Comments on: The Myth of Animal Consent

By: Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 14: Human(ity, or lack thereof) » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info

Thu, 17 May 2012 22:52:08 +0000

[...] The Myth of Animal Consent – Deb, who is currently reading Foer’s Eating Animals for the Vegan Book Club, features an excerpt in which Foer talks about the myth of animal consent – which, it turns out, sounds a lot like the myths used to justify the enslavement and oppression of humans (i.e., “Slavery is a good thing, because blacks – being the mentally inferior sub-human animals they are – wouldn’t be able to survive on their own in civilized society. Their masters are doing them a favor, don’t you see?” or “Women must submit to and obey their fathers and husbands for their own good; they are simple/gentle/weak creatures, who know not what they do!”). [...]

By: frank noce

frank noce — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:06:16 +0000

Theirs a lot of talking going on . I’m new on this site I’m looking for people who want to do more than talk @ pontificate. Things need to be done . I don’t know what to do or how to do it .I am willing to follow any one who has a plane. Lets do something.

By: Animal Rights and AntiOppression | Animal Rights Blog

Animal Rights and AntiOppression | Animal Rights Blog — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:46:00 +0000

[...] few days ago Deb wrote about the myth of animal consent. How appropriate that Newsweek published an article called “No Sacred Cows”, a veritable how-to [...]

By: M

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:00:39 +0000

If Foer was truly ambivalent about whether so-called “humane” exploitation is acceptable, then he wouldn’t be sitting on the board of Farm Forward to begin with. He would not be involved with a group that is absolutely sure that “humane” exploitation is OK and makes it a part of their mission to help animal exploiters exploit their animals in a nicer way, legitimizing their atrocities.

Let’s stop defending Foer’s wishy-washy logic, folks. His intellectual “speculations” about exploitation his, his direct involvement with a group that essentally works to absolve those who consume animal products, and his own admitted consumption of animal products, is causing a lot of harm to animals, even if it does turn some folks vegan.

By: Bea Elliott

Bea Elliott — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:28:32 +0000

Thanks Deb… I found it on Amazon. A good one to read and donate to my library so others can get informed. :)

By: Deb

Deb — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:31:37 +0000

@Bea – I noticed a book on the shelf at the sanctuary today. “The American Hunting Myth” by Ron Baker. Seems like it would be a good read. Though it’s true, people won’t listen to what they don’t want to hear…

@Kelly – yeah. I am never sure why people seem to think (hope?) that treating them better makes the rest of it okay.

By: Kelly G.

Kelly G. — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:28:26 +0000

Foer goes on to talk about welfare, and seems to buy into a different myth: that if the animals were pampered instead of abused, they “might conceivably agree to be eventually eaten in exchange.” A gilded cage is still a cage. *snort*

By: Bea Elliott

Bea Elliott — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:19:16 +0000

@ Deb – It’s all just a theory… Seems to me everything has it’s roots (pun intended) in the Garden of Eden. This “special” contract between gOd, man and all “beneath” the two.

Regarding hunters… I’ve had a few run ins with them. The last thing they ever want to hear but it is the truth – There is no over population “problem”. There are tens of thousands of breeding facilities for “game” animals, which raise everything from fowl to elk and deer.

My point to those who advocate hunting is either there isn’t a wildlife population “problem”, in which case we need not kill these animals. Or, there IS a “problem”, in which case we shouldn’t be “breeding” more.

It confirms the post by Marji – …We breed to hunt. :(

By: Deb

Deb — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:04:39 +0000

@Bea – that’s very interesting! I didn’t have a clue there could be a tie in with creationism and dominion. I have heard the hunter assertion regarding conservation though. It’s pretty sad, since they don’t understand population biology at even its most basic level, and yet that is what they are trying to argue. Not that they’re interested in any of it – not the biology or the conservation, and there is certainly no concern for the animals themselves. As you said, just hooey!

By: Bea Elliott

Bea Elliott — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:26:37 +0000

I think this kind of “logic” that animals “give” their lives for us originates with the original “contract” of creationalism. That since man is bestowed “dominion” over all creatures, it means he has a “responsibility” to insure they will always be there – for the taking.

I hear many hunters proclaim the same thing regarding “conservation”. It’s all just hooey to justify otherwise indefensible acts.