@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.