Animal rights

[Michael1695]

If you are against killing animals for food, is it hypocritical to eat plants as well since they are living organisms?

[adam10312]

You should have titled this thread "plant rights"... haha

Anyway, I don't think the difference between a plant and an ant is so much different than the difference between an ant and a cat... so where do you draw the line? Is it because plants are not conscious? We need someone who is against killing animals (animals- insects, fish, clams, dogs etc.) in here. For my own personal feelings, my judgement of an animal's ability to suffer greatly affects my comfort with killing them. However, the only animal I won't eat is a dog or a cat because of my personal affection for them, but I wouldn't try to stop someone else from eating them.

[Michael1695]

Well lets say an animal rights activist (and I hope one enters this forum) says its ok to eat plants because they are not conscious. Well a dead animal isnt conscious either, what if we found him dead and decided to eat him.

[adam10312]

It's not about eating something that is conscious, it's about killing something that is conscious.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Michael1695 If you are against killing animals for food, is it hypocritical to eat plants as well since they are living organisms?

The problem is that the vast majority of people that are "for" killing animals for food never kill animals for food. They go to the grocer and pick up packaged and processed goods that are indistinguishable from their sources.

If people were required to end the life of an animal in order to eat meat then the number of vegetarians would increase ten-thousand-fold. My respect of hunters, even ones that hunt for sport, is so much higher than my respect for people that eat lots of meat because it tastes good but could never kill anything themselves.

Why do you think they don't take grade-schoolers on tours of slaughterhouses? Why do you think children are inundated with images of happy animals and are never told that their Chicken McNuggets require the miserable life and brutal death of Big Bird? It's to make is so that people don't ask questions that they won't want to know the answers to. It's no different than a cheapskate buying a stereo out of the trunk of someone's car. It could have come from the murder/robbery down the block but if they found that out then they may not want to buy it and get the great savings. So they don't bother inquiring.

To answer your question - scientifically speaking, plants are incapable of feeling pain. They do not have a central nervous system or a brain to process the pain data from nerves.

The majority of people who eat meat don't want to know what it is or where it came from. The ignorance of the process, the high availability, and the indoctrination from childhood are the only things that keep them eating it.

I will only eat meat when I can look that creature in the face and bash its brains out with a clear conscience. Needless to say, I won't go to that extreme just to have something that "tastes good."

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: Michael1695 Well lets say an animal rights activist (and I hope one enters this forum) says its ok to eat plants because they are not conscious. Well a dead animal isnt conscious either, what if we found him dead and decided to eat him.

If there are left-over pieces of meat that will probably get thrown away, I'll eat it because it is already dead.

Quote by: Muckraker To answer your question - scientifically speaking, plants are incapable of feeling pain. They do not have a central nervous system or a brain to process the pain data from nerves.

That's my answer to the plant question as well.

I am no longer a vegan and I never was much of an activist, and I no longer make a fuss over eating meat (I eat fish on a regular basis). So I guess don't expect any arguments from me. Those are the responses I would have given. It's not hypocritical to be a vegan if you are set down the right path but I don't agree with things like banning the consumption of meat and never really was. Animal welfare is something I support.

[Kevin Dean]

I eat meat beause it tastes good. If we weren't meant to eat animals they wouldn't have been made out of meat. :)

Seriously, while i don't have a problem with killing animals for food, I do have a problem with wanton destruction of ANY life, be it plant, animal or even bacteria. Removing pests from a home because they're damaging the foundation: OK. Smooshing a spider for the evil offense of walking on your wall: bad.

With today's corporate mentality, I feel reasonably confidant that every part of an animal that provides some source of value in any industry is utilized.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Muckraker The problem is that the vast majority of people that are "for" killing animals for food never kill animals for food. They go to the grocer and pick up packaged and processed goods that are indistinguishable from their sources.

What's wrong with that? The vast majority of people who are "for" curbside trash pickup don't take their trash to the dump themselves - does that mean they don't get trash pickup?

People don't need to have a complete knowledge of something in order to appreciate or properly use it.

