A completely misguided and simplistic article written by an admitted activist and consequently not a dispassionate piece of reasoning. It displays a childish view of animals similar to that of Dr. Dolittle or Charlottes Web. The author fails to take into account some basic logical points.

1) Killing animals humanely for the purposes of eating is completely different from causing death and inflicting pain for the sake of obtaining pleasure from cruelty. Similarly, killing an innocent child is not the same as turning off life support for a terminally ill person. This is correctly recognised in the Law but apparently not in the field of Political Philosophy.

2) Why stop with animals? In the 1970's some people considered plants to have a form of awareness as well, so where does that leave us ? No food at all. The authors logic could easily lead to this conclusion.

3) Humans are omnivores and it has long been established that getting the appropriate nutrition from plants only is much more difficult and dangerous for developing humans. Never force your child into vegetarianism, you risk brain dysfunction and reduced growth from low protein intake.

4) Statements like "Cows show excitement when they've learnt something new and form lifelong relationships." is full of unwarranted assumptions and leaps of logic. Can cows form 'relationships'??. An association between two animals does not imply a 'relationship' particularly in human terms. Excited? You seem to want imply they become excited in a human way like a child at a Christmas party. There is no evidence for this.

5. Animals, as 'intelligent' as the author claims they are, still kill each other and often in the cruelest possible ways. What does this imply?

The article deliberately confuses killing for eating and cruelty. They are separate,different and for the most part, unrelated things.

A thought provoking article. I have always thought that the solution to most of our political problems would be to give kangaroos the vote (to be administered, of course, by the farmers on whose land they live). There would have to be a re-distribution of electoral boundaries, to accommodate the great increase in the number of electors, but I am sure the National Party would not mind. There would be a shortage of meat, to be sure, but this could be alleviated by sending the animal activists to the abbatoirs.

>>There would be a shortage of meat, to be sure, but this could be alleviated by sending the animal activists to the abbatoirs.<<

And call the product Soylent Greens. You'd make a killing.

Cheers,

Tony

Some good points made there Nicholas. Yes pigs and other farms animals are not much different to dogs, and dogs are regularly eaten in much of Asia. The Western infatuation with dogs is illogical and based on culture from ancient times when they cohabited as 'watchdogs'.

I am outraged by the leniency of dog laws, where vicious breeds are allowed to be kept in towns when they are a menace to humans. Anyone who has suffered even a minor dog bite, let alone a mauling will attest that it's a traumatic experience. I think any dog that bites humans should be humanely put down.

Banning all farm animals for human consumption would be going too far though, I think. Sustainable agriculture requires some grazing animals for 'lay pasture' periods between cropping; also steep country cant be cropped. Milk is essential in many peoples' diets too. My experience of working on farms is that there's a huge difference between 'best practice' and incompetent animal husbandry; perhaps farmers of animals should have licenses.

I do agree that we can get by with much less meat in our diets. And humane means of raising and slaughtering animals is essential. Hence the short ban on beef exports to Indonesia was justified and forced the industry to improve its game.

Western hypocrisy is legion and it's always always a pleasure seeing it exposed. I only wonder we bother with ethics at all, which is purely academic. Have to keep up appearances I s'pose, even if we're only deluding ourselves we're humane.

Thanks for your comments @Atman:

1) While animals killed for food and clothing are not killed for the pleasure of the cruelty, they are killed for pleasure – people enjoy the taste of animal products and enjoy wearing animal products – there is no necessity (see my 3rd point below). So it is killing for pleasure (or more accurately, paying someone else to kill for your pleasure). Killing what could be a healthy animal well before they would otherwise live to is very different to turning off life support for a terminally ill person (or other animal).
2) Plants are not sentient – they have no central nervous system and do not feel pain. My argument about sentience does not include plants.
3) From the American Dietetic Association (I link to this in my article): ‘It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.’
4) I am a Sociologist, not an animal behaviourist; the points on cows were drawn from scientific studies, which I have linked to in the article. Here is a direct quote from the article I link to:
‘Cows have been known to form lifelong friendships, and one recent study found that they actually show excitement when they've learned something new "as if they're saying, 'Eureka, I found out how to solve the problem,' " said Donald Broom, a professor at the University of Cambridge.’
5) Yes, other animals kill each other, but first of all, this is out of necessity, which is not the case for humans (see points 1 and 3). Secondly, I don’t think the actions of other animals have anything to do with we should do ethically as humans, other animals do all kinds of things that most people agree is wrong – I don’t think it is a relevant point.

@plerdsus:
Please explain where in the article (or anywhere else) I have advocated voting rights for other animals. Saying we shouldn’t slaughter other animals for food and clothing is a very different argument. If this is such a ridiculous argument, point out why this is the case, rather than discussing voting rights for other animals.

@Squeers:
Thanks for your comment. Yes there is a lot of “finger-pointing” in the West pointing out actions towards animals elsewhere eg recently Indonesia over the live export issue, but in this article I have encouraged people to challenge our own relationship with other animals.

@Roses1:
Thanks for the comments. My article does not advocate ‘banning all farm animals for human consumption’ – I am encouraging individuals who do not want to see animals harmed unnecessarily to avoid consuming animal products. Animal products such as cow’s milk are not necessary – see point 3 in my response to @Atman above. In terms of reducing animal products, why consume them at all when they involve unnecessary slaughter?

I think that humane farming of animals is an oxymoron. Even in the supposedly best case scenario eg “free-range”, “humane” etc, there are still horrible things done to animals. See, for example: http://www.humanemyth.org/

Also, I think treating someone humanely or compassionately should at the very least mean not slitting their throat: http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/animal-slaughter-not-just-horrific-in-indonesia-757.html

On the environmental issue, “sustainable” animal products have a much higher environmental impact than plant-based foods: ‘A global vegan diet (of conventional crops) would reduce dietary emissions by 87 percent, compared to a token 8 percent for “sustainable meat and dairy.’ http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/16/agnostic-carnivores-and-global-warming-why-enviros-go-after-coal-and-not-cows/

Finally, we can have sustainable agriculture without grazing animals (or any reliance on animals or their products): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bp2-bsRaow and also, just because there is some land that we can’t grow crops on, doesn’t automatically mean that we should be raising and killing animals on this land. There are all kinds of things we COULD do on this land instead of raising crops, but just because we CAN do something, doesn’t mean we SHOULD.

Employing the same reasoning that underpins the truism "hard cases make bad law", using one example of animal cruelty, inflicted by a "chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy", is a somewhat inadequate basis for a diatribe against human omnivores. I can say this with confidence, since my partner is a staunch vegetarian, and regularly provides me with "evidence" as to why I should be, too.

The fuss that you allude to, as you very well know, Mr Prendergast, concerns the cruelty, not the eating. Dogs are foodstuff in a number of cultures, as are a wide variety of other animals and insects. Humans are not natural herbivores - a more honest description than "vegetarian", or "vegan", I find - and it will require some further evolution of our digestive systems and energy-conversion processes before we become so. Which might possibly pose a problem for Creationists, I suppose... but I digress.

It is all wonderful material for a dinner-party in Glebe, but pretty academic for massive swathes of the world's population who care rather more about getting enough nutrition to last out the day, than the niceties of whether their food was once named Rex, or Fido.

I am constantly amazed at the intellectual triple salchow that is required to preach such patronizing smugness, while turning a blind eye to the somewhat more basic needs of human life on earth.

Incidentally, I also hold that keeping dogs as pets is a form of cruelty, and that many such animals (the one carried around in Paris Hilton's handbag springs to mind) would probably welcome a swift and painless death. The fact that, gently sautéed, they might subsequently form an enjoyable entrée, is an unexpected bonus.

@Pericles:

You argue that the fuss is about the cruelty not the eating, but, as I argue in the article, why is this considered cruelty? It doesn’t seem that what the dog endured was significantly different to what other animals endure as standard practise. The dog had their throat slit – as do countless other animals in what is merely considered standard practise in many industries. I really don’t see anything significant that sets this example apart (besides the species of the animal, which is pretty arbitrary, as you point out).

We can argue about what is “natural” – though if we really lived our lives by what is natural I’m sure they would look very different in so many ways, not just food – we better throw out our iPods and computers, for example. But the reality is, regardless of what is “natural” – right now it is very possible to get an adequate supply of all the nutrients we need without animal products. We do not require ‘some further evolution of our digestive systems and energy-conversion processes’. For more on this, see my comments above, especially my response to Atman. But besides talking about what is “natural” – can you point out a nutrient that we can’t get from plant-based sources?

Yes, wonderful material for a dinner-party in Glebe, but why is trying to stand up for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society considered elitist/smug etc? It is the Western diet that is elitist. This diet high in animal products is so wasteful and does absolutely nothing to help ‘massive swathes of the world's population’ trying to meet their ‘basic needs of human life on earth’. See page 13 of this booklet, which explains that ‘Most edible grain is used to feed animals for meat, dairy and egg production’: http://www.vnv.org.au/site/files/articles/eatinguptheworldv3.pdf

Jokes about killing dogs aside, it is clear that all animals, whether it is pigs or dogs, want to carry on living regardless of how swift or otherwise their slaughter is.

>>can you point out a nutrient that we can’t get from plant-based sources?<<

Heme iron: you'll only find that in meat. It's more easily absorbed than iron from plants so vegetarians have to eat more iron than omnivores to get the same effect.

Vitamin B12: found in animal products including eggs and dairy and artificial processed foods like Marmite (but not Vegemite). From wikipedia:

>>The Vegan Society and other leading researchers in vegan nutrition have concluded that there are no known sources of naturally occurring vitamin B12 in plants that will satisfy even the minimum B12 nutritional requirements of human beings.<<

Cholesterol: not really a nutrient as such. Your dietary cholesterol intake doesn't affect your blood cholesterol much - it's more affected by saturated fat intake. But you won't find cholesterol in plants either.

>>Jokes about killing dogs aside, it is clear that all animals, whether it is pigs or dogs, want to carry on living regardless of how swift or otherwise their slaughter is.<<

Is it? Do all animals really have such a high level of consciousness that they have a concept of their own mortality? Animalia is a big kingdom and some it's members have extremely simple nervous systems.

Cheers,

Tony

We evolved as omnivores. i.e Meat and veggies with a side order of fruit.
Meat tastes good, but that does NOT mean the donor animals should be mistreated.

@Tony Lavis:

Heme iron is not in plant-based sources but iron is – so iron is not a problem on a vegan diet. If it is for some individuals with particularly high iron requirements, people can take a (vegan) supplement – many people, particularly females, vegans and non-vegans, take iron supplements.

B12 is available in vegan supplements and fortified foods. I get mine mainly from (fortified) soy milk. It is also present in some savoury yeast flakes, mock meats etc. Once again, if people are not getting enough from what they eat and drink, there are vegan B12 supplements.

Cholesterol: our body produces all the cholesterol we ever need, so while only animal products have cholesterol, this is a positive aspect of the vegan diet, as cholesterol can lead to health problems. So I should rephrase the question to ask if there are any nutrients that we actually need that we can’t get through vegan sources.

While other animals may not understand their own mortality in the same way as us, they certainly struggle to avoid death. This is clear if you watch any slaughterhouse footage. See this (non-graphic) video for example: http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DaHTNq33cXBQ

Also, animal behaviourist Jonathan Balcombe explains this point about other animals valuing their own lives from 34.52-36.44 of this interview: http://animalvoices.ca/2011/03/29/unpacking-the-animal-umwelt/

Cheers,
Nick

@Therzal:

I don’t think the issue is how we evolved; the important thing is what should we do right now in terms of what (or who in the cases of animals) we eat, wear etc? And of course animals should not be mistreated in slaughterhouses, but I think we also need to challenge why they are in the slaughterhouse in the first place, especially when they don’t have to be. Enjoyment (‘meat tastes good’) surely isn’t a very good reason to take someone else’s life and isn’t accepted as a valid excuse for other actions that harm and kill others.

Human nature is unevolved. It is not intelligent to eat one animal and act as if it is cruel to eat another. That is self delusion and unsustainable. Unfortunately that's where we are, on an unsustainable slippery slope. But truth always comes home in some way, so it works out in the end. Pain, the usual catalyst of change.

The way I see it the question is not whether we should eat meat (etc) but whether we can go on putting money before love. If you put money first, as our society is fundamentally based on, you can justify anything at all, as we do.

What can you do if you put love first? Love? :) I know, too simple for the ever complicating mind - of present human nature.

It's intelligent to love, even the cow or carrot. :)

Just treat and eat it with respect, if you have to.

I concurred with the initial thesis - it isn't fair to give dogs special treatment, as opposed to pigs, particularly given the fact that pigs have proven their intelligence through scientific testing.

My conclusion however, is that we should be free to eat dog. Provided it tastes good. This I am skeptical of, having once consumed dog myself. (I wasn't aware I was eating dog at the time, but it didn't faze me all that much).

I wouldn't want to eat an animal I'd gotten to know personally, be it dog, cow or pig.

But I do see the hypocrisy in claiming it's wrong to eat one kind of animal, but OK to eat others.

Nick Prendergast -Thank you for responding individually to posters comments.

1. People eat initially simply to stay alive, first and foremost, not for pleasure per se. Nevertheless, the fact that eating IS pleasurable is hardly a negative. If we had no liking of protein the human race would have long since vanished. I'm sure animals like the taste of other animals as well, this does not mean they kill primarily for pleasure. Ridding oneself of hunger is pleasurable.

2.Your logic would see lions being converted to vegetarianism on moral grounds simply to prevent cruelty. The killing of one animal by another is still a very painful process and far less preferable to being killed in the abattoir under sedation and it is pain and suffering you are (supposedly)concerned about rather than the cause of it. This reaches the logical but ludicrous conclusion that no healthy animal should be killed merely to feed another animal. Yet, you don't think the pain and suffering caused by other animals is relevant? Why?

3. Here is a link to an article which explains why your suggestions about diet is a form of cruelty, especially to babies. Here, parents are convicted of manslaughter for NOT providing their baby with appropriate nutrition due to a vegan diet. You are encouraging this form of madness,think about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html

4. David Broom, the person you quote may be a Professor, but he has never heard of anthropomorphism of which he is exceedingly guilty. There is no evidence that cows have friendships particularly in the human sense. Its almost humorous except that he has a posting at Cambridge which is quite alarming in itself. David Broom may well be Dr. Doolittle in disguise.

5. It is, according to you, ethical for humans to not be cruel but not ethical for humans to stop other animals from inflicting pain and suffering. This only makes sense if you about controlling human behaviour (which I suspect) and not preventing cruelty per se.

This is an activist/moral crusade born from the false belief that one is living a superior life to others.

*But surely, the worst thing anyone can do to an animal, whether we're talking about a farm animal or a dog, is to kill them against their will.*

Well not really, Nic. I think that your philosophy is flawed here.
If we farm animals, we are are responsible for their wellbeing.
That means that they should not suffer needlessly, because concious
suffering, such as starving to death slowly, is far worse than death
itself. If you are dead, you don't know that you are dead, so it
hardly matters.

