is the notion that vegetarians/vegans are unreasonable for espousing the principles of (wait for it) vegetarians and vegans.

We are being told that if we don't like a week of vapid, un-researched "stories" glorifying slaughter of intelligent animals, we should just not read them.

Absolutely, and if you're against rape and murder just DON'T READ articles about Darfur. If you're against it, then it's none of your business and you should butt out. Why do you think you have a right to take a stand against rape and murder?

But the absolute limit is telling us not to be so EX-TREME. Surely there must be some room for compromise, why are we so rigid and inflexible? