Review of a DVD I just watched yesterday:

Title: ANIMALS (Friend or food?)
Format: Documentary
Written and Directed by: Jason Young
Length: 72:31
Year: Copyright 2005
Awards: Three awards at the 2003 Atlantic (Canada) Film Festival including "Best Documentary"
Distributed by: National Film Board of Canada

National Film Board of Canada:
Canada: 1 800 267 7710
USA: 1 800 542 2164
International: 514 283 9450
Web: www.nfb.ca

This documentary is about Jason and Julia Young, a couple that decided to buy an abandoned farm property and to set up a life for themselves there. Julia grew up around horses and decided to teach other people how to ride horses. Jason becomes the farm worker and he wants to learn about what meat really is and where it comes from. Of course he knew that meat came from animals but he wanted to experience the whole process himself. He starts buying animals from the various farms in the area -- a sheep and two ewes, two rabbits, two piglets, a steer and some other animals.

After some weeks Jason visits some of the neighboring farms to learn how to kill the animals. There are graphic scenes as he learns to kill his first animal, a rabbit. He builds his own slaughter pen in a little wooded area because he believes that slaughtering out in nature might make it easier. More graphic scenes follow as animals are killed, bled, skinned, and prepped. I won't give the ending away because that wouldn't be much fun.

I found this documentary fascinating because the guy is so honest in his thoughts as he tries to go from being the reluctant killer to the one who simply harvests the animals in the same way he harvests a tomato. A large part of his difficulty in becoming like everyone else in the farming community is that he wants to treat his animals like pets and still slaughter them. Each step along the way he needs the help of the more experienced killers to show him how to detatch from his natural compassion.

I found myself reflecting on my own life and how I ended up where I am. I've been thinking of the violence that I learned, step by step, from those around me and how, in turn, I've taught that same violence to others. In many life situations it was pick on someone else or be picked on -- and I ended up on both sides of that violence. In some ways I feel fortunate that I was the one who wasn't picked on that much but as I reflect back now I don't feel so good about the damage I may have inflicted on others. I try to be more vigilant and aware now, of what I am saying and doing, that may in essense be much like the fellow who simply learns to harvest a lamb like one harvests a tomato.

This documentary also makes me think of Germany during the Second World War and other times and places around the world where unspeakable crimes against humanity has occurred. Step by gruesome step we humans can learn to become more and more violent with the encouragement of those around us. In the same way we can learn, step by step, how to become more compassionate.

I think this documentary would have a profound impact if shown before "Peaceable Kingdom" -- the exploration of how one learns to kill animals would go so well with the tearful story of that guy in PK as he explains how he was told it was ok to feel bad for the animals but it was not ok to show how he was feeling. And another part of PK where the guy talks about turning on the compassion switch for pets but turning it off for the "meat" animals. "Animals" also seems to gloss over the idea that veg*nism is even an option whereas PK teaches not only abstaining from meat but encourages people to enter into a relationship with the animals.

In Canada it can be ordered here: http://www2.nfb.ca/boutique/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?formatid=51176&minisite=10000&respid=22372&_ref=ibeCZzpEntry.jsp&apollo_prod_ses=jdn%24j%3DIBE%3A1584%3AIBEGUEST%3A US%3A%3ACAD%3ADD-MON-RRRR%3AJTFUCSS.CSS%3Ajtfpfalse%3Ajtfpi-1%3A671%3A22372%3A0%3A19085588%7Ezv%3D19085588%7Ez u%3Da%7Ezs%3Df%7Ezp%3D151885%7Ezo%3D1%7Ezm%3D10000 %7Ezj%3DGuest%7Ezi%3D151885%7Eze%3D22372%7Eza%3D56 433%7Ejsm%3DJTF_FULLSESSION%7Eapollo_prod%3D717ACD 9150AC3E9D

If you live somewhere else you can follow the links from www.nfb.ca but you can click on the above link to see what the documentary is about (in their words).

This film sounds as if it would be quite difficult to watch. I honestly feel little connectiveness with those who try personally killing animals as a way to "find themselves," etc. etc. I used to visit a website which attracted a lot of neo-hippy types who would go through phases of killing animals and write long articles trying to rationalize their actions on quasi-spiritual grounds.

