Animals Rights Snuff Documentary Footage

multicoloured dog by farangis

- When you film while some people kill an animal right for your particular lens, is that still a mere form of documentation, or do you provide what's called 'snuff' to those who enjoy watching a focused situation of an act of killing?
- Overall, all the images of animals (in this case) being displayed by groups, in situations of torture and suffering - at the point when you realize that the recipients of your educational message are either consciously unresponsive or even enjoying a specific destructive form of supremacy over animals, should you keep displaying the animals in the total oppression, or should you start to rather talk about what's morally lacking and deficient in the ignorant recipients?

A. I think it would make more sense to hold a clear mirror in front of societies' moral hypocrisies, and
B. why would AR advocates want to cater to the 'snuff' minded person?

I assume that showing animals suffer, still conveys a remainder of legitimacy of the subjugation of 'the natural world', exactly because publicly an animal related snuff video is considered to be documentary footage, dealing with a 'category' of living beings that humans overall have decided to view as biologically explainable creatures, instead of animal individuals belonging to a world of an inexplicable sort of autonomy in dignity-value ...

It should be clear that footage should really be footage in a reasonable context, and torture or killing scenes should not be used as an instrument to defer from a critical dialogue.

This text alludes more or less - and amongst others - to a lot of activities of PeTA, i.e. the preference to clearly 'display' suffering, instead of addressing recipients with an elicit message of the uniqueness of animal individuals. (You can view my now outdated AR blog for other points of critique against PeTA's strategies.