If people were required to end the life of an animal in order to eat meat then the number of vegetarians would increase ten-thousand-fold.

Unsupported conjecture.

Why do you think they don't take grade-schoolers on tours of slaughterhouses?

I don't know who "they" are, but my school did, in fact, go on tours of things like that.

Why do you think children are inundated with images of happy animals and are never told that their Chicken McNuggets require the miserable life and brutal death of Big Bird?

Because that would be a lie. They do not, and you are making the classic animals rights mistake/fraud of anthropomorphizing our food - chickens are "Big Bird", venison is "Bambi," pork is "Arnold from Green Acres"... Using these fictional representations of animals to represent the animals we kill for food is dishonest - it does not come even close to accurately portraying the animals. The chickens I eat do not live on Sesame Street, they don't have friends that sing songs, they cannot reason, they don't cry when Mr. Hooper dies, etc.

It's to make is so that people don't ask questions that they won't want to know the answers to. It's no different than a cheapskate buying a stereo out of the trunk of someone's car. It could have come from the murder/robbery down the block but if they found that out then they may not want to buy it and get the great savings. So they don't bother inquiring.

Those people do, in fact, know they are getting stolen stereos and don't care. So why would you think food would be any different?

The majority of people who eat meat don't want to know what it is or where it came from. The ignorance of the process, the high availability, and the indoctrination from childhood are the only things that keep them eating it.

More unsupported conjectures. Do try to support your arguments with facts, please.

I will only eat meat when I can look that creature in the face and bash its brains out with a clear conscience. Needless to say, I won't go to that extreme just to have something that "tastes good."

I think you have an incredibly warped sense of what actually goes on in food production.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: tivodan1116 What's wrong with that? The vast majority of people who are "for" curbside trash pickup don't take their trash to the dump themselves - does that mean they don't get trash pickup? People don't need to have a complete knowledge of something in order to appreciate or properly use it.

Funny how people who don't have any have any knowledge of the process so adamantly defend it because the products "taste good."

Unsupported conjecture.

It's not unsupported at all. It's a logical conclusion. If people partake of a voluntary and unnecessary activity and that activity becomes considerably less convenient then the number of people choosing to do said activity will decrease. Do you think the number of vehicle owners would go up or down if we suddenly all had to refine our own gasoline in our basements?

I don't know who "they" are, but my school did, in fact, go on tours of things like that.

Unless you are 80 years old or went to school in a small farming community, I find this statement highly questionable.

Because that would be a lie. They do not, and you are making the classic animals rights mistake/fraud of anthropomorphizing our food - chickens are "Big Bird", venison is "Bambi," pork is "Arnold from Green Acres"... Using these fictional representations of animals to represent the animals we kill for food is dishonest - it does not come even close to accurately portraying the animals. The chickens I eat do not live on Sesame Street, they don't have friends that sing songs, they cannot reason, they don't cry when Mr. Hooper dies, etc.

I was not making a connection between the anthropomorphization of children's programming and meat. I was pointing out that children are inundated with images of happy farm animals and they receive their neatly packaged hamburgers in a way that does not provide any connection to where it came from. Many young children are not aware meat requires the death of an animal and by the time they find that out they are too brainwashed to make a decision about the matter.

Also, it is not a stretch to say that many animals experience the world in a similar way that we do. They have eyes that see, ears that hear, and skin that feels. They communicate amongst themselves, bear and raise young, and have complicated communities. It is quite hippocritical for us to literally police the "abuse" of an animal like a cat or dog and yet consider other animals to be no different than a carrot that a farmer grows in the field.

Those people do, in fact, know they are getting stolen stereos and don't care. So why would you think food would be any different?

The key is that they don't ask questions. My example was not only a stolen stereo. It was stolen and the owner was murdered in the process. If the purchaser received this information at the time of purchase wouldn't it be logical to surmise that a percentage of buyers would be turned off by that?

