Hitler was an ardent vegetarian and even developed a way to less painlesly boil a lobster for thise friend who wrre unenlightened. His government was in the forefront of animal cruelity laws and also the drive to remove all non native vegeatation. Clulturally they sparked a return to paganism and of course the old volkswagon is the car of the liberated.

It in no coincidence that the Green Party started in Hitler's old country among the same sort of youth who supported him and that some of the older founders had followed him proudly. The thing about the Jews is overdone. Talk about a Palestinian and they will exlain all the horrible things Jews have done and how Hitler may have gone too far, but he had the right idea. Note how the Jews are responsible for capitalism and the destruction of the planet.

Singer is right on, but he is letting convention cloud his philosophy. He should question authority and think outside the box.

Wow, not only has the quality of the articles in Salon fallen way off, the quality of its readership has as well.

I read almost halfway through the letters, and then I had to give up. Way too many of the letter writers failed miserably to understand large chunks of the article.

Many letter writers have acted like the only fossil fuel issue Singer raised with the Bangladeshi rice versus California rice had to do with the fuel used to ship it. This conclusion is only possible if the letter writer has failed miserably as an article reader. Singer states quite clearly that there are other issues having to do with irrigation and fertilization that increase the fossil fuel cost of California rice beyond that of the Bangladeshi rice. That is exactly the point he is trying to make. You cannot look solely at the distance the food must be shipped.

But the worst is the letter written by Xema Gold. A letter that inexplicably received an Editor's Choice star, further eroding the value of that designation.

Singer implies that the (suffering) of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is equal to the suffering of slaughtered animals.

No. No he does not. Not. NOT. NOT!

Not only does he not imply this, he explicitly states the opposite. He explicitly states that it is not equal.

Second to last question from the bottom of page two of the article. Look:

And we ignore that suffering, just as the Nazis ignored the suffering of the Jews, or the slave traders ignored the suffering of the Africans. I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering. I am not saying that factory farming is the same as the Holocaust or the slave trade...

It's not that hard. All you have to do is read and think at the same time.

Salon continues to swirl around the drain. :p

"But the worst is the letter written by Xema Gold. A letter that inexplicably received an Editor's Choice star, further eroding the value of that designation."

"Singer implies that the (suffering) of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is equal to the suffering of slaughtered animals."

"Not only does he not imply this, he explicitly states the opposite. He explicitly states that it is not equal.

Second to last question from the bottom of page two of the article. Look:"

"And we ignore that suffering, just as the Nazis ignored the suffering of the Jews, or the slave traders ignored the suffering of the Africans. I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering. I am not saying that factory farming is the same as the Holocaust or the slave trade..."

"It's not that hard. All you have to do is read and think at the same time."

Read it closely. Singer says, "I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering." That's a very passive way of stating something, and it's not a denial.

Saying, "I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering." is not the same as saying "They are not the same sort of suffering." The latter is a denial, the former is an obscuration as he's not saying they aren't equal. He lets the reader decide whether they are equal or not.

That's why Xema Gold wrote implied.

Why contrast the Holocaust and animal welfare unless it is to link them and at some level imply they are equal? There is no other logical reason, because even Singer understands that this is beyond the pale, he attempts to cover himself with the whole "I'm not saying that it's the same sort of suffering."

If Singer didn't believe there are the same he wouldn't have compared them.

And you're worried about the quality of articles and responses.

Right.

His chef's cookbook had meat recipes in it, and pointed to one meat recipe in particular as "Hitler's favorite."

Hitler was not a vegetarian. That was a piece of propaganda invented by the Allies to discredit Hitler. Believe it or not, "Hitler is trying to exterminate entire races of people," didn't have the same resonance as, "Hitler doesn't even eat meat!"

Which is funny, in a sad way.

It's also funny that this same piece of propaganda is now being used to attack vegetarianism.

One response called chickens “disgusting.” Do you realize the parallels between speciesism and racism? -- millushke

Because you morons not only say shit like that, you actually believe it.

No it doesn't have anything to do with animal ethics.

"Hitler was not a vegetarian. That was a piece of propaganda invented by the Allies to discredit Hitler."

So, Goebbels was an Allied progandist? It's clear from his dairies, it's clear from others in Hitler's circle that Hitler was a vegetarian. It's not even disputed except by certain extreme vegetarians like Rynn Berry who somehow feel their movement will be tainted because Hitler didn't eat meat.

"It's also funny that this same piece of propaganda is now being used to attack vegetarianism."

That's the only reason some vegetarians are now making the absurb claim that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian.

Hitlers's dietary habits have no more bearing than the fact that he loved dogs.

It's only used an an attack to watch the idiotic extremes certain proponents of vegerarianism will go to. Rational people quickly dismiss the argument as drivel.