So if my dog is old and sick, is the worst thing that I can do, to
have it put down? I don't think so.

I run around a thousand ewes on my hobby farm. They live happy lives,
grow no wool, have lambs, they are treated for worms, treated for
diseases where possible, fed through droughts, protected from predators etc.
The rams get to have sex with lots of willing females,
hey its a pretty good life for them really :) No mortgage, no stress,
no getting up to rush to work.

Yet all cannot survive, that is the reality of nature. There is only
food for so many. Some go to err sheep heaven, but they don't know
a thing about it. Given that you too will be devoured by the worms
and bacteria one day, why should they be any different?

Now in a vegan world, none of those animals would have had a life
at all, or perhaps as in nature, simply starve to death with
overcrowding or old age. Why is that the better option?

Anthropomorphism-:The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects.

It would help our discussion along, Mr Prendergast, if you didn't try to distort my side of our conversation.

>>You argue that the fuss is about the cruelty not the eating, but, as I argue in the article, why is this considered cruelty? It doesn’t seem that what the dog endured was significantly different to what other animals endure as standard practise.<<

The subtext of the dog having its throat cut by a "chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy" surely indicates that the death was unnaturally cruel, when compared to the more clinical conditions of an abbatoir.

>>We can argue about what is “natural”<<

Again, in the context of my post - "Humans are not natural herbivores" I would have thought that we could take as read that the evolution of humans to their present state was sufficient evidence for the "natural". If you prefer to argue that "humans are not natural omnivores", then I think you would need to put forward some solid evidence to that effect.

Instead, you maintain the argument (one with which I am completely conversant, given the daily reminders from my partner) that because we are able to survive without meat, we - by definition - should survive without meat. But as you happily admit, in order to do so we have to manufacture suitable alternatives.

>>individuals with particularly high iron requirements... can take a (vegan) supplement... B12 is available in vegan supplements and fortified foods. I get mine mainly from (fortified) soy milk. It is also present in some savoury yeast flakes, mock meats etc.<<

Perhaps it is as well that you live in leafy Perth suburbia. You might have difficulty with your diet in a more "natural" environment

Thanks for your feedback @MarkB4:

‘It's intelligent to love, even the cow or carrot. :) Just treat and eat it with respect, if you have to.’

Two points relating to this in reference to a couple of my arguments. Firstly, when we’re talking about a carrot we are talking about an “it” (not sentient), but when we are talking about a cow we are talking about someone not something – not an “it” (sentient). So there is a big difference there. Also, we do not have to eat cows (or other animals). I explain these points in the article and in more detail in my comments above.

Thanks for the comments @TurnRightThenLeft:

Glad to hear you agree with the initial thesis. Regarding your conclusion that we should be able to eat dogs, I agree that if it is okay to eat pigs then it is okay to eat dogs, but I disagree that we should be eating dogs.

‘I wouldn't want to eat an animal I'd gotten to know personally, be it dog, cow or pig.’

Of course it is easier to treat someone as an object by consuming them if we haven’t got to know them. But when it comes to being a unique, sentient individual who values their own lives, the animals we’ve gotten to know personally are no different to the countless animals we never meet but whose lives are ended in brutal ways.

No worries @Atman, happy to discuss this issue with anyone who is willing to engage with it.

1) Yes, we need to eat to stay alive, but we do not need to eat animal products to stay alive. We can get more than enough protein without eating animal products. So we eat for survival, but most people choose to eat animal products for trivial reasons such as enjoyment, convenience, habit etc – there is a necessity to eat, but not to eat animal products.
2) Other animals killing each other is very different from humans killing each other. Other animals such as lions kill out of necessity, we kill other animals for trivial reasons, as I explained in point 1.
3) Yes I’m aware of articles along these lines. People need to distinguish between people who starve their baby/do not adequately provide them with nutrients, and vegans. Yes, some people do not provide their baby proper nutrition and some of these HAPPEN to be vegans - this is not BECAUSE they are vegans. Many other people who aren’t vegan also do not provide their baby with proper nutrition and this is not put down to their lack of veganism. Here are just a few of the many healthy vegan children: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/realveganchildren
4) When we say our dog is sad or enjoys the company of another dog I have never heard claims of anthropomorphism. Yet when similar things are said about animals we farm, this word always comes up, even though these animals lead similarly complex lives to our companion animals. Fortunately, at least according to an interview with an animal behaviourist I recently listened to, the use of this term to stop any discussion and investigation into the lives of other animals is happening less and less – and what was once dismissed as “anthropocentric” is now being embraced by nearly everyone studying animal behaviour: http://animalvoices.ca/2010/12/21/wild-justice/
5) I’m unsure about the second sentence, but yes I encourage people to not be cruel to animals but not to stop other animals harming others if they need to for survival.

*Other animals such as lions kill out of necessity, we kill other animals for trivial reasons, as I explained in point 1.*

Ah that might be lions, but species like our closest relatives,
chimpanzees, choose to eat other species, like monkeys. In fact
for chimps, they are a delicacy. Interestinly enough, the males
who are the best hunters, also get a good share of the sex!

Fact is that if people turned vegan, a whole lot of herbivores
would die a miserable death from overpopulation and starvation.
So predator species eating herbivores etc, is in fact part of
nature. Why should we go against what is natural ?

So you continue to remain confused. The issue is not death, but
suffering. If animals are farmed humanely and naturally, its a
win-win situation, for in the end, we will all be recycled, including
you.

@Yabby:

‘If we farm animals, we are are responsible for their wellbeing.’

Yes, but that doesn’t automatically mean that we should be farming them in the first place.

‘So if my dog is old and sick, is the worst thing that I can do, to have it put down? I don't think so.’

No, but this is very different to what happens in animal industries. These animals are killed far before they would otherwise live to for the sake of profit for these industries. Killing a cow because she can longer produce milk and is therefore no longer profitable for the dairy industry is very different to euthanising a dog who is chronically sick and in pain.

‘Yet all cannot survive, that is the reality of nature. There is only food for so many. Some go to err sheep heaven, but they don't know a thing about it. Given that you too will be devoured by the worms and bacteria one day, why should they be any different?’

There is nothing “natural” about confining animals for our use and we need to eat food, but not animal-based foods – see my comments above. The sheep you have shouldn’t be any different to me, just like me, they should get to live out their lives and die of natural causes, rather than having their throats slit for the sake of someone’s profit.

‘Now in a vegan world, none of those animals would have had a life at all, or perhaps as in nature, simply starve to death with overcrowding or old age. Why is that the better option?’

In a vegan world, these animals that are already here would live out their lives in an animal sanctuary and would live there until they died of natural causes. That is a better option. There would not be overcrowding, because, as you point out, we wouldn’t be breeding these animals to use and kill for animal products.

This is in response to your first comment, I will address your most recent comment separately.

@Atman, I didn’t have enough words to response to your final point which was:

‘This is an activist/moral crusade born from the false belief that one is living a superior life to others.’

I don’t see why wanting to change things is a bad thing or a “crusade” – I’m sure you are happy for many changes that we’ve had over the past few hundred years, which have been achieved through activism, people raising moral/ethical issues etc. This issue is not about superiority, it is about trying to stand up for/question people’s attitudes and actions towards an oppressed group in our society.

@Yabby:

Okay, whether or not chimpanzees eat other animals unnecessarily doesn’t really have much to do with what we should be doing. We are talking about what humans should be doing, rather than drawing on other animals to excuse our actions. Other animals do all kinds of things, this does not mean that we should be doing the same.

‘Fact is that if people turned vegan, a whole lot of herbivores would die a miserable death from overpopulation and starvation.’

Why is this? I don’t think so. See my comment above.

‘If animals are farmed humanely and naturally, its a win-win situation…’

This is easy for those who are in the power end of the relationship to say – those who are profiting from this relationship. But just because it is a win-win for you, doesn’t mean that it is a win for the victim facing the violence and enduring suffering and death, despite the “humane” label on their carcass/secretions: http://www.humanemyth.org/

*There is nothing “natural” about confining animals for our use*

Interesting that you think that, Nick. Now in the third world,
villages have chickens, goats, cattle, pigs, not a fence in sight
anywhere. They are hardly confined. Anyone of them could run for
its life, they don't. In our world we need fences, for we invented
cars and without fences, driving would be rather tricky for you,
if you ever went to the country.

*The sheep you have shouldn’t be any different to me,*

In nature
every creature needs to make a living somehow, Nick. If sheep and
cattle were not farmed, those species would hardly exist. So they
would never have a life at all. As it happens, alot of my old girls
live to be a ripe old age, but when their teeth start to go, so do
they. Dying slowly is hardly a pleasant experience. In fact sheep
get it far better than you ever will. They will stick you in an old
peoples home and wait and watch until you gasp your last breathe.
Hardly pleasant. Sheep, luckily for them, avoid all that.

*There would not be overcrowding, because, as you point out, we wouldn’t be breeding these animals to use and kill for animal products.*

Hang on, we don't breed them, they do it all by themselves. Now you
want to deny them their natural urge to have sex and have babies.
My ewes love fussing over their young. Its only when they get older
and become troublesome "teenagers", tht mommy loses interest.

You keep ignoring nature, Nick

http://www.jayhanson.us/page80.htm

Nick, this is what happened, when they released 29 deer on St
Matthew Island and left them to their own devices, with no
interference from man.

The net result, mass starvation and suffering. Never ignore the
law of unintended consequences, or it might bite you in the arse.

Nick Pendergrast.

Enjoyment is NOT a trivial reason to do things in life. Enjoyment in life is NECESSARY for mood stability. The 'wrongness' of enjoying eating meat is merely a value judgement based on a sense of having superior ideas to others.

You said "I don’t see why wanting to change things is a bad thing or a “crusade” "

I didn't say changing things is bad or a crusade. I said what you are doing is a crusade. 'Wanting to change things' is what Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler both aimed for. 'Change' therefore has no inherent value in itself. In your case its a euphemism for forcing people to do what you want them to do even against their will because you believe your way is morally superior. Its a form of misguided moral elitism.

Veganism increases the risk of developmental problems in children. Risking childrens' health because of a parental obsession is simply abhorrent and criminal.

You called animals 'oppressed group in our society'. Really that's sounding quite strange now. They are not humans. Anthropomorphism, yet again. Now you're stealing language intended to describe a human condition for animals. Its like describing a group of your friends as a herd. Just plain wrong.

Your logic would say ants are oppressed too. We kill them wantonly every day while walking. Your logic eventually leads to absurdity.

Technically, by your logic, lions don't need to kill to survive either because their nutrition can be replaced. They do so by choice. They like eating meat. Their protein can be just as easily replaced by a vegetarian diet as human meat protein.

You and other activists are trying to write the term Anthropomorphism out of the books because you have no argument against it. You're pretending its used for the sake of oppression and suppression of an argument. But that is merely a defensive measure to preserve the consistency of your ideas. The suppression you feel is the mental impasse resulting from a lack of answers you have to the concept.

Let people decide for themselves what they want to eat.

If I can take your silence as agreement, Mr Pendergrast, we are at least able to move on from the sillier parts of your article.

Firstly, you now accept that a "chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy" cutting the throat of a puppy "in front of horrified onlookers, including a five-year-old child" is cruelty of a different order of magnitude than that which occurs in our abattoirs.

Next, you appear content to accept that humans are not natural herbivores, and the need for vegans to consume dietary supplements of various kinds merely underlines this simple fact.

I have no quarrel with vegetarians. Most of those I know avoid meat for their own reasons, that range from "I can't stand the taste of meat" to "I can't abide the thought of killing animals for food". Few of these happy people make it their business to lecture others about their choice, I'm glad to say. Perhaps with the honourable exception of my partner, for whom regular exhortations to eschew "eating dead animals" has become a hobby, rather than a bone of contention.

>>...but most people choose to eat animal products for trivial reasons such as enjoyment, convenience, habit etc.<<

I suspect that most people do not consider enjoyment, convenience or even habit to be particularly trivial. While "enjoyment" is thoroughly personal - I dislike rhubarb and tripe with equal vehemence, for example - I would be as miserable as sin if asked to survive on only one or the other. Or both, come to that.

Convenience and habit are the two pillars that are based upon our omnivorous nature. Entire industries have been built on the fact that we eat both meat and veg., and as such, we rely upon the convenience created by our major retailers to indulge our habit of shopping at Coles every week.

Enjoy your vegetarianism. But please, don't expect us to buy into the proposition that the image of a hobo torturing a puppy is emblematic of our communal cruelty.

>>B12 is available in vegan supplements and fortified foods. I get mine mainly from (fortified) soy milk. It is also present in some savoury yeast flakes, mock meats etc. Once again, if people are not getting enough from what they eat and drink, there are vegan B12 supplements.<<

But it isn't naturally present in any vegan food. And I think there's a strong case for getting your nutrition naturally and not from artificially fortified foods or supplements: it tastes a lot better. There is absolutely no comparison between mock meat and a nicely poached egg: the former makes my skin crawl and the latter is sex on toast.

It doesn't have to involve any cruelty: my neighbor keeps chooks and I often receive surplus eggs if they've been laying well. They look like pretty happy chooks to me - insofar as a chicken can be said to look happy - and I know they're not being treated cruelly. A few laying chooks would go a long way to meeting a person's B12 requirements without having to resort to supplements. Not everyone can keep chooks and I still buy eggs. I always buy the RSPCA approved ones. I figure if anybody knows if a chicken is being mistreated it's the RSPCA.

On a related note: Nick did you happen to catch news of this sickening case of animal abuse?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/14802640/hundreds-of-roosters-to-be-put-down-after-cockfighting-bust/

Maybe you could write an article about the horrors of underground cockfighting rings. That seems like a far worse example of animal cruelty than eating the occasional egg.

Cheers,

Tony

@Pericles:

I didn’t respond to your post yesterday because I ran out of posts (there is a limit of 4 per article in a 24 hour period on this website) – rather than because my silence indicated agreement. I’ll respond to your more recent comment later, but here is my response to your earlier one:

Please let me know how I have distorted your side of the conversation.

Why does the fact that the dog had their throat cut by a ‘chronic solvent sniffer’ make it worse than the “clinical” conditions of a slaughterhouse? First of all, we may like to think of the conditions as “clinical”, but I think the differences between slaughterhouse conditions and this puppy slaughter case are more a perception rather than a reality. A reality that can be established if we actually look into what goes on in a slaughterhouse, rather than just assuming things are “clinical”. For example, I did an interview with a Western Australian slaughterhouse worker, and not only did the conditions not sound any better than this puppy slaughter (actually they sounded worse), but most people slitting these sheep’s throats were also using drugs to cope with their job: http://ebookbrowse.com/nick-pendergrast-the-silence-of-the-lambs-pdf-d366878864

This case is certainly not an “isolated incident”, as is revealed in more large scale studies such as the book ‘Slaughterhouse’: http://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-Shocking-Inhumane-Treatment-Industry/dp/1573921661 If you look into slaughterhouses, you will find high levels of drug use, so once again, the differences between this puppy slaughter and the slaughter of other animals, is more based on perceptions than facts.