Someone is eating a burger and "it tastes great." I inform them the burger is actually Poodle meat. Wouldn't a large percentage of people stop eating it and perhaps vomit? All that changed is the knowledge of what they were eating.

More unsupported conjectures. Do try to support your arguments with facts, please.

This is my least supported statement but I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. If people were exposed to the complete process would more people that didn't eat meat start eating meat after getting that information or vice versa?

Meat is highly available, extremely inexpensive, and convenient to eat in the United States at least. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Indoctrination from youth is a standard way of propagating culture. You can't argue against the impressionable nature of the young and the difficulty adults have going against what they were taught their whole lives. If it weren't for indoctrination of the young do you really think major religions would exist in the same manner they do today?

I think you have an incredibly warped sense of what actually goes on in food production.

Please explain it to me then. What I think happens is that companies will do whatever they need to do to increase profits and the meat industry is just that - industrialized. Companies trying to get cheap products to consumers quickly often result in more negative shockers than positive surprises. You find some great new shoes. Turns out those shoes are made by slaves in another country. Still like the shoes and the company?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Muckraker Please explain it to me then. What I think happens is that companies will do whatever they need to do to increase profits and the meat industry is just that - industrialized. Companies trying to get cheap products to consumers quickly often result in more negative shockers than positive surprises. You find some great new shoes.

Only in America will people complain about how and why we have so much food.

Animals are food. Period. They are food for humans. They are food for other animals. They are food for insects and even plants.

I have a freezer full of deer meat. I only buy a minimal amount of beef.

Funny how people who don't have any have any knowledge of the process so adamantly defend it because the products "taste good."

You seem to be skipping over the part about how meat gives life and strength. Packed with amino acids, meat is essential to good health.

I'm not quite getting you because I don't believe you have made your opinion clear. Are you against the harvesting of animal meat for human consumption on some moral level?

[Muckraker]

Quote by: ruksak Only in America will people complain about how and why we have so much food.

It's not wrong for someone to question the process by which we get our great "wealth." It is also not wrong to be concerned about one group of people having an abundance of wasteful food while another group of people is dying due to lack of the food that we give to the animals we eat.

Animals are food. Period. They are food for humans. They are food for other animals. They are food for insects and even plants.

This is partially false.

1. Humans are animals and yet we are not food for ourselves and are very rarely food for other animals. In the instance we are food for other animals we make sure to let that species know not to screw with us by obliterating them summarily.
2. Numerous animals are protected from being food in the United States.
3. Different cultures have drastically different views of what animals are food.

I have a freezer full of deer meat. I only buy a minimal amount of beef.

I fully support this. Although I don't particularly see the fun in killing something for fun, I can't argue with someone that knows where meat comes from and goes out with a weapon to acquire meat at the grass roots level. It is very respectable, even if it is unnecessary.

You seem to be skipping over the part about how meat gives life and strength. Packed with amino acids, meat is essential to good health.

It does have nutritional benefit but it is also completely replaceable and a luxury item. Vegetarians are just as healthy as meat eaters. This position was stated by the American Dietetic Association very clearly. Also, there are numerous cultures in the world that do not have the luxury of meat and subsist quite successfully on a vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet.

I'm not quite getting you because I don't believe you have made your opinion clear. Are you against the harvesting of animal meat for human consumption on some moral level?

My opinion is this:

1. As food technology progresses, meat is no longer needed as a source of nutrition.
2. The process of generating meat is not a resourceful use of raw materials.
3. The process of generating meat would be extremely disturbing to many people who eat meat if they had any knowledge of what that process was.
4. "It tastes good" is not a valid position to argue from. A talented chef can make anything taste good and if you were to discover you were eating something you found disturbing it wouldn't matter how it tastes to most people. IE - I find the chef ejaculated in my alfredo sauce because he felt it gives the sauce a unique flavor. Do I really care that it tastes good? Do I really care about the nutritional value of semen?
5. If people had to be exposed to the killing process and the butchering process of their food, as the vast majority of people prior to industrialization had to, many would gain a greater respect for the animals and some would pursue alternate food sources that are also readily available.

