>>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/