That said, a show which depicts the grim realities of slaughter, but not in the context of an AR teatise, would be something to consider showing to omnivores who may not watch something produced by an AR group.

Someone will probably say "well they are better than those ignorant omnis who buy their meat wrapped in plastic; they know where their meat comes from and take responsibility". But for me it's the complete opposite. I think those negative feelings about killing (which also separate your average omnis from hunters) are pretty much the only thing of value meat-eaters have in their relation to other species. For someone to consciously throw them away means that they lose even the little humanity (again, in relation to other species) that they have.

This film sounds as if it would be quite difficult to watch.Yeah I thought the same thing.

The film is difficult to watch and I did have to fast-forward through some of the more disturbing parts (the cutting open of the animals and the skinning and stuff). But if you can handle Meet Your Meat and Peaceable Kingdom you should be able to get through this -- and I really believe that this film does add something very valuable into the mix. It's so good to see the "why" and the "how" behind it and although it certainly is not an AR film it has so many unintentional AR undertones -- and then you show PK and it's like it closes the loop. I didn't give away the ending but it was surprising to me for sure.

I think those negative feelings about killing (which also separate your average omnis from hunters) are pretty much the only thing of value meat-eaters have in their relation to other species. For someone to consciously throw them away means that they lose even the little humanity (again, in relation to other species) that they have.

That's what is so powerful in this film. You see a man who must learn to "consciously throw... away" his natural compassion. I think so many omnis would be able to relate to this guy's journey whereas they may not connect at all to a strictly AR film. And as I said in my review: I think we all end up in a place where we may not want to be and we are unconscious of our position. Slowly we wake up and realize that because our lives are woven into western culture our lives are also woven into so much needless violence.

I think that's why I find Ahimsa so striking.

SUBTLE FORMS OF HIMSA

Only the ordinary people think that Ahimsa is not to hurt any living being physically. This is but the gross form of Ahimsa. The vow of Ahimsa is broken even by showing contempt towards another man, by entertaining unreasonable dislike for or prejudice towards anybody, by frowning at another man, by hating another man, by abusing another man, by speaking ill of others, by backbiting or vilifying, by harbouring thoughts of hatred, by uttering lies, or by ruining another man in any way whatsoever.

All harsh and rude speech is Himsa (violence or injury). Using harsh words to beggars, servants or inferiors is Himsa. Wounding the feelings of others by gesture, expression, tone of voice and unkind words is also Himsa. Slighting or showing deliberate discourtesy to a person before others is wanton Himsa. To approve of another's harsh actions is indirect Himsa. To fail to relieve another's pain, or even to neglect to go to the person in distress is a sort of Himsa. It is the sin of omission. Avoid strictly all forms of harshness, direct or indirect, positive or negative, immediate or delayed. Practice Ahimsa in its purest form and become divine. Ahimsa and Divinity are one.

I think we all end up in a place where we may not want to be and we are unconscious of our position. Slowly we wake up and realize that because our lives are woven into western culture our lives are also woven into so much needless violence.Are you saying we are all in a way similar to the man in the film? I think what the guy did, i.e. consciously remove caring emotions from yourself, is an especially bad idea which doesn't concern everyone. It's true though that in many contexts a boy will have to kill a non-human animal to show he has become a man, that is another example of the same idea of getting rid of caring emotions.

How about someone in school who learns to pick on the "outsider" because he knows that if someone else is being picked on he won't be the target -- at least not for that day.

When you start thinking about the ways in which our society teaches us not to care it gets pretty scary. I'll try to think of some more examples and post back.

If you have the money Sevenseas, I suggest you get this film -- it is very thought provoking and a bit of a twist at the end. But it is gruesome at times -- kinda like MYM or some graphic nature show.

How about someone in school who learns to pick on the "outsider" because he knows that if someone else is being picked on he won't be the target -- at least not for that day.Ah. But I think of the guy's situation in the film as the most explicit form of traching oneself not to care - because he is consciously fighting against his emotions. Someone who starts picking on someone else isn't necessarily trying to get rid of his emotions. He may still feel bad about it deep down, or the desensitizing process is unconscious.

Someone who starts picking on someone else isn't necessarily trying to get rid of his emotions. He may still feel bad about it deep down, or the desensitizing process is unconscious

I agree but I don't see how someone's more blatant forms of suppressing caring emotions leaves us off the hook. I really love to examine these very obvious forms of negative behavior so I can see what it looks like when it's all blown out of proportion. I've recently referred to these instances as a kind of magnifying glass.