I am not trying to make an argument about what is natural, I am saying it is very possible to get all the nutrients we need without animal products. Yes, I live in leafy Perth suburbia and with the food I eat and other things I buy I try to do the least harm to other animals (and humans, as well as the environment) – surely that is better than living in this same suburbia and knowingly doing more harm based on what people would be forced to do ‘in a more "natural" environment’?

@Yabby:

‘Now in the third world,…’

A lot of people commenting on this article have pointed to other societies, situations etc to justify what they are doing in our society and our current conditions. Why not focus on what is best to do in our society, right now?

‘If sheep and cattle were not farmed, those species would hardly exist.’

Yes, but someone doesn’t have interests until they exist. Not bringing someone into existence harms no one.

‘alot of my old girls live to be a ripe old age’

In the dairy industry, male calves are killed after just a few days and the females are killed after just a few years. Cows would otherwise live to over twenty years. So you can hardly justify the killings committed by animal industries as “mercy killings” of “old animals”.

‘Hang on, we don't breed them, they do it all by themselves.’

This may the case in your particular farm, but “artificial insemination” is standard practise in many industries, even companies producing supposedly “humane” animal products. See pages 6-7 of this booklet, for example: http://www.peacefulprairie.org/humane-myth.html

Either way, humans have bred and modified other animals to suit our needs, not theirs – for example selecting breeding of Merino sheep who produce more wool.

‘You keep ignoring nature’

It is funny that we live in society that is not at all natural, but then when it comes to consuming animal products people are all of a sudden very concerned about doing what is “natural”. Are you really concerned about living “naturally” in all aspects of your life? Also, buying pre-packaged meat, dairy and eggs is not significantly different to buying pre-packaged lentils, chick peas and beans when it comes to being natural.

‘Nick, this is what happened, when they released 29 deer on St’Matthew Island and left them to their own devices, with no interference from man.’

When it comes to domesticated animals I am not advocating we “let them loose” like this example you brought up. The best case scenario is living out their lives in a sanctuary like Edgar’s Mission in Victoria: http://www.edgarsmission.org.au/

*Why not focus on what is best to do in our society, right now?*

Well I am Nick and the point was that fences stop traffic running
into livestock.

*Not bringing someone into existence harms no one.*

So Nick the day your parents made you, if they had gone to play golf
instead, would it have made no difference? Or have you enjoyed the
life that you have had so far? Why can't my sheep enjoy their lives
too? According to you, they would be better off, never having existed.
They might protest about that, given the choice.

*This may the case in your particular farm*

Well yes, but I am not claiming that all animal production is humane.
What I am claiming is that some is, as in this case and there is
nothing wrong with eating the meat. If there were no livestock here
keeping the grass down, the place would simply be enflamed with huge
fires in most summers, when lightning strikes the dry grass and
Perth would cop the smoke. Hardly environmentally friendly.So
herbivores have a role to play in nature and those species which
eat herbivores have a role to play. The meatworks option is far
kinder than wild dogs ripping them to bits, slowly.

So with no herbivores around, how are you going to control all the
wildfires?

@Atman:

So enjoyment is a satisfactory reason to harm or kill someone else? If someone killed (or kicked) or otherwise harmed a dog, I wouldn’t accept the fact they got enjoyment out of it as an adequate justification. If we do accept enjoyment is a good enough reason, then I don’t think any actions towards other animals can be condemned. Are there any actions at all towards animals that you disagree with? If so, why?

‘In your case its a euphemism for forcing people to do what you want them to do even against their will because you believe your way is morally superior.’

How is an article challenging our current attitudes and actions towards animals forcing anyone to do anything against their will? This is an opinion piece – people can agree with it and change their actions and attitudes, or they can disagree and carry on doing what they’ve been doing. How is providing an alternative opinion not letting people eat what they want to eat?

I do not encourage people to go vegan because I believe my way is morally superior, but rather because the more vegans, the less animals suffer and die for animal products. For anyone concerned about animals, I believe it is the most important step to take on their behalf.

‘Veganism increases the risk of developmental problems in children. Risking childrens' health because of a parental obsession is simply abhorrent and criminal.’

Wanting to avoid harm and death to animals is not a ‘parental obsession’. It is very easy for kids or people of any age to get all their nutrients through vegan sources, so I don’t see how feeding kids a healthy vegan diet is ‘abhorrent and criminal.’

Regarding anthropomorphism, I don’t see why oppression is limited to humans – of course it has been historically, but that is because humans have only recently began to consider animals’ interests. Animals have a capacity to suffer just like us, so why can’t they be oppressed?

Ants, lions – why not focus on the issue? Should humans be killing cows, pigs, chickens, sheep etc?

With pleasure, Mr Pendergrast.

>>Please let me know how I have distorted your side of the conversation<<

You recruited the word "natural" to your cause, and proceeded to use it in a fashion that supports your view that the human condition is not naturally omnivorous. Hence:

>>... if we really lived our lives by what is natural I’m sure they would look very different in so many ways, not just food – we better throw out our iPods and computers, for example<<

Which is, of course, nonsense.

It is a perfectly natural activity to use our brains to invent stuff. In fact, it has been a notable aspect of our evolution as homo sapiens, one that sets us apart from other species. It has also been a feature of our shared history that we have killed animals for food, not out of cruelty but from a need to feed ourselves naturally, from our environment.

iPods and computers are artifacts that we have created. The act of creating them through our brain activity was natural to us, just as eating meat is natural to us.

>>Why does the fact that the dog had their throat cut by a ‘chronic solvent sniffer’ make it worse than the “clinical” conditions of a slaughterhouse?<<

Ask that five-year-old.

>>...most people slitting these sheep’s throats were also using drugs to cope with their job<<

There comes a point in discussions of this type, where one party is clearly struggling to justify their stance, and proceeds to call on "facts" that only they can verify. This is such an occasion.

>>I am not trying to make an argument about what is natural, I am saying it is very possible to get all the nutrients we need without animal products.<<

Similarly, I am not saying that it is not possible to get all the nutrients we need without animal products. But I am saying that eating meat is a perfectly natural act, based on our shared ancestry, and that in order to avoid doing so, you have to resort to supplements that are not independently found in nature.

Nick Pendergrast

1. You said "So enjoyment is a satisfactory reason to harm or kill someone else?" But I didn't say that?! I said enjoyment is a necessary part of life in response to your previous post trivialising enjoyment. You're jumping to conclusions. Your statement is about cruelty mine is about enjoyment. There's nothing wrong with enjoying eating.

2. True your article doesn't force people to do what you want but I am yet to hear you support freedom of meat eaters to continue to do so. I suspect if you had the power you would enforce vegetarianism.

3. You said "I do not encourage people to go vegan because I believe my way is morally superior, but rather because the more vegans, the less animals suffer and die for animal products"
- and they will become better people for it? Right?
Death of animals need not entail suffering. Also, Nature has always functioned by lower species sacrificing themselves for higher species in the food chain. Humans are an apex predator and an omnivore. Death of one animal gives life to another.

4. You said re veganism "Wanting to avoid harm and death to animals is not a ‘parental obsession’".

It is when it takes precedence over the health of a child.

5. You said "I don’t see why oppression is limited to humans"
Well, as I as said, your logic is proven false by reductio ad absurdum. Why stop at cows, what about flies and ticks?

Animals can experience pain, but 'suffer like us' ? There's no evidence for this except by anthropomorphic thinking. Animals aren't humans trapped in the body of a cow or fish.

I suspect you want to focus on edible animals and their 'suffering' because you wish to attack humans.People can eat meat without cruelty.

@Pericles:

‘Few of these happy people make it their business to lecture others about their choice’

The website Online OPINION is full of various opinions on all kinds of issues. Why is stating my opinion on our relationship with other animals lecturing, while all the other opinion pieces are not. Where is the difference between making an argument and lecturing? Why is my piece considered lecturing, but not all the other articles on this site?

‘Entire industries have been built on the fact that we eat both meat and veg.’

This is (appropriately) a chicken and egg scenario – people eat animal products, but surely it is clear that these industries eg meat and dairy also create and expand the demand for animal products through advertising which constantly reinforces that animal products are natural, normal and necessary. Think of the ‘Read Meat, we were meant to eat it’ ads, for example. So while many people consider animal products natural, normal and necessary (as many people commenting on this article have argued), this can’t be totally separated from the industries who profit from and help to create these beliefs.

‘It has also been a feature of our shared history that we have killed animals for food…’

Yes but lots of things are part of our shared history that most people now accept are wrong and we don’t want to carry on today. Just because we’ve done something in the past, doesn’t mean we should now. Also, our shared history has also meant great inclusiveness in who is included ethically. While in the past philosophers often focussed on white males, the groups who we consider our actions towards has expanded to other genders, ethnicities, and more recently, species. So it all depends which part of our shared history we want to carry on today and which parts we want to leave behind.

‘you have to resort to supplements that are not independently found in nature.’

I don’t take any supplements – some vegans and non-vegans do. Supplements and fortified foods and drinks are consumed by vegans and non-vegans alike – so what?

@Tony Lavis:

‘there's a strong case for getting your nutrition naturally and not from artificially fortified foods or supplements: it tastes a lot better.’

I agree and most of what I eat and drink is not fortified. However, in terms of eating animal products because they taste better, as I explained to @Atman above, if enjoyment is an acceptable excuse for imposing harm and death on someone else, then how can we condemn any actions towards animals? Would you excuse the cockfighting that you identified as ‘a sickening case of animal abuse’ if you knew those doing the cockfighting did so because they enjoyed it?

What is the difference between ‘eating the occasional egg’ and visiting the occasional cockfight? Both can only be justified through trivial reasons eg enjoyment – there is no need to do either. Sure, chickens suffer in cockfighting, but they also suffer in the egg industry, including RSPCA “happy” eggs. The RSPCA’s preferred method of killing the males for the “crime” of not producing eggs is “quick maceration”, which, as I explain in the article, means being blended alive: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-happens-with-male-chicks-in-the-egg-production-industry_100.html

Yes, I could write an article about how horrible cockfighting is, and of course I agree it is. But what would the point be? Everyone would pat themselves on the back that at least they’re not contributing to the “really bad” forms of animal cruelty, while carrying on consuming products that also cause suffering and death to animals and are also completely unnecessary. Nearly everyone reading the article would already agree with my argument about how cock fighting is bad, whereas most people accept that consuming animal products is fine. I believe that in terms of making a difference in terms of the number of animals slaughtered and otherwise harmed by people, it is much more effective to focus on encouraging people to question their contribution to this suffering and slaughter. I don’t see why joining the chorus of people condemning actions that nearly everyone opposes already is as effective, although obviously many people consuming animal products would rather read that, rather than being challenged.

Nick, the problem remains your flawed philosophy. Whatever makes
you think that "dying of natural causes" is such a pleasant
experience, especially for non humans. But of course you don't
see it that much on telly, so you don't think about it either.

I live with nature around me and see it happening and I assure you,
its not pleasant. Animals too sick to walk, no teeth so they
starve, some disease which slowly kills them, and I mean slowly,
so it can be agonising for hours, days, weeks.

I've seen it all, blind kangaroos, animals with cancerous growths,
animals attacked by crows, eagles, dogs, bits of them missing.

So on my farm, what matters is all about minimising suffering. If
an animal is suffering, its either treated if possible, if not
possible, it is shot. I make the decision to take its life, based
on minimal suffering. To me that is a far more important question.

@Yabby:

‘According to you, they would be better off, never having existed.’

Yes, once we’re brought into existence, we’re glad that we were. But such a realisation only comes about once we’re actually here. Not bringing someone into existence doesn’t harm anyone (because they are not someone yet).

‘I am not claiming that all animal production is humane. What I am claiming is that some is’

I think the concept of “humane” slaughter and animal products generally is accepted far too easily. Here is my opinion on “humane” slaughter, from an article I’ve written on the topic: “Humane slaughter” is an oxymoron – the two words simply do not go together. The word “humane” is associated with compassion – surely being compassionate towards someone would at the very least rule out killing them for profit.

Are you saying the reason you kill sheep has nothing to do with commercial considerations?

Also, I think even if we accept this argument that animal slaughter and animal products are not necessarily but can be humane (which I don’t), I really don’t think many people take it too seriously. Do you really make sure every animal product you consume comes from “humane” production – however you define that? I think most people point to a situation they would be comfortable with, then use that to consume animal products produced in any conditions at all.

‘If there were no livestock here keeping the grass down, the place would simply be enflamed with huge fires’

How about not having grass for animals but growing plant-based foods on the land instead. There are definitely options, if we think outside the box, rather than just carrying on doing what we’ve been doing because that’s the way it has always been: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bp2-bsRaow

‘The meatworks option is far kinder than wild dogs ripping them to bits, slowly.’

But I am not advocating wild dogs ripping farm animals apart – I am advocating a sanctuary situation where they are protected from such predators. It is not one or the other.

@Atman:

1. I’m saying enjoyment is a trivial reason for imposing suffering and death on someone else. If we accept enjoyment is a good enough reason to harm and/or kill an animal, I don’t see how we can condemn practises like cock fighting (see my points to another commenter above) – they could simply say they enjoyed participating in cock fighting (though they have no need to do so), just as you enjoy eating animal products (though you have no need to do so).

2. No I don’t ‘support freedom of meat eaters to continue to do so’ any more than I support the freedom of cock fighters to continue to do so. Laws enforcing veganism would be pointless because 99% of people don’t currently have a problem with animal products. It is not about enforcing anything, it is about changing attitudes. About 99% of people oppose unnecessary suffering to animals, yet about 99% of people unnecessarily consume animal products that cause suffering – so I think there is plenty of potential for a change in attitudes and actions.

3. Yes, I think it is a better choice to not consume animal products than to consume them, just as it is a better choice for me not to go around my neighbourhood kicking dogs because I enjoy it than to do so. But I would advocate people not kick dogs and not consume animal products because doing so means less harm to animals, not because of “moral superiority”. Regarding us killing animals somehow giving life to another, surely a better way to give life to another is not to kill them?

4. As I’ve pointed out, it is very possible for vegan kids to be very healthy – this is confirmed not only by many healthy vegan kids but is also accepted by mainstream health organisations like the American Dietetic Association.

5. If my argument about cows and pigs is so ridiculous, why bother going to flies and tics? And your idea on “edible animals” is very much shaped by society – why are these animals the “edible” ones?

*Not bringing someone into existence doesn’t harm anyone (because they are not someone yet).*

So what you are essentially saying Nick, is that if the planet was
spinning with nothing but cockroaches and ants onboard, it would
not matter.

