>>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.