And finally, I take a firm stand that eating is the most intimate act humans will ever participate in in their lives. Sex is considered intimate but it pales in comparison to eating. In sex, we take genitals of a known partner and combine them with our own. Unwanted sex is considered a great intrusion and can scar a person for life.

Now let's take the intimacy of food. Instead of genitals penetrating or being penetrated, we take a foreign substance and ingest it through mouth. We break the food down into its fundamental components and it makes its way through our entire body. If the food is poisoned, we die. If the food has no nutritional value, we die. If the food is too skewed in what it provides nutritionally we live for a period of time and suffer complications the food caused us later on.

With this in mind, many humans are akin to prostitutes that work for free, having sex with all that crosses their paths. We shovel anything and everything in our faces and take it on that most intimate journey through our bodies. If it looks like food, and tastes like food, we eat it.

In this most intimate act, isn't it logical to wonder what you are eating and where it came from? If you want to know where your sexual partners have been before being intimate with you, isn't it logical to wonder where your food has been before it found its way to you?

[Michael1695]

Meat is definitly needed for me. I need it for my protein source since I hate Tofu and soy. I say if it is digestable, then it is food. The reason we make an animal pay for attacking us is because we are going to defend ourselves. We don't blame the animal for it. A lion wants food, so he tries to eat us. We dont want to die, so we fight it off and shoot it. We want food, so we kill a cow, she dosent want to die so she struggles. It loses because we are superior beings. Just like a zebra loses to a lion because it is superior. So I will continue to enjoy all the meat I want, whether I killed it myself or a slaughterhouse did it for me. And all those PETA morons who think the mass slaughter or turkies on thanksgiving is a travesty can go make a hungry lion happy, by sticking their heads in its mouth. And while they are doing that, I will continue to where my beautiful leather bomber jacket that keeps me warm.

[Kevin Dean]

Quote by: Muckraker "It tastes good" is not a valid position to argue from.

Perhaps it was not clear from the smiley, that statement (while true) was not put forth as the basis of my arguement, only my basis for choosing to eat meat. If meat didn't taste good, I'd not eat it.

I do totally agree with you about the points you make in regard to American consumption - not only of meat but of other things. I am a GNU/Linux user - I take pride in my computer system because it is so customizable and tailored to my specific uses. I've also found that despite it being a superior system for just about all computing tasks, having to know how it works is the single biggest impediment to it's adoption.

Quote by: Muckraker Someone is eating a burger and "it tastes great." I inform them the burger is actually Poodle meat.

The thing is, there are a TON of people who would instantly vomit - the idea of eating Fifi is a bit unnerving to people. However, logically, there is no difference between beef and canine in the fact that an animal had to be killed and processed (not always industrial processing). I would feel upset that I was not informed that it was a McPoodle but the fact that it was canine wouldn't be "more disgusting" - it's the lack of disclosure and not the product itself that would make me feel violated.

Those who argue that there is a difference don't argue logically or objectively. My view, again, goes to the wanton destruction of life and not to the destruction itself.

Quote by: Muckraker I fully support this. Although I don't particularly see the fun in killing something for fun, I can't argue with someone that knows where meat comes from and goes out with a weapon to acquire meat at the grass roots level.

Two points. :) Firstly, you say that you respect this because it's an understanding of the process but you then label it as "killing for fun" - this is what I consider "wanton" killing. Not the hunting, but the finding fun in the taking of life. The poster here commented that he's got a freezer full of meat which indicates he hunts for food, not fun.

Secondly, you go on to argue that eating is an intimate act. Do you not understand how, knowing how meat is handled, processed and stored might not inspire him to eliminate the unknowns and control as many variables as possible in that chain? I appreciate beer so much more because I brew it myself, I'm sure he feels the same way while enjoying his venison.

Quote by: Muckraker Many young children are not aware meat requires the death of an animal and by the time they find that out they are too brainwashed to make a decision about the matter.

