Some of the responses to the article remind one why blogging is destroying the mainstream media.

How many weirdos does it take to change a lightbulb?

Well, who knows and you couldn't find one anyway because they're all on the internet posting stupid comments.

Everyone knows that

I am confused with all of these posts about peter singers book.Me and my huspand and daughter have always eaten the all American diet.We love our hot dogs hamburgers steaks and chicken.Until I found out how are livestock are being raised transported and slaughterd.Its really a no brainer for us.There is noway we are going to support such cruelty not even for our taste buds.I am ashamed at peoples selfishness yes it has been a change in our eating but there are many alternative foods to buy.My god it just takes a little time and effort.How is this even a disscusion,what is wrong with us.If you look into the facts about how the animals are living and your o.k with that thats your problem,but for those who do see a BIG problem with the industry in general your responsability to your fellow creatures(who give you so much) is to stop supporting this insanity of over production.Its really as simple as that.Stop making this so complicated with all your fancy thinking about what animals feel or do they feel or can they have emphathy or sorrow all that talk is avoiding the issue.Animals have given us so much its time we gave back.Have some mercy please after all thats what makes us human.Stop fighting and debating and start making a diffrence.We should show these corporate greedy bastards what people are made of or at least try.We cant allow this to go on without taking notice it is our money that supports this industry and the suffering(YES SUFFERING) of these animals.They feel pain and boredom (from an animals perspective)and if you look at thier bodies they look broken to me.Who are we anyway to make presumtion on what animal

s think of feel anyway.They have a right to decency .

I don't preach, but Jesus, I don't know how many times someone has started in on me as soon as they find out I'm a vegetarian. "I'm so sick of you preachy vegetarians ..."

Sorry, just needed to vent a little.

Xanthro is clearly a plant. He obviously works for the meat industry and knows nothing about the lives of animals or the natural world. Don't bother trying to debate him. You're wasting your time.

Some things are true regardless of whether you want them to be or not.

Too bad you can't handle the truth. Too bad for you, that is. I don't have to tell you what to do with that horoscope now, do I?

I can't believe they put 10,000 old hens in a wood chipper. I bet those old hens would make great stock. What is wrong with us? In LA's Chinatown I know of two poultry sellers, selling mostly to restaurants I think, whose list of wares is something like this: Young Hen--White Hen--Brown Hen--Live Hen--Guinea Hen-- Old Hen --Rooster.

I eat meat, and I think most vegans are so annoying they should be put in camps, but this interview made me respect Singer so much. He was rational, learned, open-minded, quick to follow through the implications of any what-if scenario thrown at him, and came to surprising, interesting conclusions (like that it would be more moral to grow brainless chickens). He explained his views honestly without manipulative or propagandistic language. Most refreshingly, he encouraged people to take any number of small steps instead of insisting they become vegan jihadis.

Where is all the hate in these letters coming from?

I may be a primate, but I'm no bipedal. I am definitely heteropedal!

I've got some heartbreaking news for some of you. Sit down, take a deep breath. Ready?

Humans ARE animals. Primates, to be more specific.

Sorry.

Xanthro-- 1

JTheory-- O

Jtheory: You didn't disprove any of Xanthro's points. Rather, I think you may have helped his case.

Indent.

Take a breath.

Read what's posted before you ask a dumb question. You're the 75th vegan to post. But the previous 74 all sounded the same, so wtf.

Some responses to Xanthro.

Suffering is a uniquely human feeling. Animals do not worry about whether other animals are suffering.

Maybe you're arguing that "empathy" is uniquely human...?

Am I anthropocentric? Absolutely. The problem is too many humans apply human traits and feelings to animals instead of accepting animals for what their own unique traits.

Yes, people can misinterpret animal's actions because they are overly anthropomorphizing them. But it's just as logically dangerous to make sweeping assumptions about the differences between the human vs. animal experience of life without basis. You are separating your systems for judging people from your systems for judging animals. To be consistent, you have to explain animal behaviors using the same methodology you'd use for, say, a lower-functioning human (or any human without language abilities for whatever reason).

If an animal undergoing physical damage reacts exactly the same as a nonverbal person, that's a pretty strong argument that the internal experience is parallel.

We cannot prove Animals worry about anything, much less about other animals. While some primates seem to worry about members of their own group, I'm talking about animals worrying about differnt animals.

You might want to do a bit more reading on this subject -- see Dr. Frans de Waal's work with bonobos, for instance. I'd also point out that nothing needs to be "proven"; I'd like to see you "prove" anything about what a severely autistic child is feeling. It's a question of best interpretation given the information we have.

I'd also point out that an outside observer of human interactions with animals would certainly not deduce that we have any kind of reliable empathy for even members of our own group (we kill quite a lot of our own, you know) -- and certainly not for most other species, outside of the sometimes bizarre "pets" exception. Suppose this visiting alien decided we weren't worth protecting as a species because of it -- you're okay with that logic?

Snakes don't worry over the state of their food, that's eaten alive, neither do lions, tigers or any predators.

Right -- all animals come in along a scale of caring towards other animals, and towards their own species. Of course, because predators are behaving in ways that evolved for efficiency and survival, they don't generally kill for sport, don't waste what they kill, don't put effort into killing when they don't need food, etc..

But on the larger point -- do you really want to argue that we are morally protectible only inasmuch as we feel empathy for other animals? Because individual humans come in all across the board on that one.

Spend time with animals and not just domestic ones and you'll come to the same conclusion. Animals viewed from human standards are often cruel and mean. To say that animals worry about causing suffering in other animals would also require that we accept that animals are evil, as they willing inflict horrible deaths upon each other.

Hm. So, people who do cruel things are "evil", but animals can't be "evil" so they don't count as moral beings? You're getting into religion talk here. It's also a pretty silly argument against avoiding unnecessary animal suffering. Of course we need to judge a animal's actions differently from an adult human's actions, just as we need to judge the actions of a 2-year-old differently. That doesn't let you out of the ethical problem of causing suffering in any of these creatures.

Animals aren't evil, they have no such emotions, and it's wrong and dangerous to apply human standards to animals.

Agreed, it's wrong and dangerous to indiscriminately apply human standards to animals. It's also wrong and dangerous to ignore obvious parallels between human experience and animal experience when trying to understand them.

Anytime you come to a different conclusion simply because "well, but it's an animal" without offering any other relevant data, that's an error.