An interesting article. You don't agree? America and the internet lets you do that easily.

I agree that if we're going to eat animals (and we are) that they should be raised and slaughtered in a humane way- a way that allows them to engage in the aspects of their natures that releive their suffering (perhaps 'stress' would really be a better word).

Yeah, I'll pay a little extra for the privilage of soothing my concious.

I note that Mr. Singer did not equate farmers with Nazis, boys with rats, or dairymen with slavers. Read the article, you know ALL the words, you idiots.

It is more efficient to use land to raise food plants than to raise animals. In other news, seawater is salty. I think (and I cannot prove this) that eventually we'll come around to that realization one way or another. Perhaps the end of oil will spur the path to enlightenment.

I don't have the knowledge base to discuss the most efficient political/socio-economic methods of transporting food so I won't even try.

"Vegetables are tasteless and bland." You've clearly never had my pepper/onion/shroom k-bobs. For that I pity you. ... uh, the pepper/onion/shroom/bacan k-bobs are better, sure, but still...

I always find it odd that whenever you talk about animal rights there is a certain group of insecure people who get all chest-puffy and grouse about hard life and hard choices and stuff. Dude, I've got an idea for you, eat yourself a big ol' burger, strut into a boxing studio, tell the instructor about your tough-guy ethics and then bitch-slap that faggot down.

You know, just to get a first hand education about hard choices and suffering and stress and all that.

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.

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.

Xanthro-- 1

JTheory-- O

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

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.