So I checked it out. And, sure enough, it was exactly what I thought. Now, I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans. I have nothing against all the different reasons to be that way. But what I do oppose is taking facts and exaggerating them or twisting them to try to convince someone else to be guilty. Manipulation is dirty.
I just thought this picture was funny. Partly because they were talking about destroying the Amazon, and neither elephants or gorillas live in south america. And also just because it was so very dramatic and kind of cute.
Sorry this pic is so big. It was the only way to make it readable. Some of these pictures you can click on, and some you can't. I don't know why.
This is the first page. There's not anything outrageously bad with it, but I find it really ironic and slightly hypocritical that the very first thing it says is that a flower is an earthling too, and has the need to grow, and yet it's still okay to eat veggies but not animals.
Animals are 'earthlings'. "People throughout history have chosen not to eat this fellow earthlings." But they also say that plants are earthlings. "Every earthling has the right to live and grow". But it's okay to eat plant earthlings and not animal earthlings? *shrug*
I didn't put every page on here. Copyright stuff. But I put a couple on just to illustrate my point. This one is about pigs. It shows the free and happy pigs in a lovely pile of mud and the pigs that are raised for eating locked up in a pen where its face is smushed out the side. I know that there are probably some farms where pigs aren't as well treated as others, but really people? I have never, ever seen a pig pen that was so small that the pig's head was sticking out between the wire. Example one of exaggerating the facts for their own agenda.
Basically the same example as the pigs. The free cows (see pic below) are happy and roaming free, but the farm cows are stuck in these stalls that are only just big enough to shut the door on the animal. Now I may not know much about farming, but I've driven past literally countless cattle farms and they all look a lot like the second picture, not the first. Wide open fields with baby cows walking next to mamma cows with lovely green grass and sunshine. Also, I don't understand how cattle farms "waste valuable water".
Funny how their happy cow picture still has a fence around it. Go figure. Besides, can cows live wild? I'm not actually sure if they can. I don't know.
Example 3: Chickens. It is completely true that some chickens live in a cage that's small. Sometimes it's not nearly as good as free range or whatever. But six in the same 1 chicken cage? Bull. Crap. I feel like my intelligence is being insulted by that.
Like I said before, sometimes there are facts that would prove a point. And I have no problem with people avoiding chickens as a form of protest against conditions. But printing a book for children who don't know better and telling them that there are chickens all crammed into the same cage like that => is not okay.
I just thought this picture was funny. Partly because they were talking about destroying the Amazon, and neither elephants or gorillas live in south america. And also just because it was so very dramatic and kind of cute.
Anyway, I know I didn't talk about a lot from the book. But I think I got my point across. The reason I really didn't like it is because instead of just being informative, it is an opinion book that is trying to make us feel guilty for not believing the same thing.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who do bad stuff to animals, or whatever. Take a look at that dog fighter guy from a while ago. But people like this try to make it look like the rule, not the exception, and that's what I don't like.
Oddly enough, I've noticed that it is usually the extreme environmentalists, far liberal politicians, and other such super extreme far out people that do this exaggeration and guiltifying. Moderation in all things, people.
**Update
Dear everyone. I'm sorry that my response to Mr. Jed was so long. It's basically another post. I could have typed and published it separately and just included a link, but I know how people are. They never click on stuff like that. And I wanted people to know my reply.
I hope it's clear and not more wordy than was absolutely necessary. Thanks for reading.
Dear everyone. I'm sorry that my response to Mr. Jed was so long. It's basically another post. I could have typed and published it separately and just included a link, but I know how people are. They never click on stuff like that. And I wanted people to know my reply.
I hope it's clear and not more wordy than was absolutely necessary. Thanks for reading.
9 comments:
You are an idiot.
Reading your extremely ignorant post I don't think I'm wrong when I say you believe this sort of treatment is the exception not the rule, yes? And does this make it OK?!
The book simply gives children an opportunity to form their own opinion before they have been conditioned into believing that the way in which meat and dairy is attained is appropriate and humane.
You're misguided socially constructed idea on this issue is both contemptible and juvenile. Please do yourself and the rest of the world a favor and watch the film earthlings before you further embarrass yourself with your naive and trivial view on this issue.
www.earthlings.com
Dear Jed,
First of all, "you're" is a contraction consisting of the words "you" and "are". It is not a possessive, and therefore does not mean what you think it means.
Also, you really could use a few commas in there. My eyes started to hurt.
BUT
Giving you the benefit of a doubt, and assuming that you are not an illiterate boob, I'll address your comments one by one in a logical and reasonable fashion.
A) Not having the same beliefs as you does not make me an idiot any more than it makes me a tube of toothpaste. When two people believe different things, what makes them truly wise is the ability to sit together and calmly discuss the issue while still respecting each other's differences.
