, I googled 'how do they make veal?" & saw the video... it has to stop. Made me think of The Walking Dead & how the seaon finale ended w/cannibalism...imagine that horror happening to humans & humans eating babies, it's the same thing to me!

I cannot bring myself to watch any video. I've only seen photos of the containers that look like porta potties where the calves are kept from birth, never allowed to move so they won't develop muscle.

I do eat red meat and milk products, so maybe this makes me a hypocrite that I oppose things like veal.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Btw, I feel I now need to clarify the title of this thread since it's been mentioned several times now as if it's something to be suspicious of --> when I wrote "Looks like a must see for TRUE ANIMAL LOVERS" -- I in no way thought it'd be somehow interpreted as meaning you had to agree w/ the premise of the movie in order to be a 'true animal lover'. I didn't say that, insinuate that ever, or imply that. In fact, I think this movie is for *any* type of true animal lover, regardless of whether you support the movie's premise or not. Okay?

Was just reading the Amazon reviews, which are mostly positive...which surprised me given the extent of some of the negativity on this thread: Amazon.com: Speciesism: The Movie: Peter Singer, Temple Grandin, Richard Dawkins, Ingrid Newkirk, Bruce Friedrich, Gary Francione, Mark Devries: Movies & TV

All of the comments I read on another site were positive and said the movie is thought-provoking and does not draw any conclusions or impose any ideology.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Maximo

I cannot bring myself to watch any video. I've only seen photos of the containers that look like porta potties where the calves are kept from birth, never allowed to move so they won't develop muscle.

I do eat red meat and milk products, so maybe this makes me a hypocrite that I oppose things like veal.

You are *not* a hypocrite. It's funny bc in these kinds of convos, we always see people saying things like "I want to make the world better for animals, but I do still eat meat and use leather" -- and I always feel for them when they say that. I feel bad bc it's like they think unless they're a vegan or something close, that they're not "doing enough"...and that's just not true! ANY and EVERY little thing you do is meaningful and important, it truly is. Everything, every little thing, counts. Bc the alternative would be doing nothing, merely bc we can't do "everything" (whatever that is).

Also, veal (like liver pate for the poor ducks) is particularly and tortuously cruel - it's one of the worst of the worst...so it's a meaningful thing to speak out against, imho. Same as liver pate, regular fur farms, dog/cat fur farms in China (omg), puppy mills...these are all particularly horrific.

It's like that saying "Doing nothing is not a prescription for change"...which is true...so the alternative to that saying is "Doing SOMEthing is a prescription for change" -- meaning, any and every little thing.

[gemy]

The Animal Rights Agenda, 25 Years Later | Psychology Today

I found this article an interesting read:

I recommend that you take a look at The "Animal Rights Agenda" 25 Years Later, published today on the Animal People website. The editorial takes us back to 1987, when a group of animal activists put together a document outlining the twelve central issues of concern to those fighting for animal rights. The essay then offers an updated agenda, building upon the original 12 statements. We are given a sense of where progress has been made, and where things have gotten worse. Here, in abbreviated form, are the twelve original statements

#1-We are firmly committed to the eventual abolition by law of animal research, and call for an immediate prohibition of painful experiments and tests. .
#2-The use of animals for cosmetics and household product testing, tobacco and alcohol testing, psychological testing, classroom demonstrations and dissection, and in weapons development or other warfare programs must be outlawed immediately.
#3-We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
#4-Steps should be taken to begin phasing out intensive confinement systems of livestock production, also called factory farming, which causes severe physical and psychological suffering for the animals kept in overcrowded and unnatural conditions.
#5-The use of herbicides, pesticides, and other toxic agricultural chemicals should be phased out.
#6-Responsibility for enforcement of animal welfare legislation must be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to an agency created for the purpose of protecting animals and the environment.
#7-Commercial trapping and fur ranching should be eliminated.
#8-Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited.
#9-Internationally, steps should be taken by the U.S. government to prevent further destruction of rain forests.
#10-We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats.
#11-We call for an end to the use of animals in entertainment and sports such as dog racing, dog and cock fighting, fox hunting, hare coursing, rodeos, circuses, and other spectacles and a critical reappraisal of the use of animals in quasi-educational institutions such as zoos and aquariums.
#12-Advances in biotechnology are posing a threat to the integrity of species, which may ultimately reduce all living
which may ultimately reduce all living beings to the level of patentable commodities. Genetic manipulation of species to produce transgenic animals must be prohibited.
A few of issues, in particular, are given extended (and very interesting) discussion. For example, the original document called for an immediate end to all animal research. The new agenda concedes that research will likely not stop, and instead focuses on specific actions that could improve the welfare of laboratory animals, such as the development of and compulsory adherence to a pain classification scale; prohibition of any experiment classified as severely painful, where pain cannot be relieved; and prohibition of any procedures that would be defined as torture by international conventions.
The new document reaffirms the commitment to vegetarianism, but with increased urgency. There is an interesting discussion of live-stock gift charities and "locovorism" (a culinary trend which fetishizes back-yard butchering).

THat seems pretty clear to me the above statements and in particular the one with respect to breeding.