What this man does in this film has parallels to what many of us do everyday.

It's hard to discuss this film because I really don't want to give the ending away but it really does show to me in the end that those of us who have chosen a veg*n diet for compassionate (although you say it's not compassion, lol) reasons have made the right choice.

Ah. But I think of the guy's situation in the film as the most explicit form of traching oneself not to care - because he is consciously fighting against his emotions. .


From the OP:

I found this documentary fascinating because the guy is so honest in his thoughts as he tries to go from being the reluctant killer to the one who simply harvests the animals in the same way he harvests a tomato. A large part of his difficulty in becoming like everyone else in the farming community is that he wants to treat his animals like pets and still slaughter them. Each step along the way he needs the help of the more experienced killers to show him how to detatch from his natural compassion.

He looks around and sees everyone eating meat (veg*ns make up less than 5% of the population). He wants to learn what this is all about. He loves animals but he eats meat. Perhaps his love for animals is misplaced -- perhaps he is missing something. This is his journey to discovering whether he is indeed missing something. Remember, meat eating is very accepted by the vast majority of the population so it is conceivable that we are the ones who are misguided.

I agree but I don't see how someone's more blatant forms of suppressing caring emotions leaves us off the hook.Well I'm not saying it does, just that his is a very special case.

He looks around and sees everyone eating meat (veg*ns make up less than 5% of the population). He wants to learn what this is all about. He loves animals but he eats meat. Perhaps his love for animals is misplaced -- perhaps he is missing something. This is his journey to discovering whether he is indeed missing something. Remember, meat eating is very accepted by the vast majority of the population so it is conceivable that we are the ones who are misguided.Yeah but my point is that I don't think caring can ever be misplaced, and to think it can is very sad. We may sometimes need to put our caring emotions on the "background", like maybe in the case of euthanasia, but not try to get rid of them. I think caring is inherently valuable.

COMPASSION n. Pity for the suffering or distress of another, with the desire to help or spare.

True compassion does not come from wanting to help out those who are less fortunate than ourselves but from realizing our kinship with all beings.
-- Chodron

Yeah but my point is that I don't think caring can ever be misplaced, and to think it can is very sad. We may sometimes need to put our caring emotions on the "background", like maybe in the case of euthanasia, but not try to get rid of them. I think caring is inherently valuable.

I, too, believe that caring is inherently valuable and that's why I find this documentary so powerful. This guy tries to get rid of his natural compassion and he finds that he cannot do it on his own -- he needs the help of those around him who have already hardened themselves. You can clearly see that he does indeed have pity for the distress of these animals and he does have the desire to help and to even spare them of pain. But he has been so influenced by our culture and it seems he hasn't had enough of an exposure to an alternative. He does seem somewhat aware of veg*nism but not to a high enough extent that he would choose that way. As Howard Lyman says in PK -- what should he do now, who could he talk to? ... his wife, all his friends and even his pastor eat meat.

This whole situation reminds me so much of school and other social situations. When I was in school and I saw someone being picked on I knew the right thing to do was to stand up for the kid being bullied. Most of the people standing around knew that the bullying was wrong. We, the bystanders, had to suppress our natural compassion -- we certainly pitied the one being harrassed and had a desire to help. But our society had taught (and continues to teach) that to stand up for the victim would mean consequences and we had to be strong enough to endure those consequences.

This documentary hit me so hard because I realize more than ever now how important it is to stand up for what we believe in. I feel that even one veg*n may have been enough to show this guy that there is a different way, a more compassionate way, a way that he already knows is correct. I guess I can't be too upset with this fellow because I realize that he has so many influences around him that say that animals are food. I realize too that both Howard Lyman and Gandhi ate meat because they were influenced by the culture around them. And I realize that it was the witness of veg*ns that showed them that eating meat was not necessary or advantageous and they, in turn, became two of the biggest spokespersons for veg*nism. It is so important to keep spreading the news that veg*nism is a viable alternative so that people can embrace that which comes to them so naturally. If we stand by and refuse to say anything about veg*nism I can't see how that is any different than standing around doing nothing while the bullies go to work.