*“Humane slaughter” is an oxymoron – the two words simply do not go together.*

Oh yes they do. For without population control, there would be much
suffering and starvation. OTOH, who eats me after I die, I really
don't care about. Fact is, I will be recycled, one way or the other.
I would also prefer to die swiftly and without knowing its about to
happen, then suffer to my last breathe, as some claim that its humane.

Farming livestock first of all means costs. My sheep avoid hunger in
summer, by being fed around 100 tonnes of oats etc. Those and other
costs need to be paid for. Even farmers need to pay their bills, just
like normal people. What is evil about that?

*How about not having grass for animals but growing plant-based foods on the land instead.*

Because many Austalian soils are old and clapped out and farmers have
to pay their bills. Doing things which do not pay the bills, means
going broke. Livestock suit some country which is not suitable for
crops.

*But I am not advocating wild dogs ripping farm animals apart*

So why don't you rush out and first of all save the wild camels,
horses, donkeys, buffaloes, goats and other animals roaming around
in our outback, being ripped apart by wild dogs now

>>5. If my argument about cows and pigs is so ridiculous, why bother going to flies and tics? And your idea on “edible animals” is very much shaped by society – why are these animals the “edible” ones?<<

They're not the only ones: here is a list of some of the animals people use for food. It's not exhaustive but it will give you some idea of the variety out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_meat_animals

Are they all off the menu? Even the insects? What about the molluscs: are oysters sentient? How do you know?

Cheers,

Tony

Dogs form life long dependent bond founded on love and love alone...

killing a dog to eat in times of plenty shows a particular lack of human condition that values 'love' highly(god is love)...that takes this individual out side the normal spectrum...into lower spectrum...ie a subhuman...

Horses in particular are capable of great loving bonds...and this form of expression appeals to men particularly...yeah...men in the normal albeit shrinking spectrum...

Cats dont have 'love' expressed in human form but express strong dependence which appeals more to women whom want to be accepted exactly as what they are and be needed...

Pigs are very intelligent but express little want to bond with humans in general...they prefer mud...

and so it seems when it comes to human_animal interactions...there is a great variation depending on species...

sam
Ps~try to develop a dog_like loving bond with a taipan and youll see what I mean...in the afterlife...

Ah, Mr Pendergrast, forced to resort to the "it's only my opinion, and I have a right to express it" defence.

>>Why is stating my opinion on our relationship with other animals lecturing, while all the other opinion pieces are not.<<

There is no question, you have an absolute right to your vegetarianism, and to express your view that vegetarianism is a jolly good thing.

However, when you choose to write an article that suggests the habits of your omnivorous fellow-citizens are analogous to those of a chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy slitting the throat of a puppy in the presence of a five year-old, you are in lecture territory.

>>It is the Western diet that is elitist. This diet high in animal products is so wasteful and does absolutely nothing to help ‘massive swathes of the world's population’ trying to meet their ‘basic needs of human life on earth’<<

You support this with massively generalized statistics on the aggregate usage of edible grains - "The world’s cattle alone consume enough food to feed 8.7 billion people – more than the entire human population." Pop statistics that ultimately have no useful application in real life.

>>Enjoyment (‘meat tastes good’) surely isn’t a very good reason to take someone else’s life<<

You are perfectly free to regard your fellow-citizens as callous murderers, bent on killing for their own enjoyment. But I think - and this is my opinion - that you are simply using your right to an opinion as a fig-leaf for your desire to lecture us on how awful we all are.

>>...lots of things are part of our shared history that most people now accept are wrong<<

Ah, but... "most people" still hold the belief that eating meat is perfectly ok. Maybe (my partner certainly holds this view) in the far distant future we will have adapted our lives and lifestyles to eliminate the need, at all levels, to eat meat. Until then, you are in the minority.

And your lecturing in fact borders on hectoring.

While I accept your wish to be vegetarian/vegan I reject your argument. Here are some reasons:

1. Your intolerance of and rejection of the rights of meat eaters while they do not reject your right not to eat meat is a form of moral elitism even though you reject this idea.

2. You have no substantial argument against anthropomorphism. You merely reject it. You attribute certain human like thoughts, feelings and the even capacity to have a relationships to animals on merely sentimental grounds and something to do with having a nervous system. However, the nervous system argument lead to reductio ad absurdum which you are unable to address.

3. You centre your attack on those species eaten by man even though there are a multitude of other animals which die cruelly in other ways. It seems you prefer that animals not be born at all or die cruelly in the wild than to live well and be slaughtered humanely.

4. The argument you present is centuries old, though you seem to believe its new and progressive. It has been rejected by the majority on numerous occasions.

5.Your arguments and even the title of your essay are emotionally driven. You know putting puppy and slaughter together is purely emotive and attention grabbing and adds nothing to the argument other than sentimentality.

I have nothing further to say on your opinion though I don't wish to change it. The same cannot be said for yourself and my opinion.

@Yabby:

'So what you are essentially saying Nick, is that if the planet was spinning with nothing but cockroaches and ants onboard, it would not matter.’

Don’t worry, if you decide to not eat, wear, use animal products – this is not the result.

‘Even farmers need to pay their bills, just like normal people. What is evil about that?’

I have seen farmers justifying slaughtering animals by comparing it to euthanasia. These two things are totally different. Most animals slaughtered for the various industries I covered in the article (meat, dairy, eggs, wool etc) are slaughtered after just a few years and could otherwise live long, healthy lives – but are slaughtered for financial reasons eg “prime” for meat production, not producing enough eggs/dairy etc. So I think it starts with a financial incentive to slaughter them when it makes the most economic sense, then after, there is an attempt to justify this slaughter under “humanitarian” grounds.

‘Because many Austalian soils are old and clapped out and farmers have to pay their bills.’

Again, there is a financial incentive to use and kill animals, then the ethical/humanitarian/mercy reasons come after to try and justify killing for profit.

‘So why don't you rush out and first of all save the wild camels, horses, donkeys, buffaloes, goats and other animals roaming around in our outback, being ripped apart by wild dogs now’

I don’t see what this has to do with whether or not we should be eating and wearing animal products. One individual choosing not to eat and wear animal products is not going to end all of the suffering in the world, but it will reduce suffering. I don’t see why we should consume products that harm domesticated animals just because there is suffering amongst wild animal regardless – seems like a pretty weak justification to me.

@Tony Lavis:

‘Are they all off the menu? Even the insects? What about the molluscs: are oysters sentient?’

Again, as you have quoted me saying to @Atman above: ‘If my argument about cows and pigs is so ridiculous, why bother going to flies and tics?’ If you and others were so confident that it is fine to slaughter animals like cows and pigs for food, clothing – then why go to cases where you think the case is weaker? Even if oysters are not found to be sentient, what does this have to do with whether we should be eating animals like cows and pigs, who clearly are sentient? I personally give insects, oysters etc the “benefit of the doubt” and do not consume honey, oyster sauce etc – but again, I don’t see what bringing up these more “marginal” cases has to do with the argument. If oysters are found not to be sentient, does that somehow make it okay to eat cows who are clearly sentient? I don’t see how.

@Sam said:

‘killing a dog to eat in times of plenty shows a particular lack of human condition that values 'love' highly(god is love)...that takes this individual out side the normal spectrum...into lower spectrum...ie a subhuman...’

I don’t see why killing a dog in times of plenty is more subhuman, “lower” etc than killing/consuming other animals in times of plenty.

‘and so it seems when it comes to human_animal interactions...there is a great variation depending on species...’

Yes, there are variations in how other animals relate to humans, but I don’t see how this is relevant in terms of deciding which species are slaughtered.

‘Pigs are very intelligent but express little want to bond with humans in general’

Perhaps you haven’t spent much time with pigs? Spend half an hour at Edgar’s Mission animal sanctuary and you’ll find otherwise. You can read about the different pigs (and other animals) at Edgar’s Mission here: http://www.edgarsmission.org.au/animals/?wh_animalstatus=current

And here is just one example of a pig there and how they like to bond with humans: http://www.edgarsmission.org.au/animals/pompy-do/

*One individual choosing not to eat and wear animal products is not going to end all of the suffering in the world, but it will reduce suffering*

Well or so you imagine. That really depends on what you eat and
what sort of animals were raised. Now if they were lambs on my
farm, they did not suffer, but actually had very happy lives.
Personally I also eat free range eggs and free range chickens.
So the only thing that I would achieve by following your advice
is to deny them the happy lives which they now have. Yes those
lives end, but so does yours. If you are hit by a bus tomorrow,
it will be shortened too, like it or not. Thats life, if we risk
living, we risk dying. But do not confuse dying with suffering.

I actually enjoy having animals, watching them contentedly grazing
lush feed, lambs playing games and all the rest. I could have been
a banker in Zurich and made real money lol, farming is at best
a lifestyle, hardly too profitable.

But farming has also taught me the realities of Darwinian evolution
theory. Only so many can survive at any one time, or the result
is mass starvation.

Now if you made a case for only eating humanely farmed meat, it would
make some kind of sense, but veganism is at best a confused philosophy
which ignores nature.

So farming as I do, is a win for the animals and me, and win-wins are
about as good as it gets in life.

@Pericles:

When your article ‘suggests the habits of your omnivorous fellow-citizens are analogous to those of a chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy slitting the throat of a puppy in the presence of a five year-old, you are in lecture territory.’

Okay, that’s fine if you consider a lecture, but I think I have made a well-supported argument about the similarity between these habits and this incident, both in the article and in these comments. You obviously disagree. But regarding the puppy slaughter incident being worse because a five year-old being there, obviously that would be traumatic for the five year old, but it makes no different for the animal being slaughtered whether a five year-old is there or not. And while some details are different (such as the five year-old being there), it is very similar over all – an animal being slaughtered for food.

‘Pop statistics that ultimately have no useful application in real life.’

Okay, here is a statistic that has ‘useful application in real life’:

‘A global vegan diet (of conventional crops) would reduce dietary emissions by 87 percent, compared to a token 8 percent for “sustainable meat and dairy.” ’ http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/16/agnostic-carnivores-and-global-warming-why-enviros-go-after-coal-and-not-cows/

You can reduce your environmental impact by not consuming animal products – surely that is a statistic that has ‘application in real life.’

‘You are perfectly free to regard your fellow-citizens as callous murderers, bent on killing for their own enjoyment.’

I don’t think people are ‘bent on killing for their own enjoyment’ and believe that the arguments for veganism make sense to many people, and some will put this into practise. As I explained in a comment above: ‘About 99% of people oppose unnecessary suffering to animals, yet about 99% of people unnecessarily consume animal products that cause suffering – so I think there is plenty of potential for a change in attitudes and actions.’

‘you are in the minority’

Yes but that doesn’t have much to do with the validity of my argument. People opposing racism, sexism etc were in the minority in the past, it didn’t mean they were wrong.

@Atman:

‘I have nothing further to say on your opinion though I don't wish to change it.’

That’s fine. I’ll respond to your points – you can take these responses as rhetorical questions if you’d like.

1. In your first point I’ll replace ‘meat eaters’ with ‘cock fighters’ – no one has been able to say why these two practises are significantly different, and no one is arguing that we should not try to change the opinions and actions of cock fighters: ‘Your intolerance of and rejection of the rights of cock fighters while they do not reject your right not to engage in cock fighting is a form of moral elitism even though you reject this idea.’

2. Yes, I reject the argument against anthropomorphism. I believe that ability to suffer, desire to avoid suffering and death, form relationships etc is not limited to humans and assigning such traits just to humans despite evidence to the contrary is a blatant example of speciesism (discrimination based on species).

3. I focus on animals eaten by people because that is about 99% of the animals slaughtered by humans. I also bring up using animals for clothing. I also oppose the use of animals for entertainment etc. But just because animals die for other reasons beyond food, I don’t see why that implies we should be eating them.

4. As I’ve just commented to someone else: ‘Yes [I’m in the minority] but that doesn’t have much to do with the validity of my argument. People opposing racism, sexism etc were in the minority in the past, it didn’t mean they were wrong.’ Just because the majority of people do something at a particular point in time in a particular society, doesn’t automatically make it right.

5. ‘Your arguments and even the title of your essay are emotionally driven’: I don’t think this is a particularly emotional argument but I also don’t see anything wrong with having some emotion either. Whether there is emotion or not, there are lots of facts, supported with sources (see the hyperlinks throughout the article).

G'day Nick
These bloody aphids are hammering my lettuce.
Any advice?

>>I personally give insects, oysters etc the “benefit of the doubt” and do not consume honey, oyster sauce etc – but again, I don’t see what bringing up these more “marginal” cases has to do with the argument.<<

That's because you're looking at it the wrong way. The moral problem to be dealt with is cruelty to animals and your solution is veganism: completely avoiding all animal products. The oysters and the insects and the eggs over the fence from my neighbor's happy chooks are examples of edible animal products that don't involve any cruelty to animals. Clearly veganism isn't the only solution to the moral problem we're trying to answer: it may not even be the best solution. I consider veganism an act of pointless and possibly dangerous self-flagellation when the obvious answer is ethical omnivorism.

Cheers,

Tony

@Yabby:

“Free range” labels may make people feel better, but they do not necessarily involve significantly better treatment of the animals (if at all). Peaceful Prairie animal sanctuary investigates so-called “free range” farms and what they have found is not pretty, especially for chickens – they do not live the happy lives you imagine when you see the happy packaging:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

Yes, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow, but would that excuse someone deliberately running over me because they could make money from it? I don’t think so.

I don’t think dying in itself is suffering, but killing someone because it is in your economic interest to do so when they could otherwise live longer, happy, healthy lives is causing suffering or at least imposing harm. You are depriving them of future pleasure. As I mentioned to another commenter, animal behaviourist Jonathan Balcombe explains this point about other animals valuing their own lives from 34.52-36.44 of this interview: http://animalvoices.ca/2011/03/29/unpacking-the-animal-umwelt/

It is possible to enjoy spending time with animals without killing them for profit. As I’ve already mentioned, spending time at an animal sanctuary (which actually considers the interests of animals, rather than their profits), would be one alternative. Yes, farming is not the most profitable lifestyle around, but that doesn’t change my point earlier that when animals are raised for a certain product, they are killed when it is in the economic interest of that industry, not when it is in the animal's best interest (euthanasia).

I don’t see how not killing animals is going to lead to mass starvation.

“Humane” is a nice word to put in front of something to justify it, however, I think “humane” animal products is a very flawed idea, for reasons I’ve already outlined. Of course people prefer the “humane” myth argument, because it makes them feel better about continuing to contribute to the slaughter of animals. But while people may feel good about themselves, it doesn’t mean it is a “win” for the animal who is on the receiving end of the violence.

