7 ms·

I would consider your argument if it wasn't for the fact that the farm lobby has been behind similar bills in several states in the past (most recent was Iowa,

by glesica 14y ago

I would consider your argument if it wasn't for the fact that the farm lobby has been behind similar bills in several states in the past (most recent was Iowa, last summer IIRC). It isn't animal rights activists behind these bills, it is farmers who don't want their activities watched closely.

randomdata 14y ago
For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said videos. They, naturally, have little motive to see an end to the production of like content being the consumer. Farmers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose by people being abusive towards animals. An animal that is sick and hurting produces far less. Margins are already incredibly slim in agriculture. You cannot afford to have animals in pain. Not to mention the embarrassment of people thinking you are abusive towards animals just by being a part of the industry. Or maybe you are absolutely right, but I don't think it is anywhere near being clear cut just by looking at the initiator.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I think most of these videos are recorded in abattoirs etc with hidden camera. So they are documenting something that would have happened without the presence of a camera. It would seem unlikely (though I guess not impossible) that animal rights activists would seek to increase the abuse of animals simply to create the videos.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I do not think any animal rights activist would straight up think, "boy, I wish there were more abuse videos out there." However, by watching the videos that do exist, an audience is created. Where there is an audience, there are people looking to gain from that audience. People do all kinds of crazy things to get hits on their YouTube page, even without direct monetary incentive. If you just have to hurt a few animals to do the same, why not? I mean it is not in my nature, but not everyone shares my (and I assume your) values.
    - lilsunnybee 14y ago
      Except that the abusers often go to prison, and there has been no established link between the perpetrators of these acts and the undercover reporters before. Frankly this is silly. Are you suggesting that animal rights activists are really just people with a secret fetish for watching animal suffering? Maybe the same way pro-life activists love looking at pictures of mangled fetuses, and would love for more fetuses to be killed simply so that they can keep making more signs. This view is really quite disrespectful and insulting actually.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        > Are you suggesting that animal rights activists are really just people with a secret fetish for watching animal suffering? I'm not sure why you got that impression, but of course not. The videos are typically watched for educational purposes to help better understand the cause that is being fought for. However, you do not need to enjoy what you see to open up the market for more production. As a simple example: If you see a cow being abused, you might be interested in what grievous things are happening to chickens. Now someone has to create chicken-based content to fill your wants. As more people become interested in seeing inside the barn, more content needs to be created to quench the educational thirst. At some point someone without scruples will exploit that audience. It is human nature.
        lilsunnybee 14y ago
        Most if not all undercover reporters that operate like this are volunteers. All animal rights organizations operate as non-profits, with fixed salaries for employees and leadership. The vast majority of income comes from donations. Their accounting books should all be open too, and any discrepancies even more likely to be reported because those working for the organization are also activists and whistleblowers. The simplest explanation is that the videos are real, and unless any discrepancies are noticed, or any evidence to the contrary uncovered, it is the reasonable thing to believe. That doesn't mean people can't investigate to try and uncover malfeasance, but any preexisting beliefs that they may hold that the videos are all fake would be irrational.
- aspensmonster 14y ago
  >For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said videos. They, naturally, have little motive to see an end to the production of like content being the consumer. I fail to see how it "naturally" follows that animal rights activists don't want to see an end to the production of "like content." They would be the ones most eager to end the conditions uncovered by these kinds of undercover investigations.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Sorry if I was not exactly clear. Animal rights activists have an interest in stopping what is enacted in the videos, of course, but stopping the production of the content itself would be against their own interests. How can you see that the problem remains if there is nobody investigating and reporting?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I don't think that investigating and reporting is the problem here, after all we don't generally argue that news reporting about wars causes wars. Stopping the production of the content wouldn't be against their own interests unless they had some other motive to produce it. They would probably switch to shooting content about something else.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        Luckily we figured out how to produce war scenes without actually having to go to war. We are definitely still producing the content to fill the demand though. Considerable amounts of it. Like I mentioned before, we do use this exact argument towards child porn, however. You cannot hurt a child by simply watching a video of child abuse. But we realized that watching the video gives incentive for people to create more, which in turn harms future children. That is a good enough reason to attempt to cease the incentive for production to prevent future occurrences. PETA has been accused of staging content in the past, so it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that it is happening.