You can clearly see that he does indeed have pity for the distress of these animals and he does have the desire to help and to even spare them of pain. But he has been so influenced by our culture and it seems he hasn't had enough of an exposure to an alternative.But I think he has a much more active role than ordinary meat-eaters. The latter have just been raised to think of animals as food etc. but they don't "want to experience the whole process themselves" and start buying animals to kill them.

In a school context, he is not the guy who just stands still while others pick on people (in order to avoid consequences), nor is he the guy who does some bullying himself to be a part of the group (and to therefore avoid the risk of being picked on in the future) - he is someone who wants to engage in the most concrete form of bullying as possible and picks on people just in order to know "what it is like", for the sake of some psychological experiment.

If we stand by and refuse to say anything about veg*nism I can't see how that is any different than standing around doing nothing while the bullies go to work.Couldn't agree more with that.

But maybe I've misinterpreted your description about the film. It just seems odd to me to kill animals just to know what it is like, even killing for the taste of meat seems better to me than killing for curiosity.

But maybe I've misinterpreted your description about the film. It just seems odd to me to kill animals just to know "what it is like", even killing for the taste of meat seems better to me than killing for curiosity.

I've heard of others who want to meet their meat in this fashion. I wouldn't say it is so much curiosity as it is a desire to live more authentically. I guess I would compare it with someone who would want to experience what the sweatshop industry is really all about. Such a person would have to actually face the people who are harmed by the industry and I think that is very powerful. Instead of just continuing to buy sweatshop items or to "avoid them where possible" I think it would be very courageous for someone to actually buy a sweatshop and meet the people and pay them next to nothing and see them in their bleak existence. And then to document the process and show people what that's like -- wow!!! I think such a film could be very persuasive in convincing people that those who work in sweatshops are really being needlessly harmed and something must be done. Then if truly viable alternatives were given I think progress could start to be made.

Of course I would love for the world to be more peaceful right now and for all sweatshops to be eliminated and all needless animal killings to stop. But we aren't there yet and we have to wonder why we aren't there yet. That's why this documentary is so powerful -- this man examines why we aren't there yet (although this is not his intention) and through the film I think we get some of the answers. But the film is incomplete and that's why I think it would show well with PK.

In a school context, he is not the guy who just stands still while others pick on people (in order to avoid consequences), nor is he the guy who does some bullying himself to be a part of the group (and to therefore avoid the risk of being picked on in the future) - he is someone who wants to engage in the most concrete form of bullying as possible and picks on people just in order to know "what it is like", for the sake of some psychological experiment.

Good point. I realize my analogy falls apart under scrutiny. It would have to be more like a situation where there would be a bunch of people who are supporting the bullies without realizing what the bullies are truly doing. Then this guy who was previously just supporting the bullies would decide to become one himself so he can see what it's really like and experience the reality of that which goes on everyday.

I'm not really defending this guy's actions -- well, in a way I am but it is more that I want to understand why this guy would want to do this and what can be learned from his gruesome "experiment". If he had decided to just let others keep on killing for him then we would not have been able to see what goes on in the thinking process as one moves from a natural compassion for animals to a detatchment from them. I really want to know why we are where we are and how we can become more peaceful. I believe this documentary could help a lot of people understand very deeply that needlessly killing animals for food is not generally a natural human inclination.

While biblical writers and other authors have attempted to explain why we eat animals and how this came about I think this documentary goes into territory that is not usually examined. This man eats animals. All meat eaters realize that animals are being killed and they are ok with that. This man decides that if animals are are going to be killed for him to eat he would like to know this experience. He is surrounded by people who evidently support the killing of animals because they eat them -- why do they do this? If it is so natural for people to kill animals and eat them then why can't he be a part of that process? It seems to him that it would be important to understand this "natural way". Through the process he discovers that maybe it isn't that natural and I found it so fascinating to see him will his way to smothering his compassion. He must force his will to accept this brutality because his natural inclination is to not harm the animals. Why didn't he just abandon the "experiment" and just realize that this torturing of animals is unnecessary?

At the end of the day I look at someone like Gandhi who grew up as a vegetarian and who understood animals to be living, feeling creatures with souls who were not to be needlessly harmed. Yet Gandhi, with all this background decides to eat meat. He knew, probably even more than this fellow, the harm involved in the production of meat. Yet Gandhi had become influenced by those around him. Now if I saw Gandhi then I could criticize his decision (and I probably would) but I would also try to understand his decision making process. Of course Gandhi came to understand that meat didn't make the white people stronger and the meat was truly causing needless harm to animals.

