this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024

203 points (100.0% liked)

196

16190 readers

2109 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

203

Quotes from slaughterhouse workers are hard to read rule (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There's a lot more in that source as well

Some of them, if you stun them they just look at you and cry… when it cries and then it gives me another thing, of eish (shivering). I like animals and now I am killing the animals. The first week before I started to stun, hey, it was difficult for me

Sometimes I saw myself slaughtering the animals, but you see eyes, I saw, eyes of the animal. It's like its watching me. That thing, that dream, I didn't feel well even when I came back to work, but I keep on checking the eyes to see its watching me, because I saw it in the dream. It's not easy for a first time

In my dream I see the bleeding line, just the cattle hanging on the line, all whose heads are off. I get this picture often. It's not nice to dream about blood; you wake up wet with sweat

And so on

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't know those eyes I see in the bloodstained chrome

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

I don't know those eyes I see in the bloodstained chrome

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago

Yessss go vegan 🌱

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

So, I didn't read the title and thought the quote was metaphorical, and talking about time itself. How we become desensitized to the passage of time and bloody from all the days gone by.

Then I read the title and got sad...

[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Industrialized slaughter was never going to end any other way. We aren't mentally built to do this to other creatures. But the ones that make the money dont do it directly and therefore are absolved of all the effects.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I mean. People will as readily do this to other people as they will to animals.

The sad fact is we are built to do this. Because we do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Even the Nazis had to innovate ways to execute people because just shooting them was too damaging to the soldiers

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

If we were meant to do it then it wouldn't be blessing all these people with PTSD.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And the creatures weren't designed to live industrially, so we have worse food obtained by harming the animals and the people involved in the process with unregulated animal husbandry and grocery prices.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

No animal was designed to be killed and eaten.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you think predators eat grass?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Are you assuming the predator and prey were designed for a unified purpose?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

praying mantis

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Good point. No vertebrate was designed to be killed and eaten

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Interesting take. How do you figure that?

I'll go a step further and say that no animal was "designed".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dogs were designed. But you can use a colloquialism and anthropomorphise evolution while still being comprehensible to others, and if you do that, well every animal was designed to survive and reproduce, and to do things in aid of that. And no animal was designed to be food for something else, though many plants were.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You shouldn't depend on using two definitions for one word in the same argument if you want to be taken seriously.

In your first use of "design", you mean that deliberate effort was made to eugenically breed dogs to exhibit certain traits. That's accurate.

In your original comment and your second use of "design" here, you mean "evolved" but inaccurately used the word "design" when you self-reportedly meant "evolved", so I'm going to use the appropriate word "evolved" here instead.

Anthropomorphizing evolution doesn't make evolution a simpler concept than evolution itself.

How do you mean that plants evolved to become food for something else?

Plants were around hundreds of millions of years before any animals showed up. Do you mean fungi?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They weren't the same argument. They were two different arguments. That's why I used the word "but" in the middle of the two, which is a word that has traditionally connoted a difference between two statements.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nice try, but you're consistently using the same word to mean two radically different concepts so that you can hop between definitions.

"Let's pretend pink means red and purple. Now, shirt number one is red and shirt number two is purple. They're both pink, right?"

Inaccurately and for your personal definitions, yes. Both shirts are pink.

Accurately, no, one shirt is red and one shirt is purple.

If you have a point you want to make, make it accurately.

It's okay if you used the wrong word the first time, say what you actually meant and move forward

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, I met you on your own terms for one sentence before switching back to my terms and explaining why.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

No, you inaccurately described evolution as design and then after admitting you meant evolution and definitively not design, rather than continuing the conversation and answering my questions, you are insisting on dithering that incorrect definitions are as valid as correct ones.

They are not.

You can keep trying to catch me though.

It's fun, and it doesn't seem like you have any compelling arguments about plants or animals not evolving to be eaten anyway.