"Brainwashed" is such a loaded term and implies delibrate and malicious intent. Once could argue that we're "brainwashed" into thinking women and blacks are equal or that animals have rights at all. I agree with the point you make, that children and adults have a disconnect from the reality of their lifestyle, but I disagree with the implication that one needs to be "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" - it's simply culture and passed on like our language because children learn by immitating those around them and because they aren't able to make decisions for themselves (depending on the stage of life for various reasons.)

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Muckraker My opinion is this: 1. As food technology progresses, meat is no longer needed as a source of nutrition.

The same goes for plants right? I mean, as technology progresses, vegetables are no longer needed as a source of nutrition. This is a very weak argument...

Quote by: Muckraker 2. The process of generating meat is not a resourceful use of raw materials.

And what is? Plants go through vigerous process before entering the human digestion system...

Quote by: Muckraker 3. The process of generating meat would be extremely disturbing to many people who eat meat if they had any knowledge of what that process was.

I know what that process is, I've seen it, I still eat meat. Taken from a halfway decent movie called The Island:

"Hey, just because people eat the burger, doesn't mean they wanna know the cow."

Does it make me worse of a person because I know how the meat manufacturing process works?

Quote by: Muckraker 4. "It tastes good" is not a valid position to argue from. A talented chef can make anything taste good and if you were to discover you were eating something you found disturbing it wouldn't matter how it tastes to most people. IE - I find the chef ejaculated in my alfredo sauce because he felt it gives the sauce a unique flavor. Do I really care that it tastes good? Do I really care about the nutritional value of semen?

I agree about the taste factor, as meat provides major health benefits for us humans.

Quote by: Muckraker 5. If people had to be exposed to the killing process and the butchering process of their food, as the vast majority of people prior to industrialization had to, many would gain a greater respect for the animals and some would pursue alternate food sources that are also readily available.

I have great respect for animals, but I wouldn't mind trying the meat from half of them.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Muckraker It's not unsupported at all. It's a logical conclusion. If people partake of a voluntary and unnecessary activity and that activity becomes considerably less convenient then the number of people choosing to do said activity will decrease. Do you think the number of vehicle owners would go up or down if we suddenly all had to refine our own gasoline in our basements?

Don't play games with me. Your statement had nothing to do with convenience and you know it because you haven't been arguing that. Furthermore, it's a dead-end argument because the same could be said about vegetables - if people had to plant them, water them, and harvest them the number of people eating them would go down and it certainly wouldn't be related to any questionable standards of ethics.

Unless you are 80 years old or went to school in a small farming community, I find this statement highly questionable.

I went to school in a small farming community.

I was not making a connection between the anthropomorphization of children's programming and meat. I was pointing out that children are inundated with images of happy farm animals and they receive their neatly packaged hamburgers in a way that does not provide any connection to where it came from. Many young children are not aware meat requires the death of an animal and by the time they find that out they are too brainwashed to make a decision about the matter.

Don't be ridiculous. Children do not need to be fully informed because they do not make decisions on their own. Many young children are not aware that their brothers and sisters came about as a result of their parents f*cking. Should we make them watch that before they can play with their new baby sibling?

Also, it is not a stretch to say that many animals experience the world in a similar way that we do. They have eyes that see, ears that hear, and skin that feels.

So what? Should we then prevent animals from eating one another because they feel pain? Are we not merely animals with different evolutionary advantages?

They communicate amongst themselves, bear and raise young, and have complicated communities.

And horribly maim and kill and eat each other. Either animals are just like us, in which case we are within our rights as just another member of their community to eat them, or we are inherently different, in which case we are incorrect in assigning them human-like traits that would make killing them any more wrong than killing plants. Either way, your argument is flawed.

It is quite hippocritical for us to literally police the "abuse" of an animal like a cat or dog and yet consider other animals to be no different than a carrot that a farmer grows in the field.

But that is not what the standard is. Society is relatively consistent here - we allow humane killing of almost all animals, but not inhumane. There are very strict standards regarding the butchering of animals for meat. Are you sure you understand the process?