@carnivore:

I’m assuming you’re not genuinely concerned about the aphids, so I’ll just repeat a response I’ve already given to people bringing up examples like this, rather than the animals I mention in the article eg cows, pigs, sheep and chickens:

As I’ve said to @Atman and others above: ‘If my argument about cows and pigs is so ridiculous, why bother going to flies and tics?’ If you and others were so confident that it is fine to slaughter animals like cows and pigs for food and clothing – then why go to cases where you think the case is weaker? Even if these more “marginal cases” are not found to be sentient, what does this have to do with whether we should be eating animals like cows and pigs, who clearly are sentient? If these “marginal cases” are found not to be sentient, does that somehow make it okay to eat cows who are clearly sentient? I don’t see how.

@Tony Lavis:

‘The … eggs over the fence from my neighbor's happy chooks are examples of edible animal products that don't involve any cruelty to animals.’

Is it not cruel to gas or blend baby chicks to death? Regardless of how your neighbour’s chooks are treated, they are likely to have come from hatcheries, where male chicks are killed in various horrible ways including the ones I’ve just described, just because they can’t produce eggs. Even if all the egg companies closed and we went to only backyard egg production, this wouldn’t solve the problem. People don’t want male chickens for the same reason that industry doesn't. If we want to eat eggs, even if eat them exclusively from backyard egg production, it is going to involve the killing of male chicks, who are killed at the hatcheries that provide people and industries with female chickens for egg production. See the section ‘A Rare Glimpse Inside a Hatchery’ from this site to learn more about hatcheries and it is for reasons such as this that I dispute the claim that the eggs from your neighbour do not involve any cruelty to animals:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

I also doubt that the only animal products you eat are from your neighbour’s backyard. Animal industries (even ones with really happy labels on them) involve even more suffering – again, see the link above for more on that. There are standard practises that occur across the board “humane”, “free-range”, “organic” – meaning that all animal products lead to cruelty to animals. For one, all forms of animal production involve unnecessarily cutting someone’s life short for no good reason – I don’t see how that is ethical.

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/the-truth.html

Putting a word in front of something eg “ethical” may make us feel better about carrying on doing what we were already doing, but it doesn’t make it so. How is it ethical to unnecessarily cut someone’s life short just for our enjoyment or other trivial reasons (as I have argued at length above, there are no non-trivial reasons for eating animal products in our society eg necessity, survival).

*I don’t think dying in itself is suffering,*

Well that is the key point Nick, its not.

* when they could otherwise live longer, happy, healthy lives*

So where would they all go to live out their lives? If they jumped
over the fence and all settled on your vegie patch, how would you
then live?

*You are depriving them of future pleasure.*

No more than you are, by insisting that they should never have
lived at all, rather than say be a sheep on my farm. At least my
sheep get a life and whilst alive, they can enjoy their lives and
don't suffer.You have this romantic notion of what dying of natural
causes entails. Go to an old peoples home and watch a few dying.
Its not pleasant, often very slow, with lots of suffering.

*I don’t see how not killing animals is going to lead to mass starvation.*

Because they all need food and when the food runs out, who will
feed them? You are ignoring basic evolution theory.

Nicholas wrote "I don’t see why killing a dog in times of plenty is more subhuman..."

Sorry about delay Nick...

Ill try to address this important point...Also I suggest you read the judges 'Reason for Decision" in this case...itll give you an idea of what Law holds as high importance in these matters...

Ill approach it on evolutionary basis...

Since our ancestor climbed out of primordial ooze looking for better food supply...their brain was mainly 'brain stem' brain...which basically controls all internal functions, heart, breathing etc...and 'reflexes'...so hungry=get food...meaning little intelligence in it...

As evolution continued and brain developed...'midbrain' developed on top of brain stem...which among other things 'seat of emotion'...so allowed animals to develop higher social structure like herding for protection...

On top of the midbrain developed 'forebrain...which seat of 'Intelligence'...top of this evolution is humans...

medically we know that higher or advanced evolutionarily brain part is the more it requires the lower sections to work normally...so our forebrains are very dependent on midbrain(or our emotions) working normally...likewise midbrain is useless when brainstem is kaput...like a stroke in this region...ya?

So 'Love" is a very advanced emotional brain evolutionary expression...like in humans...this emotion alone and bonds it creates among humans are responsible for many of our behaviours and responses... conscious and unconscious...and possibly, when combined healthily with our intelligent brain...responsible for the intricate and complex cultures in history...eg Taj Mahal built in grief...

So...when emotions removed...and a situation viewed only in cold analysis...warning bells rings...sociopaths whom totally disregard norms of society and only interested in self power and control while using carefully crafted deceit to create an image of normal...is for example shows common situation when emotions suppressed and intelligence over applied...

In this meandering...answer is one must know where range of 'normal' is, and when its outside this range...and before you say it...no, there is a normal range and which expressed as action of an individual capable of creating and protecting a life of their choice that blends well into society as a whole...

contd

sam

and in this normal it is abnormal when a puppy comes to you with its tail wagging and eyes expressing love for you...grab it and kill it and eat it...and say huh its only meat...its not 'human'...
sam

@Yabby:

‘So where would they all go to live out their lives?’

I’ve already explained, a best case scenario for animals we farm is in an animal sanctuary like Edgar’s Mission.

‘Go to an old peoples home and watch a few dying.’

Most animals slaughtered are killed well before old age. Once again, there is a difference bewteen euthanasia when someone is killed because they have a disease they will not recover from and they are in chronic pain because of it, compared to killing someone simply because it is in your economic interest to do so (then justifying it along the lines of the completely different situation of euthanasia). Of course people can feel better if they feel they are doing the animal a service by “reducing their suffering”, rather than the reality of killing them when they can make the most money.

‘they all need food and when the food runs out, who will feed them?’

Animals such as cows, pigs, chickens and sheep are bred on a massive scale because people demand animal products. As less people demand animal products, there will be less animals bred for such purposes, therefore less grain fed to these animals. So veganism means less food is fed to animals, rather than more. Of course veganism would mean feeding the animals that are already here their whole lives, rather than only as long as they are “economically viable”, once again, like at Edgar’s Mission animal sanctuary. However, once again, there are only so many of these animals to feed because people demand animal products. If we did not demand these products, we would not have to continually breed and slaughter these animals, so there would be far less animals to feed.

@Sam said:

No worries, I have had a read through your response. I’ll specifically address this section:

‘…one must know where range of 'normal' is, and when its outside this range...and before you say it...no, there is a normal range and which expressed as action of an individual capable of creating and protecting a life of their choice that blends well into society as a whole... and in this normal it is abnormal when a puppy comes to you with its tail wagging and eyes expressing love for you...grab it and kill it and eat it...and say huh its only meat...its not 'human'...’

I certainly agree that it is more normal to kill a pig than a dog, I just disagree with the conclusion that therefore it is not as bad.

Secondly, why does this:

‘it is abnormal when a puppy comes to you with its tail wagging and eyes expressing love for you...grab it and kill it and eat it...and say huh its only meat...its not 'human'...’

not apply to other animals such as pigs? Do you find it worse because of the species of the animal or because the person did it directly (rather than paying for someone else to do their “dirty work”)? In terms of viewing someone purely as meat, I don’t see why it is worse to do that to a dog than a pig. I also don’t see why paying someone else to slaughter an animal on your behalf is significantly different to doing it yourself.

That just about sums it up, Mr Pendergrast.

>>Okay, that’s fine if you consider a lecture, but I think I have made a well-supported argument about the similarity between these habits and this incident, both in the article and in these comments. You obviously disagree.<<

I do indeed disagree. And you give me exactly the reason why I disagree, in your very next sentences...

>>But regarding the puppy slaughter incident being worse because a five year-old being there, obviously that would be traumatic for the five year old, but it makes no different for the animal being slaughtered whether a five year-old is there or not. And while some details are different (such as the five year-old being there), it is very similar over all – an animal being slaughtered for food.<<

You would not have used the article to frame your argument, if it had not been particularly shocking - with that poor five-year-old front and centre of the action. Now you try to tell me that her presence "makes no difference". If you cannot even be honest with yourself about the "puppy slaughter Incident", it is particularly pointless trying to have any sort of discussion with you.

And if it is not a discussion that you are after, then clearly you are using the Forum as a pulpit for your vegan sermon-cum-lecture.

>>You can reduce your environmental impact by not consuming animal products – surely that is a statistic that has ‘application in real life.’<<

Maybe. But the "87% reduction" is still a pop statistic, with no relevance to real life, since it is purely an abstract number. Nowhere does it suggest that the number is achievable, so it remains purely a notional amount, calculated without any point of contact with real life at all.

I have absolutely no problem with your choice of a vegan lifestyle. I do have a problem with your lecturing me about it.

Now I think about it, having to restrict yourself to vegan fare probably a most appropriate punishment for choosing to lecture us on your self-ascribed virtue.

*I’ve already explained, a best case scenario for animals we farm is in an animal sanctuary like Edgar’s Mission*

Well that is wonderful Nick, so who is going to pay the bill? Already
we have dogs, cats, horses and other pets, that nobody knows what
to do with. In fact when they shut down some horse abattoirs in
the US, they landed up with all these neglected and starving horses,
as owners could not afford the money to dig the hole and shoot them.

We know what happens with station country that is abandoned. Wild
goats, camels, wild dogs move in and there is cruelty and misery
that you could not imagine, but as its not on your telly, it does
not concern you. That is exactly what would happen to much farmland
that is unviable as cropland, if it did not burn out huge districts
in megafires first.

The fact is that my sheep actually enjoy their lives, which you want
to deny them. Some do live to a ripe old age, some don't, that is
the luck of the draw in life, just like you could die tomorrow.
Fact is there is nowhere to run them all, for whilst they are alive,
sheep do what comes naturally, they have sex as they have urges just
like you and the result is more sheep. Somehow numbers will be
controlled, only far more humanely then the deer on the island which
I gave you the URL for. They simply starved.

So given that sheep enjoy living and that humane death does not
involve suffering, it clearly is a win-win for the sheep. They have
far better lives than those animals in nature, which you seem to
think is the preferred option.

Its the same with chickens. Some do in fact have good lives, even
on some free range farms. Not all are devious. So there is really
no good reason, not to eat their eggs. If you don't some other
species will.

Nick, stop trying to ignore nature.

@Pericles:

I’m possibly repeating similar points to what I’ve already said before here, so I apologise if this is the case, but many commenters have said I should have been criticising “inhumane” animal products and advocating for “humane” animal products, or opposing cock fighting etc. Instead, I have focussed on uses of animals that people are not already opposed to, which I think is more important, but I don’t see why that makes it more of a lecture than advocating “humane” animal products, no cockfighting etc.

‘You would not have used the article to frame your argument, if it had not been particularly shocking’

Not true at all – I would have written the article regardless of the specifics of the situation – the fact was people were outraged by the slaughter of a dog, yet the slaughter of other animals is accepted by nearly everyone. The fact a kid saw it or anything else like that had nothing to do with why I framed my argument around this case. I think people would have been similarly outraged whether or not the kid had seen it or not – as I point out in the article, most people reject puppy slaughter, regardless of how “humane” or otherwise it is carried out.

‘And if it is not a discussion that you are after, then clearly you are using the Forum as a pulpit for your vegan sermon-cum-lecture.’

I have responded to every comment – I don’t see how I’ve indicated I’m not happy to have a discussion. Regarding the religious language you use – I don’t see why challenging the consumption of animal products is any more or less religious than advocating “humane” animal products or no cock fighting. Had my article have done that, I doubt I’d face such comments.

‘But the "87% reduction" is still a pop statistic, with no relevance to real life, since it is purely an abstract number. Nowhere does it suggest that the number is achievable’

It is certainly achievable for individuals reading this to cut out animal products and heavily reduce their environmental impact.

@Yabby:

‘Well that is wonderful Nick, so who is going to pay the bill?’

An individual not eating/wearing/using animal products is not going to lead to a bunch of animals with nowhere to go or “let loose” in nature. Rather, as less people demand these products, less animals will be bred and slaughtered for our use. So I think the problems you raise are not problems with veganism, they are problems with letting domesticated animals fend for themselves in the wild etc.

‘Some do live to a ripe old age, some don't, that is the luck of the draw in life’

As I’ve already pointed out, this is a far cry from euthanasia, where you argued that your sheep lived so long that you had to kill them for their own benefit. And “luck” seems to actually be when it is in your financial interests to do so – that is different to luck. You say ‘stop trying to ignore nature’, while justifying slaughtering animals when it is in your financial interests. Nature and financial interests are also two different things.

I’ll respond to your comments about “humane” slaughter, eggs etc in a separate comment below.

@Yabby:

Regarding your points about “humane” slaughter, eggs etc, I’ll quote someone else to avoid repeating my comments above. I thought there was some really good points from this article by John Humphreys on Online Opinion. These points were made after the live export issue was everywhere after the Four Corners episode exposed Indonesian slaughter. Even though Humphreys has very different views on animals to me, I think he makes some great points on the ridiculousness of not caring about slaughtering animals, but being concerned about their treatment. If we’re not concerned about their slaughter, why are we concerned about their treatment? Similarly, if we want them to treated well while they're alive, surely we should be concerned about their slaughter?

‘This debate is framed as being about "animal rights". But it isn't. If anybody was honestly determining the rights of animals, surely the first right would be the right not to be killed just so that people could eat their flesh. No honest person would say that "the right to not be punched in the face" comes before "the right to live". If I told you that there was a guy called Brian… and that one person wanted to beat him up, and another person wanted to kill him and eat him, are you honestly going to say that you think the first guy is doing the greater crime? What if I told you there was a cow called Brian? This is from the GetUp campaign:

Brian (a cow) did nothing to deserve being hit in the face, whipped, or kicked. Each time this occurred he called out in a way which was heart-wrenching. I swear I could hear him call out 'why'

There is a bit of false morality at play in this debate. Vegetarians can rightly claim that they are being consistent, and I admire them for that. But for the meat-eating population to say that they believe in the inalienable right of cows not to be punched is absurd. What did you have for lunch?’

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12164

>>And if it is not a discussion that you are after, then clearly you are using the Forum as a pulpit for your vegan sermon-cum-lecture.<<

Which doesn't seem to be winning over many converts does is it Nick? You may want to reflect on that. I think the problem is that people just don't respond well to a stranger coming along and telling them they're evil and that they need to change. The major religions have got this figured out: they use a carrot and stick approach. The stick is hell and the carrot is eternal bliss. Unfortunately for vegans your stick is being looked down upon by moral high ground occupying hippies and your carrot is just a carrot. You may need to rethink your marketing: by the way this discussion is going your stick isn't stout enough and your carrot is unappealing.

>>Regarding the religious language you use – I don’t see why challenging the consumption of animal products is any more or less religious than advocating “humane” animal products or no cock fighting.<<

The point at which it becomes religious is the point at which it stops just being something you do - challenging the consumption of animal products by not consuming them - and starts being something that you loudly evangelize to everyone as being the only acceptable moral choice. We all think cockfighting is wrong but we don't feel the need to spend our spare time preaching the virtues of a cockfighting free life: we just don't get involved in cockfights. What's wrong with just being vegan instead of trying to convert the unbelievers?

