4 ms·

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

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.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      I'm not sure profit is relevant here. Creative types (I use that loosely) are generally interested in wide distribution of their work, not necessarily the money that may follow. > any preexisting beliefs that they may hold that the videos are all fake would be irrational. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are all fake. The question is that if the want for the content causes some events to be depicted for the camera. It is only irrational to think that that could never happen. And even the content that is completely genuine is still not very representative. A friend of mine is an animal rights activist and we took him out to another friend's dairy farm. He came away saying that he was quite impressed by the level of care the animals received and it was nothing at all like he expected. I also remember a video that made the rounds of the slaughter of a pig that was pretty horrifying. However, it was slaughtered that way to comply with religious needs of a certain group and was not indicative of how all pigs are taken at slaughter. The people distributing the video made no mention of that fact though. The shock value is all they were concerned with. The production of this type of content, even when real, is highly cherry picked at doesn't come anywhere near telling the whole story.
      - lilsunnybee 14y ago
        Except that pretty much every video contains additional information about which facility it took place at, and the company that owns that facility. It would be pretty easy to falsify if the video was staged. I imagine your friend's dairy farm is very well run, and the animals are treated well. That doesn't reflect what happens at larger industrial operations though.

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.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I'm not sure profit is relevant here. Creative types (I use that loosely) are generally interested in wide distribution of their work, not necessarily the money that may follow. > any preexisting beliefs that they may hold that the videos are all fake would be irrational. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are all fake. The question is that if the want for the content causes some events to be depicted for the camera. It is only irrational to think that that could never happen. And even the content that is completely genuine is still not very representative. A friend of mine is an animal rights activist and we took him out to another friend's dairy farm. He came away saying that he was quite impressed by the level of care the animals received and it was nothing at all like he expected. I also remember a video that made the rounds of the slaughter of a pig that was pretty horrifying. However, it was slaughtered that way to comply with religious needs of a certain group and was not indicative of how all pigs are taken at slaughter. The people distributing the video made no mention of that fact though. The shock value is all they were concerned with. The production of this type of content, even when real, is highly cherry picked at doesn't come anywhere near telling the whole story.
    - lilsunnybee 14y ago
      Except that pretty much every video contains additional information about which facility it took place at, and the company that owns that facility. It would be pretty easy to falsify if the video was staged. I imagine your friend's dairy farm is very well run, and the animals are treated well. That doesn't reflect what happens at larger industrial operations though.