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

  • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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…

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Fungah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Makhno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

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

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

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

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Interesting take. How do you figure that?

          I’ll go a step further and say that no animal was “designed”.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

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

              In ypur 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?

              • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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