The key is that they don't ask questions. My example was not only a stolen stereo. It was stolen and the owner was murdered in the process. If the purchaser received this information at the time of purchase wouldn't it be logical to surmise that a percentage of buyers would be turned off by that?

In that case it is a red herring. Most people would be turned off by a human being killed, that is not analogous to understanding that meat is dead animal.

Someone is eating a burger and "it tastes great." I inform them the burger is actually Poodle meat. Wouldn't a large percentage of people stop eating it and perhaps vomit? All that changed is the knowledge of what they were eating.

Except that without proof of this suggestion, your statement is mere conjecture.

This is my least supported statement but I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary. If people were exposed to the complete process would more people that didn't eat meat start eating meat after getting that information or vice versa?

You have no proof of either, and until you do, any argument in that vein is nonsense.

Indoctrination from youth is a standard way of propagating culture.

Indoctrination, bullsh*t. You can't "indoctrinate" taste buds. Good parents expose children to a wide variety of food choices. The nutrients in meats and other animal products are important for healthy children.

Please explain it to me then. What I think happens is that companies will do whatever they need to do to increase profits and the meat industry is just that - industrialized.

You are generalizing. It is quite possible to eat only organic, free-range animals from local farms (while at the same time not "participating" in killing your meat) which, once again, makes your argument invalid.

Companies trying to get cheap products to consumers quickly often result in more negative shockers than positive surprises. You find some great new shoes. Turns out those shoes are made by slaves in another country. Still like the shoes and the company?

In fact I do. Apparently many others do as well, because the free market has determined that by and large those companies survive.

Quote by: Muckraker It's not wrong for someone to question the process by which we get our great "wealth." It is also not wrong to be concerned about one group of people having an abundance of wasteful food while another group of people is dying due to lack of the food that we give to the animals we eat.

Once again, invalid. Almost no one on earth dies because animals are eating food that could be eaten by humans. We are not nearly at the level of population where food production is insufficient to feed both humans and animals. People starve because of difficulties (political, logistical, take your pick) in TRANSPORTING the food to where they live.

2. Numerous animals are protected from being food in the United States.

So what? That is akin to saying I can't eat carrots because I can't eat rare Japanese orchids. Some animals have sufficient population that they can be reasonably culled for food without extinction, and some do not.

And while we're on that topic, what do you think would happen to domesticated cows, pigs, chickens, etc without our stewardship? In my area growing up wolves used to take a couple cows a summer even WITH constant monitoring by the farmers. They're not exactly cut out for efficient self-defense.

3. Different cultures have drastically different views of what animals are food.

So what?

In this most intimate act, isn't it logical to wonder what you are eating and where it came from? If you want to know where your sexual partners have been before being intimate with you, isn't it logical to wonder where your food has been before it found its way to you?

Regardless of the answer, it does not make your argument. You still have to make the leap that if more people knew where their food has been that they would change their dietary habits. You have no proof of that.

[another day]

Can't stand people that think it;s wrong to kill animals for food. These people like to think of themselves as "nature minded" people, but really they are the product of a perverse and surreal detachment from nature where they project their emotions onto animals. Consciousness run amuck. Animals eat other animals to live. It's the circle of life, the balance of the universe. The animals become you, you become the animals.

However, I think you'll find most animal rights people are more concerned with the bad treatment of animals in meat plants and huge farms, then with the actual act of killing an animal to eat it. Veal raised in tiny cages with no room to move, chickens keep in cages no bigger then themselves, fois gras where the animals are force fed to death. Alot of vegies also just don't liek the thought of eating meat, or the taste, or do it for health reasons.

I would absolutly kill anything to survive if I had to. However, living in the city, I obviously can't do that unless I want to eat rats and squirrels. But I do my best to buy animals that are treated humanly. Free range chicken/turkey etc. Try to stay away from beef and pork, but mostly only because it somewhat grosses me out (especially pork).