Such a person would have to actually face the people who are harmed by the industry and I think that is very powerful. Instead of just continuing to buy sweatshop items or to "avoid them where possible" I think it would be very courageous for someone to actually buy a sweatshop and meet the people and pay them next to nothing and see them in their bleak existence.Well I think someone like that would be considered very immoral, even more so than those who just buy sweatshop products, and I think there's a reason for that.

Then this guy who was previously just supporting the bullies would decide to become one himself so he can see what it's really like and experience the reality of that which goes on everyday.I think this shows why living in a more "authentic" way is not a virtue when it comes to a harmful/immoral action, but on the contrary, can make an action even worse. People would usually hold an actual bully as a more immoral person than those who support him (which I think is partly because those who support him may have an even slightly better reason for their unethical actions).

Like I've always said on VB, I consider hunters as persons usually more unethical than ordinary omnivores, even though they live more "authentically".

If he had decided to just let others keep on killing for him then we would not have been able to see what goes on in the thinking process as one moves from a natural compassion for animals to a detatchment from them.But is the process really similar to how omnis get detached? Because omnis are not so clearly taught to discard their compassion IMO - although they are taught to accept that eating animals is the "natural way" (but wasn't this part already something the guy believed?). But it's that your average omnis are given distorted information (ads with happy cows, etc.) in order to avoid the collision between harsh reality and their feelings about animals - they are not taught so much to get rid of their feelings.

re: Gandhi, since his eating meat was a rebellion against his religion/culture's veg*n traditions, in that sense he was going against his surroundings rather than being influenced by them. But I guess he might have been influenced by some meat-eaters, do you know more about this?

I think this shows why living in a more "authentic" way is not a virtue when it comes to a harmful/immoral action, but on the contrary, can make an action even worse. People would usually hold an actual bully as a more immoral person than those who support him (which I think is partly because those who support him may have an even slightly better reason for their unethical actions).

Like I've always said on VB, I consider hunters as persons usually more unethical than ordinary omnivores, even though they live more "authentically".

I guess we see this differently -- I think those who would support an actual bully may or may not be just as immoral as the bully depending on the level of understanding that each person (bully or bully-supporter) has. I don't believe it is necessarily true that a bully, hunter, slaughterhouse worker, etc. is aware that what s/he is doing is somehow unethical and I don't believe it is necessarily true that an omnivore is unaware of what is really going on. To me it really gets back to how we have been influenced and how much we understand. I do believe that if this guy had had one (or maybe two or three) person who would've explained to him that his initial inclination towards compassion was legitimate and that there were viable alternatives and if suitable analogies were provided then he would have been likely to give up the whole idea of killing animals and eating meat. If what this guy was doing was so wrong how come no-one stepped in to explain to him why it was wrong?

It seems to me that this fellow was under the impression that eating meat was a normal. If eating meat is normal then so is killing the animals to get the meat. If it's normal to kill animals for meat then he should be able to undertake this normal activity. If he was squeamish about the whole affair maybe there's something wrong with him, maybe he has to learn to be normal.

But let me switch this up a bit and ask you this: why do you think he willed himself to learn to kill animals?

e: Gandhi, since his eating meat was a rebellion against his religion/culture's veg*n traditions, in that sense he was going against his surroundings rather than being influenced by them. But I guess he might have been influenced by some meat-eaters, do you know more about this?

I don't really know the Gandhi story that well but as far as I understand he did study in western schools so he did have that influence and I believe it was after that exposure that he decided to eat meat.

I don't believe it is necessarily true that a bully, hunter, slaughterhouse worker, etc. is aware that what s/he is doing is somehow unethical and I don't believe it is necessarily true that an omnivore is unaware of what is really going on.I agree but that's why I said "usually more unethical" instead of "always more unethical".

