Some people on this thread are making the argument that the video is ungenuine because* Mercy for Animals took it. That is a serious breakdown of logic.
_____
*Specifically:
Some animal rights groups fabricate evidence,
therefore this evidence is fabricated.
Some people on this thread are making the argument that the video is ungenuine because* Mercy for Animals took it. That is a serious breakdown of logic.
_____
*Specifically:
Some animal rights groups fabricate evidence,
therefore this evidence is fabricated.
I read the article and the entire thread.
1) The video is genuine (i.e. it wasn't Photoshopped).
2) The abuse is genuine. (Either the guy was paid to commit the abuse, or did it voluntarily because he's a true believer who will do anything for the cause.)
3) It was "undercover" in the sense that ONLY the animal rights activist and abuser were present at the time it was taken. It had to be done without being detected by any of the actual farm workers or management.
Do you actually think someone discovered abusing animals would let someone follow them around with a camera? Don't you think that someone genuinely stumbling on a situation like that would have a little concern for their own safety? They can't be that concerned if they're following the guy around with a camera!