Ideally I would like to eat animals that are entirely hunted from the wild, like deer, since they have a natural life prior to dying. But it's necessary to farm raise animals or else we wouldn't have much wild life left. And truth be told, farm animals like cows and chickens are extremely unintelligent, and it's almost the same as killing a plant, except they have eyes and a face that remind us of humans and so we project ourselves onto them.

On the other side, you could mention that when people eat plants, they aren't killing and eating the plant itself, but say in the case of fruit, they are eating the seed, keeping the plant alive.

[Michael1695]

Quote by: another day Can't stand people that think it;s wrong to kill animals for food. These people like to think of themselves as "nature minded" people, but really they are the product of a perverse and surreal detachment from nature where they project their emotions onto animals. Consciousness run amuck. Animals eat other animals to live. It's the circle of life, the balance of the universe. The animals become you, you become the animals. However, I think you'll find most animal rights people are more concerned with the bad treatment of animals in meat plants and huge farms, then with the actual act of killing an animal to eat it. Veal raised in tiny cages with no room to move, chickens keep in cages no bigger then themselves, fois gras where the animals are force fed to death. Alot of vegies also just don't liek the thought of eating meat, or the taste, or do it for health reasons. I would absolutly kill anything to survive if I had to. However, living in the city, I obviously can't do that unless I want to eat rats and squirrels. But I do my best to buy animals that are treated humanly. Free range chicken/turkey etc. Try to stay away from beef and pork, but mostly only because it somewhat grosses me out (especially pork). Ideally I would like to eat animals that are entirely hunted from the wild, like deer, since they have a natural life prior to dying. But it's necessary to farm raise animals or else we wouldn't have much wild life left. And truth be told, farm animals like cows and chickens are extremely unintelligent, and it's almost the same as killing a plant, except they have eyes and a face that remind us of humans and so we project ourselves onto them. On the other side, you could mention that when people eat plants, they aren't killing and eating the plant itself, but say in the case of fruit, they are eating the seed, keeping the plant alive.

I would have respect for an animal rights activist if all they were against was the inhumane treatment of animals. The problem is is that a lot of them are against any human interaction with animals, which includes horse riding, etc. That is how those nuts at PETA think at least. They think the mass slaughter of turkies on thanksgiving is the biggest problem this country is facing. Well it is certainly the most delicious problem if you ask me. Especially when there is mashed potatoes and stuffing on the side. The only problem I see with slaughtering turkies is that I have to make sure I don't get fat when I stuff my face on thanksgiving. I heard that from Ingrid Newkirk (PETA president) herself on an HBO special on PETA. I think they are showing it on HBO on demand if any of you want to catch it.

[Nemiroff]

I think the processing of food is disgusting, personally, chicken mcnuggets are just nasty compared to a juicy steak. And people have been killing their own animals for millenia and still do today in other countries, yet nowhere are there more vehiterians then in the country where noone kills anything themselves.

Why is everything about brainwashing, by your logic anything a parent does to raise their children is brainwashing, wether they are raising them to eat meat or not to.
And those "slaves" that make our sneakers are in the same position Americans were in during the industrial revolution. Locked up in factories with insane hours, no money, terrible conditions, and working kids. And although they only get 2 cents a day, their rent isn't gonna be 1000's a month either.

[another day]

The horse riding thing is interesting too. Like I stated before, it's simply a poor, simple minded understanding of nature and reality. A man and his horse is a beautiful thing. He's not "turning it into his slave". The horse is his companion, his mobility, and in turn, the horse is safe from predators, has a warm barn to sleep, and plenty of food and water to drink. It's called a symbiotic relationship.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of instances of totally immoral behavior concerning man's interaction with animals... example is when they used horses for warfare. Wrong.

But as is the case in everything, the person with the extreme view, like the peta member who thinks a person should almost never even be in the vicinity of an animal for fear of trampling on it's rights, or the gun wielding nutjob that hunts bears just to pose for a picture then make him into a rug, are always the most dangerous, most deluded, and have the worst understanding of reality. They skew the universe's delicate balance of yin and yang with a polarized, imbalanced view of reality that is always wrong, and always serves only to stoke their own egotistical needs.