by glesica 14y ago

randomdata 14y ago

For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said videos. They, naturally, have little motive to see an end to the production of like content being the consumer. Farmers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose by people being abusive towards animals. An animal that is sick and hurting produces far less. Margins are already incredibly slim in agriculture. You cannot afford to have animals in pain. Not to mention the embarrassment of people thinking you are abusive towards animals just by being a part of the industry. Or maybe you are absolutely right, but I don't think it is anywhere near being clear cut just by looking at the initiator.

jiggy2011 14y ago
I think most of these videos are recorded in abattoirs etc with hidden camera. So they are documenting something that would have happened without the presence of a camera. It would seem unlikely (though I guess not impossible) that animal rights activists would seek to increase the abuse of animals simply to create the videos.
- randomdata 14y ago
  I do not think any animal rights activist would straight up think, "boy, I wish there were more abuse videos out there." However, by watching the videos that do exist, an audience is created. Where there is an audience, there are people looking to gain from that audience. People do all kinds of crazy things to get hits on their YouTube page, even without direct monetary incentive. If you just have to hurt a few animals to do the same, why not? I mean it is not in my nature, but not everyone shares my (and I assume your) values.
  - lilsunnybee 14y ago
    Except that the abusers often go to prison, and there has been no established link between the perpetrators of these acts and the undercover reporters before. Frankly this is silly. Are you suggesting that animal rights activists are really just people with a secret fetish for watching animal suffering? Maybe the same way pro-life activists love looking at pictures of mangled fetuses, and would love for more fetuses to be killed simply so that they can keep making more signs. This view is really quite disrespectful and insulting actually.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      > Are you suggesting that animal rights activists are really just people with a secret fetish for watching animal suffering? I'm not sure why you got that impression, but of course not. The videos are typically watched for educational purposes to help better understand the cause that is being fought for. However, you do not need to enjoy what you see to open up the market for more production. As a simple example: If you see a cow being abused, you might be interested in what grievous things are happening to chickens. Now someone has to create chicken-based content to fill your wants. As more people become interested in seeing inside the barn, more content needs to be created to quench the educational thirst. At some point someone without scruples will exploit that audience. It is human nature.
      - lilsunnybee 14y ago
        Most if not all undercover reporters that operate like this are volunteers. All animal rights organizations operate as non-profits, with fixed salaries for employees and leadership. The vast majority of income comes from donations. Their accounting books should all be open too, and any discrepancies even more likely to be reported because those working for the organization are also activists and whistleblowers. The simplest explanation is that the videos are real, and unless any discrepancies are noticed, or any evidence to the contrary uncovered, it is the reasonable thing to believe. That doesn't mean people can't investigate to try and uncover malfeasance, but any preexisting beliefs that they may hold that the videos are all fake would be irrational.
aspensmonster 14y ago
>For what it is worth, people who are interested in animal rights are generally the only ones who watch animal abuse videos, which creates a demand for said videos. They, naturally, have little motive to see an end to the production of like content being the consumer. I fail to see how it "naturally" follows that animal rights activists don't want to see an end to the production of "like content." They would be the ones most eager to end the conditions uncovered by these kinds of undercover investigations.
- randomdata 14y ago
  Sorry if I was not exactly clear. Animal rights activists have an interest in stopping what is enacted in the videos, of course, but stopping the production of the content itself would be against their own interests. How can you see that the problem remains if there is nobody investigating and reporting?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I don't think that investigating and reporting is the problem here, after all we don't generally argue that news reporting about wars causes wars. Stopping the production of the content wouldn't be against their own interests unless they had some other motive to produce it. They would probably switch to shooting content about something else.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      Luckily we figured out how to produce war scenes without actually having to go to war. We are definitely still producing the content to fill the demand though. Considerable amounts of it. Like I mentioned before, we do use this exact argument towards child porn, however. You cannot hurt a child by simply watching a video of child abuse. But we realized that watching the video gives incentive for people to create more, which in turn harms future children. That is a good enough reason to attempt to cease the incentive for production to prevent future occurrences. PETA has been accused of staging content in the past, so it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that it is happening.