B) You're not wrong. I do believe this is the exception. I grew up in an extremely rural area, near my fair share of real live farms. My information isn't based on biased documentaries, but on the evidence of my own eyes.
You'll note, however, that I never once said that made it okay. I know some places really are like this. And I know it's a terrible thing. I have trouble squishing spiders, even when they are in my bed. I am the farthest you can get from a proponent of animal cruelty.
But this isn't a post about ignoring inhumane practices, as you seem to suppose. It is a post about a specific book. Consider this a book review instead of a diatribe, if it makes you feel better.
C) And regarding that specific book... have you read it? It doesn't sound like it. And if not, you are unqualified to make any debate on the topic.
But again, assuming you have read it, and that you come here prepared as a reasonable and rational human being, let me remind you what my post already laid out as the basis of my argument.
I do not have a problem with vegetarians or vegans.
I do not condone animal cruelty.
I do not even have a problem with books that try to actively promote a concept I disagree with.
What I DO have a problem with is twisting information. With contradicting oneself. And with literature that's straight up preachy. (Everyone hates being preached to).
My current job (and hopefully future career) is very closely tied with children's literature. I am profoundly interested in getting quality reading material to our youth. So it bothers me when a non-fiction book contains unfounded facts or a skewed view of one side of the story. This book is guilty of both.
(You can argue with me all day, but it's still true that elephants and gorillas don't live in the Amazon Rainforest.)
I am a firm believer that facts should not be ignored simply because we don't like them.
D) I believe in the freedom of choice. The best way to encourage a child to become a vegetarian (or any other kind of activist) is not to preach to them. It is not to scare them into something. It is not to hide certain facts from them.
Children aren't as dumb as we adults often take them to be. We don't have to pander to them in order to help them make the right choices in life.
The best way to educate a child into becoming a responsible adult is to give all of the facts (I really emphasize the word ALL), allow said child to consider them, and then allow them to make an intelligent choice. Kids have a better head for right and wrong than we do, and if they are shown ALL of the information, they'll nearly always make the right choice.
E) That being said, my opinion is neither trivial nor juvenile.
I don't consider the quality of children's literature to be at all a trivial matter.
I have a passionate and logical stream of reasoning behind my argument, making it clearly un-childish. You don't have to agree with my take on things. And I don't have to agree with yours. But we can disagree and still be mature adults without resorting to name calling and steam blowing.
In the future, I'd advise you to check your anger, insults, and rash commentary before you embarrass yourself by calling someone else juvenile.
http://www.meat.org/
Dear rational and competent adults,
Oh wait. I don't see any here.
But for those who do care, I deleted the last comment. Not because I can't argue against it. Not because I am hurt or offended.
I deleted it because I'm stupidity intolerant. (Sadly, they don't have meds for this yet.)
A vituperative comment with an excess of three expletives crosses that line. Especially when it comes from someone who can't even own up to their own irrationally angry words.
For anyone who ever reads this post in the future, I'm going to give you some guidelines:
-Keep it rational.
-Keep it civil.
-And for the love of bacon, don't go around leaving anonymous comments and thinking you're all that. If it's not something you'd say with your name next to it, don't say it.
If you don't follow these rules, your comment will be deleted. End of story.
My name is Fred. Is that better than anonymous?
I love Sean
i love you too fred!
Of course you've never driven past a pig factory where all the pigs or cows are shut inside, in tiny or over-crowded cages. What do you think would be the result if we could all SEE the mistreatment of animals? We'd all be vegetarian and not buy any of the farmers meat. The pastures you can see are not the farms that are being talked about in the book, that are the most common. Those farms need to have tons of animals so that they can slaughter more animals and make more money. It costs more to treat animals right. Also, in case you weren't aware, clean water is not exactly in large supply. There is only so much left on earth and the more bodies there are drinking it the less there is.
Cows had to be wild at one time. They haven't been in farms since the dawn of time.
Unfortunately, it is you who is misinformed. This book IS talking about the norm. You have been taught to think that cows live in wide open spaces and that animals aren't mistreated. Someone should have read you this book as a child. Just because the truth is unpleasant doesn't mean it isn't the truth. Some people still think African Americans aren't equals. That was how people were taught and now we know better.
I just realized that I never read the last vituperative comment on this old post.
Normally I wouldn't bother replying after so long, but sometimes I can't help myself.
There is only so much water left on earth? Really?
I guess the water cycle isn't taught in schools like it used to be.
But that isn't the point. The point is, I wanted to say one last time:
THIS IS NOT A POST ABOUT ME THINKING ANIMAL MISTREATMENT IS OKAY.
It is a post about children's literature.
If you wish to argue with someone as a reasonable adult, take the time to actually read what that person is saying. None of this fighting is relevant, because none of it is even on the same topic as the post.
The end.
Post a Comment