Apparently the animals that die on factory farms are actually eaten by people.

Any one who can call this planet small doesn't have much empathy with it. A rather common affliction with academics & lawyers. Articles like this meaningless waffle, are a good reason to bar lawyers from election to parliament.

I suggest we drop the pair half way between Sydney & Lord Howe Island, in a row boat, with a couple of pairs of oars. If they survive they will have a better idea of the planet, & perhaps how to live on it.

While I have some concern for animal welfare, I also eat meat, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The two behaviours I DO find repugnant are those that are too squeamish to do it themselves and only ever outsource it and the keeping of animals for pets. How anyone can cage an animal that can fly is mystifying. Then there is the opportunity cost lost in being able to help humanity (bravo J Burnside) and the pollution involved in feeding them. AGW all so indulgent westerners can have a dog for a "pet" ? I wonder if Mr Wilberforce had a dog and looked after it lovingly, much like some slave owners did ?

The author needs to visit a developing country and live with it's peoples to see how they interact with animals for a better understanding of human development and animal husbandry.

We raise, kill and eat our own chickens and guinea pigs. Every time one is killed, I say thank you before I swing the axe.

and I must admit I do rather agree with the sentiments of "Hasbeen" in suggesting Parliament would be better off if those in the Law profession where barred.

funny to see than when the rubber meets the road most really believe humans are not just animals. Imagine a lifeguard seeing both a child and a dog drowning. Most would rescue the child (as long as not the son of a lawyer) first. RSPCA was once a respected organisation. Now they have been hijacked or at least infiltrated by earth worshippers which normally put humans at the bottom of the chain. That is why killing an animal is a crime to them but killing the unborn just disposing of one more evil human.

It quite easy to separate out moral rules for humans and rules for other animals just as a dog is not a cat so a human is not a dog. I dear say the authors make this distinction at some point the question is where do they make it and could we very agree where the line is.
I say any non human form of life is fair game, we should try to minimise their suffering and should practices good animal husbandry and not take native animals from the wide for food, if we can setup viable farm production methods.
Where do the authors draw the line is it merely animals they will not eat? How have they drawn that line, would they eat a sea fern if it tasted good?
Humans are omnivores that’s how we evolved in our natural environment there is nothing natural about not eating meat for a human. Just like bears eat mainly roots and berries so should we but we should turn our noses up at salmon when their running.

BTW I propose a new rule for OLO along the lines of Godwin’s law. As soon as Runner makes a comment in support of a line of thought then that argument becomes invalid.

A rather disturbing example of what happens when you become a vegetarian...

"Pythagoras... was a strict vegetarian... [he] also founded a religion based on the transmigration of souls."

I do understand, of course, that if you believe that animals contain the souls of dead people, it would be a little difficult to contemplate eating meat. But the startling aspect of Pythagoras' philosophy was that he believed that human souls were also capable of transmigrating into... vegetables.

All you vegetarians out there, please take note. And don't say I didn't warn you.