[hristov]

Of course if any one of these animals could actually tweet, they would say "I am sick and miserable and slowly going insane in this small puddle, please let me out". But they cant tweet, so the only way they can communicate their displeasure is by dying early or killing one of their trainers.

[prawn]

Slightly related, amusing comment by a friend of mine on Twitter:

"It's sad that now we can finally communicate with plants and ovens, we limit their expression to 140 characters."

[lsd5you]

I trust that you are a vegetarian.

[davi]

You can care a lot about animal welfare and still eat meat -- witness Temple Grandin, who optimizes meat plants to minimize animal stress [1]:

"We owe it to the animals to give them decent living conditions and a painless death. People are often confused by the paradox of my work, but to my practical, scientific mind it makes sense to provide a painless death for the cattle I love. ... Often I get asked if I am a vegetarian. I eat meat, because I believe that a totally vegan diet, in which all animal products are eliminated, is unnatural." [2]

[1] http://www.grandin.com/

[2] http://www.spinninglobe.net/cowlady.htm

[pyre]

> "We owe it to the animals to give them decent living conditions"

The problem being that places where this is true are few and far between, even among 'organic' farms.

For example: Legally, 'free-range' chickens are only required to have 15 minutes of time out of their ridiculously small cages per day. And they are still packed so close together that farmers burn off their beaks so that they don't peck each other to death (which is mainly a symptom of over-crowding and less of a chicken's temperament). Is this treating the animal with respect (even if you are going to eat it) or is this treating the animal as another cog in the machine of industry (in this case the food production industry); reducing it from a living being into just a material or a resource?

[hristov]

No but of course that has nothing to do with it.

[pyre]

I think that was a reference to farm animals living in mostly the same conditions. The only difference is that their purpose is food rather than entertainment.

[lsd5you]

Quatsch. It has everything to do with it.

If it were not for the collective cognitive dissonance underlying the popular support for this kind of position - i.e. that meat is ok, but blood sports and zoos are bad - then almost any kind of moralising over animal welfare would be untenable.

Entertainment is not a necessity, but neither is meat. People justify eating meat because it would be a big sacrifice, for them personally, to go without it, and I will bet in 99% of cases they do not care for the the zoos/sports they wish to eliminate. Probably because they cannot handle the visibility of the captivity (where as outsourced captivity and cruelty is not a problem).

Ethical action entails personal sacrifice. Getting rid or something you do not care for is in general just an easy and intolerant (of other humans) position to take. This is the reality of the situation once bias and disneyfication has been taken into account.