Conservatives Stealing an Animal Rights issue

[RobLister]

Two fairly important and certainly much-read and reported opinion articles. The latter pretty much jumps on the former's bandwagon.

Today's Food: Our Progeny Will Call Us Barbarians
Charles Krauthammer: Someday, this industrial slaughter will be condemned

Washington post article, google as need be

Unthinkable Today, Obvious Tomorrow: The Moral Case for the Abolition of Cruelty to Animals by Matthew Scully December 19, 2016 4:00 AM On that issue, our evolving standards approach the ancient ones of Judeo-Christian morality.

National review article, google as need be

They make mildly good cases but do so without strict accordance to good logic and rhetoric-free arguments. One example:

The vast plant floors — scene of 2,000 kills every hour, if you can picture that pace — must be constantly washed clean of waste, because in terror so many of the pigs lose control of their bowels.

Yea, well, you might be right. Or they just ordinarily **** when and where they please. And more often, often. On the other hand, a pig just knows.

I post this because this issue is ripe for republican pickin's. Dems have hemmed and hawed a bit at low political levels but it has never reached a national platform.

Does it have conservative legs? Yea, it does.

Now, both articles resemble what you've read in the past about such slaughterhouse atrocities -- there's nothing new under that sun -- but the source is the real news here.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Since when does anyone "own" animal rights as an issue?

 

[RobLister]

Since when does anyone "own" animal rights as an issue?

Since it is not-specifically-owned by either platform on a national basis (like abortion or guns or whatnot) and one or the other makes a case.

Seemed pretty clear at the time of writing. Perhaps I could have been more clear.

Slaughterhouse atrocities (not really my thinking because I eat a fried pork chop without any remorse, but nor do I think much about other sausage-making issues) has not been a nationally public political platform. Now it might be. I suppose that is my point.

 

[Darth Rotor]

OK, Rob, I'll be the under and we'll see how it works out. Krauthammer's is just one more opinion ...

 

[fuelair]

I enjoy National Review because it is quite rational much of the time and has never been offensive in the republicker ways.........

 

[fuelair]

]I enjoy National Review because it is quite rational much of the time and has never been offensive in the republicker ways....[/STRIKE].....

The Nation, damnit, not Nat. REview!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Minoosh]

Slaughterhouse atrocities (not really my thinking because I eat a fried pork chop without any remorse, but nor do I think much about other sausage-making issues) has not been a nationally public political platform. Now it might be. I suppose that is my point.

Republicans as a whole "owning" this? I doubt it. Not exactly red meat for the base. IMO compassion is not their first priority this season.

It sounds good though as a rural job creator. "Grass farmers" believe a grass-driven cycle of agricultural produces better food - tastier and less toxic - and happier animals. Meat could have the kosher or halal option as well. Urban foodies might pay a big enough premium to pay farm workers a living wage.

There's a poster here who would know more about the economics of such a program.

 

[Puppycow]

Hi Rob!

If they want to "own" the issue, by all means they can give it a shot, but a couple random op-eds doesn't really make a trend.

I suppose that once upon a time, being against slavery was a radical position. Maybe someday eating meat that once belonged to a living animal we be seen as just as barbaric as we see owning slaves. Time will tell. If the issue is right, I don't really care which party "owns" it. I'm not a vegetarian myself. Not evolved enough perhaps.

 

[Darat]

Hi Rob!

If they want to "own" the issue, by all means they can give it a shot, but a couple random op-eds doesn't really make a trend.

I suppose that once upon a time, being against slavery was a radical position. Maybe someday eating meat that once belonged to a living animal we be seen as just as barbaric as we see owning slaves. Time will tell. If the issue is right, I don't really care which party "owns" it. I'm not a vegetarian myself. Not evolved enough perhaps.

I've often said I can see people in a couple of hundred years or so saying "He was very progressive but he did eat meat" just like we would say "He was very progressive but he did keep slaves"

 

[Puppycow]

I think this may be an issue that is resolved by technology anyway.