>>There is a bit of false morality at play in this debate.<<

I'll say there is:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

>>What did you have for lunch?<<

Cheers,

Tony

Forgive me my suspicious mind, Mr Pendergrast, but I doubt this very much indeed.

>>The fact a kid saw it or anything else like that had nothing to do with why I framed my argument around this case<<

You needed the example for its shock value. Without it, you would have had no focal point from which to launch your diatribe. In fact, without it, I doubt you would have had sufficient material for a meaningful article.

>>...most people reject puppy slaughter, regardless of how “humane” or otherwise it is carried out<<

Of course they do. Puppies are domestic pets, upon which "most people" ascribe quasi-human virtues of companionship, so the image of "slaughter" would be particularly upsetting. Despite this, the same people also seem to have few qualms about having their animals "put down" once their usefulness has been exhausted. Or even before - don't tell me you haven't heard what happens to unwanted members of a litter?

So you are guilty of being selective in your choice of example on two counts: one, suggesting that the "slaughter" was an image fully transferable to all animal husbandry, and two, that you chose to ignore all the other crimes that pet-owners visit upon their captives.

Do you keep a pet, by the way? Do any of your vegan friends keep pets? How do you or they justify doing so, given an apparent aversion to animal cruelty? Or do you once again narrow your view on what you consider cruel, simply to enable you justify your veganity?

Actually, I'll place a small wager that you have a cat.

Or, more likely, two.

And my thanks to Tony Lavis for the link. I particularly enjoyed PETA's response, with its air of barely-controlled, backs-to-the wall hysteria.

*An individual not eating/wearing/using animal products is not going to lead to a bunch of animals with nowhere to go or “let loose” in nature*

Indeed it will Nick, because something will happen on that land.
In Australia, most of it is unsuitable for cropping. So it is
left to its own devices, meaning that camels, horses, donkeys,
goats, wild dogs and all the rest move in. What you land up with
is far more suffering than when it was farmed.

The Govt solve the problem by sending up helicopters and shooting
those animals. What is your vegan solution?

*where you argued that your sheep lived so long that you had to kill them for their own benefit*

My argument was and is, that it is a win-win situation for the species
involved. Animals don't care what happens to them once they are dead
and the value of the meat pays for the worm treatments, vaccines,
hay and other feed supplements, cost of protecting them from predators
and all the rest. Every creature has to make a living in nature.
Its also humane as they avoid all the suffering involved with dying
from old age. The alternative is animals dying of starvation and
disease, or being ripped apart alive by predators like wild dogs.

So my argument is that my sheep are far better off then if they
were a kangaroo living over the fence in the nature reserve.

*Similarly, if we want them to treated well while they're alive, surely we should be concerned about their slaughter?*

Well we are concerned about their slaughter. Not that they are
slaughtered but how they are slaughtered. I've watched it, a gun
to the brain, they never knew it happened, no suffering involved.
Compare that with your future, as with death its only a question of
when and how. If you are lucky you will be hit by a car or have
a heart attack. Or they could stick you in palliative care, watching
you as you gasp away and struggle, for weeks, months, until you
finally croak it. Hardly humane.

I have to admit, Nick, that I started to tune out about a week ago when you wrote, "…but when we are talking about a cow we are talking about someone not something…" believing you were overplaying the sentience argument – and being slightly unfair to plants just because they have different sense perception.

But I give you full credit for remaining engaged with commentary to your article.

The conclusion I've come to is one of ethical equivalence – as it is natural for bacteria and microbes of all forms to inhabit my cells, my body and to eat me, so it is natural for me to eat bacteria and microbes in cells and bodies, however they are prepared or present themselves.

@ Pericles @ Atman There is nothing quite like the naturalistic fallacy! Something is 'natural' ergo it must be good. Really?

First, neither address the concept of 'natural'. The term is in fact meaningless as a a conceptual division: it is 'natural' to die of starvation in the absence of food, it is also 'natural' to kill other people's children, 'natural' to study philosophy... in short anything can be natural. In these arguments 'natural' is simply a place holder for what the speaker happens to think good. Hence, right wing Christians think homosexuality is 'unnatural' while gay activist insist that it is.

Even if we agree on what constitutes 'natural' there is still nothing to establish a logical link between what is 'natural' and what is desirable. (Certainly there is no link with what is moral) It is certainly natural for the plague virus to do what it does... cause plague in animals (including humans) but does this make the disease desirable for the victims? I don't think so. Likewise, pain in the case of broken limbs is perfectly 'natural', is it also desirable? I think we invented pain relief for that.

In order to address Nick Pendergrast's argument you need to get over the 'its natural' position. Deal instead with the issue of consistency and cruelty.

Way to go, CatMack, to liven up the discussion.

>>... it is also 'natural' to kill other people's children<<

How does that work, pray? I personally classify killing someone else's child as a thoroughly unnatural act. What am I missing here? It is a usage of the word "natural" that I have yet to encounter, so I look forward to your explanation.

Meanwhile, I can accept without reservation that dying of starvation in the absence of food is perfectly natural, since it is in the nature of humans to require nutrition in order to survive. (Note the clever way I introduced the concept that "it is in the nature of"? To me, that justifies the use of the word "natural".)

By the same token, it is in our nature to be curious, and to question, which makes the study of philosophy a perfectly natural pastime.

But I take issue with you when you use this to assert that...

>>...anything can be natural. In these arguments 'natural' is simply a place holder for what the speaker happens to think good<<

That may well be your opinion, but I suspect it is more of an ambit claim, in order to neutralize any and every assertion that eating meat is natural, by diminishing it to a mere preference.

But I'm afraid that having previously stretched "natural" to include killing children, you may have shot yourself in the foot, so to speak.

You are more credible when you stay rational:

>>...there is still nothing to establish a logical link between what is 'natural' and what is desirable<<

I completely agree... of course it is not "desirable" to contract a virus. But we are not discussing viruses here.

>>In order to address Nick Pendergrast's argument you need to get over the 'its natural' position. Deal instead with the issue of consistency and cruelty.<<

That's like asking me to describe the virtues of capitalism, using only Das Kapital as my reference document. I shall continue to address Mr Pendergrast's views without being limited by his personal frame of reference, thank you.

Catmack,

I think it's natural (in the evolutionary sense) that humans evolved to be plains-ranging hunters in pursuit of concentrated protein.

We had to undergo quite a bit of evolutionary refinement to be successful in our carnivorous pursuits, but it's what happened.

Perhaps our modern penchant for sticking chickens in cages for life (for example) is somewhat warped, but one can't deny that our evolution was driven by our meat-based protein diet and the strategies we devised to accomplish it.

@Tony Lavis:

‘Which doesn't seem to be winning over many converts does is it Nick?’

Actually, I hear of people making the change to veganism all the time. I never said anyone was evil or anyone needed to change – I argued that if we put into practise beliefs nearly everyone already holds (such as opposing unnecessary suffering to animals), then that means not consuming animal products. I certainly don’t consider myself a hippie, but I guess this is just name calling that does not contribute to the discussion at all. Of course I could have published this article on an animal rights website and had everyone agree with me, rather than here where most people will be opposed. However, just because many people are hesitant to make changes to their consumption choices, doesn’t mean an article like mine doesn’t get people thinking about our relationship with other animals, which I think is a positive thing.

‘What's wrong with just being vegan instead of trying to convert the unbelievers?’

So it is fine for someone to oppose something in their own lives, but they can’t promote this message to others? Again, I don’t see why this should apply to veganism and not other issues. Do you believe it is okay to oppose racism in people’s own lives, but people shouldn’t write articles opposing racism? If this was extended to all issues, a site like Online Opinion wouldn’t exist. The reason I don’t just live vegan but not promote it to others is that animals suffer and die for animal products. I can reduce this by not consuming animal products, but when others also make this choice, the demand is further reduced. So I encourage others, people are free to take it or leave it (just like any other idea promoted on this site).

Regarding the website you included, I couldn’t open it because I’m at uni and it was blocked:

‘Access to this web site www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net has been blocked because the web category Violence/Hate/Racism is not permitted.’

I’m not sure what’s with that, but will have a look at home.

>>There is nothing quite like the naturalistic fallacy!<<

There's the is-ought problem. It's quite like the naturalistic fallacy. Hume argues convincingly that what is cannot serve as a basis of what ought to be. One cannot derive the moral ought from the objective is.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/hume/guillotine/

Nick's argument runs afoul of the is-ought problem:

1. Tony has been eating oysters.
2. Farming and killing oysters causes them great suffering.
3. Oysters are sentient
4. (One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings)
5. Therefore, Tony ought to stop eating oysters.

Even if the argument is factually true - which is questionable - it is invalid because we can't logically support premise 4. Hume argued that since morality can't be derived from reason our passions - our feelings - should be considered it's proper basis.

>>I argued that if we put into practise beliefs nearly everyone already holds (such as opposing unnecessary suffering to animals), then that means not consuming animal products.<<

The logical corollaries to this is that people who consume animal products don't oppose unnecessary suffering to animals. I call bullpoo.

>>Regarding the website you included, I couldn’t open it because I’m at uni and it was blocked:

‘Access to this web site www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net has been blocked because the web category Violence/Hate/Racism is not permitted.’<<

The Best Web Page in the Universe was built by a pirate - as in a proper pirate with a hat and a talking parrot not some pasty web geek - who hates a lot of things. If your uni's internet doesn't like hatred I'm not surprised it was blocked.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks for providing an impeccable logic trail on this one, Tony Lavis. It would have saved me a lot of time if I had checked Hume first...

>>The logical corollaries to this is that people who consume animal products don't oppose unnecessary suffering to animals.<<

That is in fact a most concise summary of what Mr Pendergrast is asking us to accept. Which I should have have spotted immediately from his original piece, if only I had your smarts.

The vital missing information from the article is, as I now see it, as follows:

Were the observers to the puppy throat-slitting event vegans, or were they your bog-standard omnivores?

If they were vegans, their reaction of horror to the event unfolding before them was totally understandable.

If, on the other hand, they were not, then by Mr Pendergrast's own logic, they would not have been at all horrified by what they saw. By making a case that all meat-eaters are necessarily in favour of animal cruelty, an attitude that shines through his every contribution, he renders the reaction of those observers redundant.

Which kinda destroys the entire "puppy slaughter" angle.

Pity I can't get the minutes back that I wasted in conversation. But them's the breaks.

@Pericles:

‘You needed the example for its shock value.’

As we have both pointed out, me and others find this example shocking whether or not a child witnessed it.

‘you chose to ignore all the other crimes that pet-owners visit upon their captives.’

I didn’t ‘choose to ignore’ these other crimes – it just wasn’t the focus of the article. It is impossible to cover all the issues related to animals (or even pets) within 800 words.

‘Do you keep a pet, by the way?’

I have one dog. I saw him nearly get hit by several cars and took him to the local vet to see if his owner would claim him. No one did. He went to the pound and after 4 weeks, he would have been killed as no one wanted to adopt him. So I adopted him to save him from death at the pound. While I don’t see pet ownership as an ideal state of affairs and would never support pet shops or breeders, I believe the best thing we can do for animals in shelters is to adopt them – to save them from death in these shelters or living out their lives in the shelters.

Regarding your more recent comment: ‘By making a case that all meat-eaters are necessarily in favour of animal cruelty’

Actually I argue that most non-vegans are not in favour of animal cruelty, just that their consumption choices do not reflect this value. I think that most non-vegans would be very upset if they witnessed that puppy being slaughtered but I also think that most would be upset if they saw the slaughter of the other animals I wrote about in the article eg cows, pigs, sheep, chickens. It is not that I think that non-vegans ‘are necessarily in favour of animal cruelty’, it is that the cruelty inflicted on farm animals is done “out of sight, out of mind”, so people who would not like to inflict cruelty to these animals can contribute to it.

I’ll address your comment about the link from @Tony Lavis separately.

@Pericles: Regarding the link referred to by you and @Tony Lavis, I’m not at uni so I had a look. I have addressed this issue before:

‘Raising the issue of other animals being killed in the production of plant-based foods is important. However, why isn't the solution focussed on reducing this problem, rather than just "giving up" and eating animal-based foods which inevitably lead to other animals being killed?

Saying that sometimes other animals are killed in the production of plant-based foods so therefore we should eat animal-based foods which inevitably leads to the killing of other animals seems to be similar to saying that lots of people are killed in car accidents anyway, therefore it is acceptable to deliberately run over people in our car because we enjoy it.

Why not exclude the products that directly involve the killing (and domestication, exploitation, confinement etc) of other animals, and work to improve the production of plant-based foods that do not have to inherently lead to the killing of other animals?’

@Tony Lavis:
Again, I’m not sure why you’re using oysters if you’re so confident it is acceptable to slaughter the animals I referred to in the article.

If you don’t think it is accurate that ‘One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings’, then I don’t see how you can oppose this puppy slaughter, cock fighting – or any actions towards animals.

‘The logical corollaries to this is that people who consume animal products don't oppose unnecessary suffering to animals. I call bullpoo.’

Firstly, this is not my argument. Secondly, if it was, surely you have a better response than ‘I call bullpoo’? I actually believe nearly everyone opposes unnecessary suffering to animals, I just think that most people’s consumption choices don’t reflect this. From a comment of mine above: ‘About 99% of people oppose unnecessary suffering to animals, yet about 99% of people unnecessarily consume animal products that cause suffering – so I think there is plenty of potential for a change in attitudes and actions.’ For more on this, see my response to @Pericles above.

@Yabby:

‘So it is left to its own devices, meaning that camels, horses, donkeys, goats, wild dogs and all the rest move in.’

There is already suffering amongst wild animals – why add to it with animal agriculture? I don’t think it is clear that less demand for animal products = less animals are bred and slaughtered for human use, therefore wild animal numbers will multiply.

‘The Govt solve the problem by sending up helicopters and shooting those animals. What is your vegan solution?’

A lot of this killing of wild animals is done to protect animals bred for their flesh, secretions, wool etc. So in a vegan world, this wouldn’t be required. However, whether shooting these animals is right or not doesn’t have much to do with whether or not we should be consuming animal products.

‘Animals don't care what happens to them once they are dead’

Nor do we, but we want to carry on living, as do other animals. In any slaughterhouse footage I’ve seen, the animals struggle to avoid slaughter – they want to carry on living.

‘The alternative is animals dying of starvation and disease, or being ripped apart alive by predators like wild dogs.’

Again, at sanctuaries like Edgar’s Mission, the animals are protected from starvation and disease, as well as from predators (through adequate fencing). So with the sheep you have right now, it is not a choice between slaughtering them or “letting them loose” in nature.

‘Well we are concerned about their slaughter. Not that they are slaughtered but how they are slaughtered.’

Yes but the point was that carrying on living is the most important interest someone has, so if we don't care about that, why are we concerned about less important interests?

‘If you are lucky you will be hit by a car...’

