@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.