If some sort of technology emerges that lets us have meat without killing animals, did we really evolve though? I mean, can our descendants feel superior to us just because they no longer have to choose between not killing animals and eating meat?

 

[blutoski]

I think this may be an issue that is resolved by technology anyway.

If some sort of technology emerges that lets us have meat without killing animals, did we really evolve though? I mean, can our descendants feel superior to us just because they no longer have to choose between not killing animals and eating meat?

Agreed... there's a difference between technological progress versus sociopolitical progress, although 'necessity is the mother of invention' implies some interaction.

My observation is that the parties will sort out ownership of meat substitution as they have for other technological advancements: Democrats will like it because of the humanitarian and technological elements that shift production to urban settings; Republicans will revile it because it's change that eliminates stereotyped Real American jobs in rural economies.

No more cows, no more cowboys. Socially conservative America will freak. The first successful shmeat factory to put a ranch out of business will be the next Malheur.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Odd, haven't republicans made it a crime in some states to produce video depicting, or in some cases even speak negatively about conditions in commercial meat production facilities?

Remember Rick Perry holding a press conference to denounce use of the phrase "pink slime" in publication?

 

[Lensman]

Here's a link to a WashPo article about cultured meat

 

[Darth Rotor]

I've often said I can see people in a couple of hundred years or so saying "He was very progressive but he did eat meat" just like we would say "He was very progressive but he did keep slaves"

Apples and Oranges.

Eating meat as a habit, particularly burnt/cooked meat, is a habit that the omnivore humans began about 1.8 million years ago based on a SciAm article a few years back. (I still had the print sub, not sure if I still have the article).

Keeping slaves is a far more recent development in human practice by a few orders of magnitude in terms of time of habit.

Outlawing slavery is a comparatively recent habit (progress now and again occurs in fits and starts). Sadly, human trafficking continues, and slavery isn't "over" on a global scale.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rants about animal rights and hating various political factions.

 

[Beerina]

I think this may be an issue that is resolved by technology anyway.

If some sort of technology emerges that lets us have meat without killing animals, did we really evolve though? I mean, can our descendants feel superior to us just because they no longer have to choose between not killing animals and eating meat?

I'll bet that, in fact, as soon as factory growing of meat in glass dishes becomes industrial strength, suddenly anti-animal-farming as a moral stance will skyrocket in popularity.

Of course, as they have found out already (and as dear readers can experiment with by making a steak tartar burger) animal fats are required to make meat taste good -- fatless, it is horrid (except for the raw tartar itself, but that's a different beast.)

So they need to grow animal fats too, somehow. With a little work, perhaps they can carve out the exact molecules most problematic to arteries without affecting taste too much.



So there's that coming down the pike. Then there are some animal rights people who think eating meat per se is bad because there's something magical about it that makes you hate animals, and they literally stand against lab-grown meat.

 

[Minoosh]

Of course, as they have found out already (and as dear readers can experiment with by making a steak tartar burger) animal fats are required to make meat taste good -- fatless, it is horrid (except for the raw tartar itself, but that's a different beast.)

Humane harvesting of animal fats, including hog farms that harvest fat via liposuction.

The laboratory-grown meat option has never impressed me. It seems like it would be vastly simpler if meat-eating became a rarer activity. Without trying to be vegetarian I can do without meat easily. Going vegan would be harder. Anyway, I no longer associate a vegetarian diet as dependent on development of a decent soy burger. There are plenty of other options. Throw in dairy, and fish as some vegetarians do, and meat becomes superfluous anyway.

It won't be a conservative thing though. There will be some conservatives who tout grass-fed beef and humane harvesting practices, but that will be rooted in their personal philosophies and not some generalized party platform. Also there is the argument that meat production in many cases is environmentally costly - an argument that many conservatives would dismiss, as it is associated with environmentalism and sustainability. Republicans hate sustainability .