I'm going to reiterate what I've said countless times in various threads, but the reason why a hunter is generally a worse person (in relation to other species) in my mind is not so much whether (s)he knows (s)he is doing wrong (I would think it's rare that they think they are acting unethically though), but the fact that (s)he concretely faces suffering and death and is able to still be indifferent to it. You know the omni comment, "I could never kill an animal myself". Well, for some people this is a sign of the omni's hypocrisy, but for me this is precisely what makes him/her a less immoral person: there is still an opposition to death and suffering, and this opposition - which the hunter usually lacks - is a good thing to have. It's also the reason why people become veg*n. So not only is it good in itself, it's also a reason for change.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that your average supermarket omnis refuse to face reality, but I also think one of the reasons why they do this - their compassion - is good.

This probably doesn't apply well to the bullying example, but I think the real bully, too, is more directly faced with suffering by intentionally and directly causing it than his/her supporters.

It seems to me that this fellow was under the impression that eating meat was a normal. If eating meat is normal then so is killing the animals to get the meat. If it's normal to kill animals for meat then he should be able to undertake this normal activity. If he was squeamish about the whole affair maybe there's something wrong with him, maybe he has to learn to be normal.I don't know what kind of social context he was from, but usually, the normal part concerns only eating meat and its acceptability. No one presumably told this person to do the killing - that was his own idea. If he had been just acting from outside influences, he would have been content with buying meat from the supermarket. If the aforementioned omni comment ("I could never kill an animal myself") is as common as it is sometimes made to be, then he shouldn't have any reason to consider his own resistance to killing as abnormal.

But let me switch this up a bit and ask you this: why do you think he willed himself to learn to kill animals?Well I'm not sure what I can answer without seeing the film :). But I would think you're probably right that it sprang from a desire to be more "authentic", more in touch with the reality of where his food comes from.

I guess you'll have to see the film.

Another question for you though: If you had met Gandhi during the time he started eating meat and you were at the stage of life where you are now how would you assess Gandhi?

I think Gandhi was essentially the same person when he was eating meat as when he became such a strong animal advocate. It was just a matter of that compassion kicking in and taking precedence over his other thought processes (eg the idea that white people were able to conquer India because they were stronger and ate meat).

I'm going to reiterate what I've said countless times in various threads, but the reason why a hunter is generally a worse person (in relation to other species) in my mind is not so much whether (s)he knows (s)he is doing wrong (I would think it's rare that they think they are acting unethically though), but the fact that (s)he concretely faces suffering and death and is able to still be indifferent to it. You know the omni comment, "I could never kill an animal myself". Well, for some people this is a sign of the omni's hypocrisy, but for me this is precisely what makes him/her a less immoral person: there is still an opposition to death and suffering, and this opposition - which the hunter usually lacks - is a good thing to have. It's also the reason why people become veg*n. So not only is it good in itself, it's also a reason for change.

Some people kill animals themselves but they don't really want to -- I believe this was the case with Howard Lyman. He grew up in a way that killing was normalized but in the end compassion has to win. It took the death of his brother and his own hospital stay to shake him out of his foggy haze of killing animals. I believe that Howard Lyman was essentially the same person when he was killing animals as he is now. His inner core remained the same while his outer actions came to match his inner self.

But I think that may just be my spritual perspective where I believe we all have the highest capacity for compassion, love, peace etc and it is up to all of us to help each other attain to those heights. That means making each other aware of our violent ways and providing viable options to such violence. That's why I try to understand what it is that made this fellow do what he did so I can analyze that and break it down so I can see how to help others realize where his thought processes where not in union with his inner self.

Here's another question for you that may help me understand your perspective: In this thread are you condemning that guy or the guy's actions?


Do you mind if I tell you the ending to the documentary in this thread? I think it would add something to this discussion.

Another question for you though: If you had met Gandhi during the time he started eating meat and you were at the stage of life where you are now how would you assess Gandhi?Well I guess it's difficult to make such an assessment without knowing more about his background, values and beliefs. But I guess I would find his meat-eating as more unethical than that of an average Western consumer because he didn't have the excuse of a culture dedicated to meat-eating.

I'm also not sure about the idea of the core of the person remaining the same. For me personally, I guess it is true to some extent that my feelings about non-human suffering were the same when I was an omni, and so it was just the "meat eating is the way it has to be" idea that stood in the way of veg*nism. But on the other hand, I think I care more about suffering now because of my AR beliefs which I didn't have (at least in any explicit form) before. And in other areas of my life, it is clear to me that my whole person has changed, not just some exterior to a stable core. (I've also witnessed an almost complete transformation of another person.)

