@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