Yes, dying a slow painful death is no fun. However, if someone ran me over today, when I am still likely to have many years ahead of me, could they justify this as doing it for my own good? To save me from a slow painful death?

Ok, Mr Pendergrast, we can leave the cruelty of keeping pets as our personal playthings out of this conversation if you like,

>> It is impossible to cover all the issues related to animals (or even pets) within 800 words.<<

...and limit our discussion to those acts and activities that you, personally, would like us to consider. So let's have a look at your stance again.

>>I argue that most non-vegans are not in favour of animal cruelty, just that their consumption choices do not reflect this value<<

Fair enough. On the one hand, "they are not in favour of...", and on the other, "their choices do not reflect that value". Seems like a mismatch to me.

But hang on a minute. I can equally argue that most socialists are not in favour of capitalism, but accept a comfortable life in a capitalist society that does not reflect their values.

"...not in favour of...", but "their choices do not reflect that value".

That's the way we are, I'm afraid. We are human. We compromise.

Even you.

You choose to take a moral stance on this one issue, but I'm pretty sure it is an isolated cause, and doesn't hold up in other aspects of your life. For example...

Driving a car causes pollution. And pollution kills people.

So I would be correct in saying that most environmentalists are not in favour of polluting the atmosphere, but their consumption choices do not reflect this value. (Possibly because - conveniently, - the people who die from their pollution do so out of sight. Like the cattle in the abattoir.)

There it is again. "Not in favour of...", but "their choices do not reflect that value".

Do you drive a car, Mr Pendergrast? As well as being a socialist in a capitalist society? As well as keeping a pet?

Hmmm, principles only go so far, don't they.

@Wm Trevor

‘I have to admit, Nick, that I started to tune out about a week ago when you wrote, "…but when we are talking about a cow we are talking about someone not something…" believing you were overplaying the sentience argument – and being slightly unfair to plants just because they have different sense perception.’

I don’t think such a stance is ‘unfair to plants’ – plants do not have a central nervous system and therefore cannot feel pain or experience suffering. So I think the differences between our obligations to plants versus our obligations to other animals are fundamental.

‘But I give you full credit for remaining engaged with commentary to your article.’

Thanks, I’m certainly happy to discuss these issues with anyone who wants to engage with them.

‘The conclusion I've come to is one of ethical equivalence – as it is natural for bacteria and microbes of all forms to inhabit my cells, my body and to eat me, so it is natural for me to eat bacteria and microbes in cells and bodies, however they are prepared or present themselves.’

As me (as well as now CatMack) have argued, all kinds of things have been justified as “natural” – wealth inequality, racism, monarchy, sexism etc. I think our lifestyles are anything but natural (vegan or non-vegan), but I think the most important question is which choice does the least harm.

Cheers,
Nick

*less animals are bred and slaughtered for human use, therefore wild animal numbers will multiply.*

Well yes it is clear, Nick. Look at what happens when stations are
abandoned. Exactly that. A large chunk of Australia is unsuitable
for cropping.

*A lot of this killing of wild animals is done to protect animals bred for their flesh, secretions, wool etc. So in a vegan world, this wouldn’t be required*

Well wrong again Nick, which shows your city lifestyle, you clearly
don't really know what happens in the country. Those wild animals,
as their numbers start to increase, move in on crops, so are shot
for exactly that reason.

* In any slaughterhouse footage I’ve seen, the animals struggle to avoid slaughter – they want to carry on living.*

Not so, I've seen enough of it in real life. They follow each other
one by one, its a stun gun, bang and that's it. No struggle to avoid
slaughter, so they don't know what is about to happen.

*Nor do we, but we want to carry on living, as do other animals*

Well yes, all animals including us, have a will to live. But we will
all die, due to circumstances beyond our control. If you risk living,
you risk dying. That's life, suck it up.The only exceptions are those
who choose to kill themselves first.

*Yes but the point was that carrying on living is the most important interest someone has*

Well so you claim Nick, but in your next breath you claim that someone
is better off never being born at all, if they can't live out life
to a ripe old age. I would dispute that. If those animals were not
farmed, they would never have had a life at all.

*However, if someone ran me over today, when I am still likely to have many years ahead of me, could they justify this as doing it for my own good?*

If your other choice was starving to death, then yes they could.

We don't have social welfare and medicare for animals

>>Actually I argue that most non-vegans are not in favor of animal cruelty, just that their consumption choices do not reflect this value.<<

Wouldn't that mean they're just paying lip service to the idea of not being in favor of animal cruelty and they're not really opposed to it? To be opposed to animal cruelty - really opposed not just saying that for appearances sake - you would argue that people have to be vegan wouldn't you Nick?

>>Raising the issue of other animals being killed in the production of plant-based foods is important. However, why isn't the solution focussed on reducing this problem, rather than just "giving up" and eating animal-based foods which inevitably lead to other animals being killed?<<

Raising the issue of animal cruelty in the production of meat is important. However, why isn't the solution focused on reducing this problem, rather than just "giving up" and going vegan which inevitably leads to cute little field mice being crushed to death with no hope of a humane death?

As a man with such strong views on animal rights I don't see how you can defend the position that it's fine to kill animals for food as long as you don't eat them.

>>Why not exclude the products that directly involve the killing (and domestication, exploitation, confinement etc) of other animals, and work to improve the production of plant-based foods that do not have to inherently lead to the killing of other animals?’<<

Because I don't want to starve to death. No animal products and no plant products that directly or indirectly lead to the killing of other animals equals famine on an epic scale.

>>Again, I’m not sure why you’re using oysters if you’re so confident it is acceptable to slaughter the animals I referred to in the article.

If you don’t think it is accurate that ‘One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings’, then I don’t see how you can oppose this puppy slaughter, cock fighting – or any actions towards animals.<<

Did you check out the link? Here is another good one:

TBC

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/humes-guillotine.html

I'm not sure if you've fully understood the is-ought problem: it doesn't matter what animal we use or even if we use a different example to eating animals: the problem is in the form of the argument not its subject. Here it is again with cows as the subject:

1. Tony has been eating steak.
2. Farming cows for meat causes them great suffering.
3. Cows are sentient
4. (One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings)
5. Therefore, Tony ought to stop eating steak.

Hume says we can't get from premises to the conclusion because there is no logical justification for premise 4 - how could you logically demonstrate that things ought to be one way or another? Its 'accuracy' cannot be determined by means of logic. Oughts aren't rationally based: they are based on feelings.

>>Firstly, this is not my argument. Secondly, if it was, surely you have a better response than ‘I call bullpoo’? I actually believe nearly everyone opposes unnecessary suffering to animals, I just think that most people’s consumption choices don’t reflect this.<<

Well it kind of is when you think about it: in most cases omnivores are knowingly and willingly participating in the killing of cows so they can eat them - you would argue that this causes the cows unnecessary suffering. Pericles is right: there's a mismatch there. See my above comment about paying lip service. I still call bullsh!t.

As for this idea of letting all the poor animals run free: don't you know what happens when you deprive farm animals of the guidance of humans? The pigs band together and install a communist dictatorship causing great suffering to the other animals.

Cheers,

Tony

@Pericles:

‘Do you drive a car?’

Let me address this point specifically. Yes I drive a car – sometimes. I also make many trips with other transport means eg walking, bike, public transport etc. Here are some points on this:

1) If consuming animal products was just something that had an environmental impact (which it does, as I have outlined in some of my comments above), then I would be all for just reducing our use of animal products. But because each animal product on a supermarket shelf comes from a slaughtered animal (meat) or an animal who will face the slaughterhouse well before they could otherwise live (in the case of eggs and dairy), I advocate eliminating animal products, rather than just reducing.

I think driving and consuming animal products are not quite analogous – I believe cutting an animal’s life short purely because of their species (rather than based on a lack of ability to suffer, value their own life etc) is an example of the discrimination based on species (speciesism). If consuming animal products is a form of discrimination, rather than just something that has an environmental impact, then I think a better comparison is with racism and sexism. And yes I reject racism and sexism in my daily life, just as I reject speciesism.

2) In a city like Perth, it is very difficult to travel around without a car, it is a very poorly planned city. In contrast, I find it extremely easy to be vegan in Perth. The only foods you need to be healthy are fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains – which are easy to find at any supermarket. http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vsk/vegetarian-starter-kit-new-four-food-groups

However, even if people disagree and think consuming animal products is, like driving, extremely difficult to avoid, that doesn’t dispute the central argument of my article. The central argument was that slaughtering puppies is not significantly different ethically to slaughtering other animals like cows, pigs, chickens and sheep. If people accept that argument, they can assess how they can and want to put that idea into practise in their lives.

Continued below...

@Pericles:

‘Do you drive a car, Mr Pendergrast?’

…Comment continued from above:

3) If someone did publish an article promoting the idea that people should reduce or even eliminate the amount of car driving they do, I wouldn’t argue they are lecturing me or that they are somehow being religious for not just travelling how they want to travel and keeping quiet about it. In contrast, I welcome people encouraging others to travel more sustainably or to make a positive impact on the environment more generally (in fact I do this myself).

4) Whether or not I drive a car doesn’t have much to do with the validity of the central argument of my article. Even if you don’t accept any of the arguments above as to why I sometimes drive a car, it doesn’t really matter in the context of the article. As I’ve said many times, the point of this article, or for arguments for veganism generally, are not about my own “moral superiority” but are about encouraging people to question their attitudes and actions towards other animals and hopefully make positive changes to their choices. Again, people can consider my central argument that slaughtering puppies is not significantly different ethically to slaughtering other animals like cows, pigs, chickens and sheep. Then, if they agree, they can work out how (and if) they want to resolve this issue in their consumption choices in terms of what they want to do, what they see as possible etc.

>>Again, people can consider my central argument that slaughtering puppies is not significantly different ethically to slaughtering other animals like cows, pigs, chickens and sheep.<<

It is different ethically when the slaughtering was performed by a chronic solvent sniffer using a blunt steak knife:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-13/kimberley-man-kills-and-eats-puppy/4260030?&section=news

Which was described by the presiding judge as the worst case of animal cruelty he had ever seen.

Contemporary Australian cuisine does not include the regular consumption of puppy meat. If it was a widely consumed meat it's slaughter would be carried out in puppy abattoirs by trained slaughterers using appropriate tools. There would be monitoring of slaughter practices by outside bodies and avenues of appeal if you thought the puppies were being cruelly treated. It is the ethics of that hypothetical situation against the ethics of attacking a puppy with a blunt steak knife that you need to compare.

Unless abattoirs are employing steak knife wielding solvent sniffers as their slaughterers there really isn't much comparison between the way one man slaughtered a puppy and the way we slaughter farm animals on an industrial scale.

Cheers,

Tony

I guess that does surprise me, just a little, Mr Pendergrast.

>>I think driving and consuming animal products are not quite analogous<<

Considering the fact that you believe that the barbarous throat slitting of a puppy in front of a five year-old child by a "chronic solvent sniffer living in a humpy", is comparable to all forms of animal husbandry, I would have thought that your use of the word "analogous" has a pretty wide application.

But you do misunderstand my point, just a little.

It was your indiscriminate application of logic that needed illumination. The parallel is not between the actions themselves, but the logic from which they are derived - as Tony Lavis has, very patiently, tried to point out to you.

And you are treading on the proverbial rake with this one:

>>I believe cutting an animal’s life short purely because of their species (rather than based on a lack of ability to suffer, value their own life etc) is an example of the discrimination based on species (speciesism)<<

How do you feel about rats? Not to eat, of course, but the ones that exist in great numbers in every city in the world, and have been blamed for spreading some interesting diseases. Is killing rats - the most popular urban method appears to be to poison them, which results in a particularly nasty death - speciesism? Or is it just another example of comparative utility?

>>In a city like Perth, it is very difficult to travel around without a car, it is a very poorly planned city. In contrast, I find it extremely easy to be vegan in Perth<<

Interesting. That tells me that convenience plays a part in your ethical calculations. Which is highly illustrative of your thought processes in general.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with your choice to be vegan. What I do have a problem with is your need to convince others that it is something more than a lifestyle choice, but is somehow a deeply important ethical statement.

It is not.

@Yabby:

‘Those wild animals, as their numbers start to increase, move in on crops, so are shot for exactly that reason.’

Yes but just as at sanctuaries like Edgar’s Mission they manage to protect the animals there without shooting or otherwise killing/harming wild animals, I’m sure we could protect crops without resorting to such measures by using alternative techniques such as adequate fencing. Just as animals are slaughtered all the time for food when we could easily find other ways to get all the nutrients we need, wild animals are routinely killed rather than exploring other options. I think if we started objecting to the slaughter of other animals for food, we would also start to look for other options to protect crops without harming wild animals. These options may require some “thinking outside the box” rather than just doing what is easy/known because it has always been done and implementing alternative solutions, even if they are more costly/difficult.

Yes you’re right that ‘we don't have social welfare and medicare for animals’ but if we had a change in attitudes towards other animals from merely things for us to use and kill when it is convenient/profitable for us to viewing them as beings with inherent value, then a lot would change for animals, not just domesticated animals, but wild ones as well.

Comment continued below…

@Yabby:

…comment continued from above…

‘you claim that someone is better off never being born at all, if they can't live out life to a ripe old age.’

As I’ve mentioned before, someone isn’t someone until they’re born, so not bringing someone into existence doesn’t harm anyone.

‘If your other choice was starving to death, then yes they could.’

But that is not the choice that the animals slaughtered in animal industries face. Yes they would starve in these industries if they were not profitable for their owners because those in these industries only see these animals as worthy of getting food, water etc as long as they are profitable. Again, an example is the egg and dairy industries, where they are slaughtered as long as they are no longer producing enough eggs/dairy. But there are many examples (sanctuaries for one) where animals are not slaughtered and they also do not starve to death – so luckily this isn’t the choice we have to make.

@Tony Lavis:

‘To be opposed to animal cruelty - really opposed not just saying that for appearances sake - you would argue that people have to be vegan wouldn't you Nick?’

I would argue that veganism is putting the principle of opposing animal cruelty in your daily life. However, I believe many people are concerned about animal cruelty and many take some steps to reducing it – through adopting companion animals rather than supporting breeders/pet shops (therefore reducing the number of animals killed in shelters), through becoming vegetarian, through reducing their consumption of animal products etc. So I think many people, in fact most people, are concerned about animal cruelty, but that the best way to oppose this is to become vegan.

‘rather than just "giving up" and going vegan which inevitably leads to cute little field mice being crushed to death with no hope of a humane death?’

So a diet that includes animal products doesn’t consume any grain? Of course it does. In fact, it consumes a lot more grain, because this grain is fed to other animals, who we then eat, but we get a lot less calories out than we put in. So a non-vegan diet is responsible for the consumption of more animals and also more grains than a vegan one.

Comment continued below…

@Tony Lavis:

…Comment continue from above…

‘As a man with such strong views on animal rights I don't see how you can defend the position that it's fine to kill animals for food as long as you don't eat them.’