But I think that may just be my spritual perspective where I believe we all have the highest capacity for compassion, love, peace etc and it is up to all of us to help each other attain to those heights.Yeah well I think I have a much more cynical view on "human nature" :).

Here's another question for you that may help me understand your perspective: In this thread are you condemning that guy or the guy's actions?Well he does strike me as a morally offensive person, not just a person doing morally offensive actions. I guess that is partly necessary because what makes his actions more offensive than those of an average omni have to do with his personal attitudes and not some "external" things like consequences.

But here we go back to something that I think I said in some other thread: on a more rational/theoretical/philosophical level, I recognize that all attribution of "guilt" may be unfounded because we need to relativize people's actions and attitudes to their backgrounds and beliefs and values (and even if we didn't, on this level free will may not exist so moral responsibility is out of the window anyway). Fortunately, AR doesn't depend on whether we can condemn people or not, it's sufficient to focus on types of actions and whether they are ethical or not.

Do you mind if I tell you the ending to the documentary in this thread? I think it would add something to this discussion.No. Even though I think you're probably right that the film helps in understanding why people eat meat, I don't have the money to order it and I would still hesitate about watching it because of the killing scenes (I actually watch very very little gruesome AR material for a similar reason, even though I probably should watch more).

*** WARNING ***

The ending of the documentary is revealed in the next post.

(not that I think anyone really cares, lol)

But on the other hand, I think I care more about suffering now because of my AR beliefs which I didn't have (at least in any explicit form) before. And in other areas of my life, it is clear to me that my whole person has changed, not just some exterior to a stable core. (I've also witnessed an almost complete transformation of another person.)

I don't know why I opened up this can of worms, lol. I think going down this road would end up in a conversation that is too deep for me right now. You make a valid point here.

Yeah well I think I have a much more cynical view on "human nature"

I was wondering why you let you Ahimsa membership lapse.

But here we go back to something that I think I said in some other thread: on a more rational/theoretical/philosophical level, I recognize that all attribution of "guilt" may be unfounded because we need to relativize people's actions and attitudes to their backgrounds and beliefs and values (and even if we didn't, on this level free will may not exist so moral responsibility is out of the window anyway). Fortunately, AR doesn't depend on whether we can condemn people or not, it's sufficient to focus on types of actions and whether they are ethical or not.

Yes. And even though we come at this from different perspectives we can agree that the actions can be condemned and, imo, are already being condemned by most omnis when they support, in principle, the SPCA and similar organizations.

Even though I think you're probably right that the film helps in understanding why people eat meat, I don't have the money to order it and I would still hesitate about watching it because of the killing scenes (I actually watch very very little gruesome AR material for a similar reason, even though I probably should watch more).

Ok, here's the ending:

The guy kills a rabbit, then a pig and then a sheep. Each step along the way he needs the help and encouragment of others. But when it comes to his steer, JB, he decides to go it alone. He walks out to JB with his gun (he was taught to shoot and then bleed his animals). He looks at JB from a distance and decides he can't do it. He dismantles his killing pen and gives up this idea that he can treat animals as pets and still kill them. This is such a strong AR arguement -- the only reason that people can hunt, slaughter animals, eat them etc. is because they have learned to distance themselves from what they are doing.

I find this to be exactly like the average German soldier who ended up working in the concentration camps -- step by step we can learn to commit very brutal actions while at the same time being very normal people. I think that the German soldiers probably treated their families and fellow soldiers with respect. So when someone says to me that they can watch or participate in the slaughter of animals I don't waver in my view that this is a normal activity -- it's as normal or abnormal as one wants to make it. I desire to live in a society that treats all animals the way dogs and cats are treated -- with dignity and respect. They should all be protected by law from needless cruelty.

At the very end of the documentary Jason reveals that he hasn't given up meat (he says he's only human afterall). And he says that even though he can't kill JB, JB's fate is still the same. The film ends with JB being shocked and having his throat slit open. I think that a lot of omnivores would be outraged by the ending. Omnis tend to get attached to pigs that make the get-away from the slaughter house and I think they'd be attached to JB.

Keep standing up for the truth everyone.

Ok, well I guess that improves my impression of the guy, but only slightly :). The final ending sounds very depressing but yeah, it would be good for omnis to see.