Anyone can read my comment on this issue and work out for themselves whether I defended that position. I certainly don’t. In fact veganism is more than a diet and also opposes animals being slaughtered for other reasons such as clothing, which I also mentioned in the article. So both in the article and in these comments, I have raised issues with eating animals, but I am not limited to that. I do not defend animals being killed in the production of plant-based foods and I think that if we had a shift in attitudes and actions towards animals we would be more likely to address more difficult issues like this. As I explained in a comment above regarding the killing of wild animals for plant-based foods:

Just as animals are slaughtered all the time for food when we could easily find other ways to get all the nutrients we need, wild animals are routinely killed rather than exploring other options. I think if we started objecting to the slaughter of other animals for food, we would also start to look for other options to produce crops without harming wild animals. These options may require some “thinking outside the box” rather than just doing what is easy/known because it has always been done and implementing alternative solutions, even if they are more costly/difficult. If we had a change in attitudes towards other animals from merely things for us to use and kill when it is convenient/profitable for us to viewing them as beings with inherent value, then a lot would change for animals, not just domesticated animals, but wild ones as well.

@Tony Lavis
Missed the point of the objection entirely. The fallacy applies to the objectors who claim that it is "natural" to eat meat... . Ergo it is ok to continue to kill animals. Even if it is true that it is natural to eat meat (and I pointed out the logical ambiguity of the term 'natural') it means nothing. Because nothing logically links what is 'natural' with what is desirable. This is a much more plausible claim than the argument you present.

I thought we had put that little sidetrack of yours to bed, CatMack.

>>The fallacy applies to the objectors who claim that it is "natural" to eat meat<<

I know you don't like the idea, but in the spectrum of human behaviour it is equally "natural" to eat meat as it is to eat vegetables. So if you were to claim "it is natural for people to eat potatoes", I would be unable to challenge that statement. In much the same way that if I say "it is natural for people to eat steak", I have the evidence of many millennia on my side.

I will however point out that "it is natural for people to eat tofu" is not something you tend to hear very often.

>>...nothing logically links what is 'natural' with what is desirable<<

That is true. So you should concentrate your arguments, surely, on convincing people that what they see as perfectly natural behaviour, is somehow undesirable. So far, you have shown us only that such behaviour is deemed undesirable by a small number of people, who have themselves chosen vegan as their lifestyle, via a concerted effort to anthropomorphize the creatures that we use for food.

If you are unable to do more than that, I suggest you stop sermonizing. On current evidence, people will stop eating meat only when it becomes uneconomic to do so, since they presently appear to have no latent emotional desire to do so.

In short, your marketing approach appears to have little or no traction in its present form.

Have you perhaps considered asking Gruen Planet to do a segment on promoting the idea of "no more meat" - they might go for it as an antidote to that ridiculous man who spruiks the delights of eating lamb.

That might give you some more practical ideas to boost your pitch, which - if the evidence of this thread is anything to go by - is severely lacking in cut-through.

@Tony Lavis:

…Comment continued from above…

‘Because I don't want to starve to death.’

Nor do I, so the best solution is to eat plant-based foods. A totally plant-based diet = no domesticated animals slaughtered, less grains used, therefore less wild animals killed. Just because it is impossible to have no impact, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to reduce our impact.

‘One ought to not cause suffering to sentient beings’

I think that all sentient beings have interests and when someone has interests, this brings about the need for rights to protect these interests. So animal rights theory is based on rights-based philosophy, not just “feelings”. If you do not think there is any reason to avoid suffering to sentient beings, why should we oppose the puppy slaughter I mentioned in the article? Or any other actions towards other animals? Cock fighting etc.

‘in most cases omnivores are knowingly and willingly participating in the killing of cows so they can eat them’

I think that most people know this at some level, however, the meat in the plastic package in the supermarket is very separate to the animal it came from. We are not encouraged to think about the animal it came from and I think most people consume animal products because their parents did, because most people around them do etc – because it’s “normal” – not because they want to harm animals.

‘The pigs band together and install a communist dictatorship’

Haha I haven’t seen any stirrings of revolution or pigs thirsty for power at Edgar’s Mission animal sanctuary.

‘It is different ethically when the slaughtering was performed by a chronic solvent sniffer using a blunt steak knife’

I have addressed this in a comment above in reply to @Pericles:

Comment continued below…

@Tony Lavis:

…Comment continued from above – this is my response to @Pericles on ‘clinical’ slaughter vs the puppy slaughter I referred to in the article…

‘Why does the fact that the dog had their throat cut by a ‘chronic solvent sniffer’ make it worse than the “clinical” conditions of a slaughterhouse? First of all, we may like to think of the conditions as “clinical”, but I think the differences between slaughterhouse conditions and this puppy slaughter case are more a perception rather than a reality. A reality that can be established if we actually look into what goes on in a slaughterhouse, rather than just assuming things are “clinical”. For example, I did an interview with a Western Australian slaughterhouse worker, and not only did the conditions not sound any better than this puppy slaughter (actually they sounded worse), but most people slitting these sheep’s throats were also using drugs to cope with their job: http://ebookbrowse.com/nick-pendergrast-the-silence-of-the-lambs-pdf-d366878864

This case is certainly not an “isolated incident”, as is revealed in more large scale studies such as the book ‘Slaughterhouse’: http://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-Shocking-Inhumane-Treatment-Industry/dp/1573921661 If you look into slaughterhouses, you will find high levels of drug use, so once again, the differences between this puppy slaughter and the slaughter of other animals, is more based on perceptions than facts.’

We may feel better that things are done “properly” because slaughter is ‘carried out in puppy abattoirs [or slaughterhouses for other animals] by trained slaughterers using appropriate tools’ but that is about us – I don’t think the reality for the victim is significantly different.

‘Which was described by the presiding judge as the worst case of animal cruelty he had ever seen.’

Again, I think this had more to do with the species of the victim than any significant differences in the slaughter.

‘There would be monitoring of slaughter practices by outside bodies and avenues of appeal if you thought the puppies were being cruelly treated.’

I think you show too much faith in such monitoring and outside bodies. All of these were in place in the slaughterhouse that the worker I interviewed worked at.

@Pericles:

‘How do you feel about rats?’

Again, people seem to want to talk about anything but the argument I presented in the article. We’re talking about oysters, rats, whether or not I drive a car, what is natural etc – rather than what the article was about. I’ve said similar things many times already, but if my argument about eating/wearing animal products from cows, pigs, sheep and chickens was so ridiculous, I don’t see why you want to talk about poisoning rats to prevent disease. But anyway, let’s talk about rats.

I think it is clear that rats are sentient so I certainly oppose their exploitation (such as having household/cosmetic products tested on them). I honestly don’t know enough about the problems of rats and disease to comment on the issue you brought up, however, I would certainly support non-lethal/harmful solutions to this problem – if it is one. Even if the killing of rats to prevent disease was justified, what does that have to do with whether it is justifiable to drink cow’s milk because we like the taste or wear a leather jacket because we like that it is made of real leather? I think the example I raise in the article – opposing the slaughter of puppies, while not having a problem with the slaughter of other animals who are just as sentient, is an example of speciesism.

‘What I do have a problem with is your need to convince others that it is something more than a lifestyle choice, but is somehow a deeply important ethical statement. It is not.’

Lifestyle choices are based on your interests – how you like to spend your time, where you like to go holiday etc. Yes, I believe veganism is a ‘deeply important ethical statement’ because it is about opposing slaughter (and exploitation, confinement etc) – rather than just an interest or something me and others like to do.

@Pericles, I’ll also respond to some of the arguments you made to @CatMack:

‘I have the evidence of many millennia on my side.’

Yes but all kinds of things have been occurring forever, doesn’t mean they’re right.

‘…via a concerted effort to anthropomorphize the creatures that we use for food.’

It is not anthropomorphic to suggest that other animals also suffer and desire to carry on living. There just happens to be some features that we share with other animals.

‘On current evidence, people will stop eating meat only when it becomes uneconomic to do so’

Actually, veganism is on the rise. Check out a few articles on this which are published very separately to animal advocates here if you’d like:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9KICAT00.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/27/f-vegan-power.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_46/b4203103862097.htm

Maybe it's just me, but this discussion seems to be going nowhere, Mr Pendergrast.

>>@Pericles: ‘How do you feel about rats?’ Again, people seem to want to talk about anything but the argument I presented in the article.<<

Surely, you base your entire argument on "how you feel about cows/pigs/sheep", do you not? Starting with "how do you feel about dogs" - phrased as "what's all the fuss about puppy slaughter", and working on from there. How can you possibly object to the introduction of other life forms into the discussion?

It might help if you took some of these ideas on board, instead of simply repeating your mantra... "opposing slaughter (and exploitation, confinement etc)".

And while I am sure that Catflap can answer for him/herself, you are not discussing, simply rejecting...

>>Yes but all kinds of things have been occurring forever, doesn’t mean they’re right.<<

And for the (seemingly) hundredth time, I agree with this.

But Catnip and I were talking about what is "natural", as in "comes naturally to a human being". You obviously did not bother to read my response, which pointed out that eating meat is as natural a function of the human experience as eating vegetables. It is not an unnatural act. Slitting the throat of a puppy in front of a five-year-old, however, is an unnatural act, and was deemed so by the court.

Which of the above do you disagree with? That eating meat is a natural act? That eating vegetables is a natural act? That slitting the throat of a puppy in front of a five-year-old is an unnatural act?

Look, you are perfectly entitled to ignore anything and everything that I post here, just as you are perfectly within your rights to be vegan. But it is pretty pointless to simply regurgitating the same emotions, in order to allow yourself the luxury of disregarding the points that anyone else might make.

Have a happy vegan life. So far, though, it has to be said that you are giving the vegan experience a pretty poor reputation for intellectual rigour.

@Pericles:

‘this discussion seems to be going nowhere, Mr Pendergrast.’

Perhaps you’re right. If people want to carry on discussing this, I’ll reply. If not, that’s fine with me too.

‘How can you possibly object to the introduction of other life forms into the discussion?’

I have not objected to such examples and have written about rats, oysters, whether I drive a car etc – I was just making the point that if people thought the argument in the article was so ridiculous, why would they have to bring up other examples where they think the case for animal rights might be weaker to somehow disprove the main argument I made in the article.

‘It might help if you took some of these ideas on board, instead of simply repeating your mantra... "opposing slaughter (and exploitation, confinement etc)".’

I have certainly responded to all of the issues raised so far. In terms of taking the ideas on board – I will change my position on whatever issue if I hear an argument that is stronger than the arguments for the position I currently hold – that just hasn’t been the case in this exchange. Yes I have repeated points, but that is because people have raised similar questions/comments.

‘eating meat is as natural a function of the human experience as eating vegetables. It is not an unnatural act. Slitting the throat of a puppy in front of a five-year-old, however, is an unnatural act, and was deemed so by the court.’

Okay, the court deemed this was an unnatural act, but I’m not sure what that proves. If we take the kid out of the equation and just talk about puppy slaughter in general, I don’t see why eating meat from animals besides puppies is more natural than eating puppy meat like the man in the article I discussed did. Eating meat from pigs, cows etc is natural if natural is defined as we have been doing it a long time, I just don’t see what that has to do with whether we should be doing it now or not.

*Yes, I believe veganism is a ‘deeply important ethical statement’ because it is about opposing slaughter*

Well all that you have proven so far Nick, is that veganism is a
deeply flawed, even if well meant philosophy. As you concede, you
would rather deny some animals a life, if they can't die at the time
of their choosing or of natural causes, even if that means increased
suffering. The law of unintended consequences is never far away,
as it is in this case. Denying my sheep years of happy lives is
all that you would achieve. They would protest loudly, if given a
choice. Luckily for them, you don't influence their lives, how ever
well meant your cause.

@Yabby:

‘As you concede, you would rather deny some animals a life, if they can't die at the time of their choosing or of natural causes, even if that means increased suffering.’

I am not in favour of increasing suffering, I am in favour of euthanasia for other animals, just as for humans. Of course it is trickier for other animals who can’t speak, however, if an animal has a chronic and irreversible condition and they are suffering a lot and someone decides it is in the animal’s best interest to be euthanised, I don’t have a problem with that. It is a totally different situation, however, to kill someone when it is in your economic interests to do so, then after the fact argue it is actually done in the name of the animal’s best interests and reducing suffering.

Though it is clear, as @Pericles has pointed out above, this conversation is going around in circles at this point.

‘Denying my sheep years of happy lives is all that you would achieve. They would protest loudly, if given a choice.’

I have seen many animals “protesting” and struggling to avoid slaughter. Also, I am all in favour of giving the animals the happiest life possible in an animal sanctuary, rather than a slaughterhouse.

*I am in favour of euthanasia for other animals, just as for humans.*

Ah Nick, but you are not out there in nature, giving animals that option. Those wild dogs will just keep ripping herbivores to bits,
due to lack of resources. Which is what it comes down to, really.

Every creature needs to make a living, or they go extinct. Some species make a living, by having been domesticated. Cattle and sheep for instance, would largely be extinct otherwise. So its all about
win-win situations really. My sheep win, they have a cushy lifestyle,
suffering is down to an absolute minimum. Fed through droughts,
treated for sickness, protected from predators.

Win-win is as good as you can get in life. Everyone benefits.

*I have seen many animals “protesting” and struggling to avoid slaughter*

Perhaps that is because you know far less about animals, then you
think that you do. I suggest that you read up a bit on Temple Grandin
and what she thinks. The meat industry has had to admit that even they don't know much about animals. So she advises them how to think
like a cow or a sheep. A cow or sheep will baulk at a plastic bag
in a race, or a piece of paper even. Poorly designed yards are
a major issue. Poor stockmanship is a major issue. But with things
like low stress stock handling, where people learn to see the
perspective of an animal, they will walk right up to the point of
slaughter without even a hesitation. Because they really are not
aware as to what comes next.

There's a good reason for that, Mr Pendergrast.

>>...as @Pericles has pointed out above, this conversation is going around in circles at this point.<<

It is because you refuse to engage in the discussion, basically through avoiding answering those questions that make you feel uncomfortable.

The last one I posed, which was a culmination of the "what is natural" angle, went as follows.

>>But Catnip and I were talking about what is "natural", as in "comes naturally to a human being". You obviously did not bother to read my response, which pointed out that eating meat is as natural a function of the human experience as eating vegetables. It is not an unnatural act. Slitting the throat of a puppy in front of a five-year-old, however, is an unnatural act, and was deemed so by the court.

Which of the above do you disagree with? That eating meat is a natural act? That eating vegetables is a natural act? That slitting the throat of a puppy in front of a five-year-old is an unnatural act?<<

If you are actually serious when you say...

>>If people want to carry on discussing this, I’ll reply<<

...start with an answer to these questions, then we can move on to the stuff about whether animals have views about the nature of their death.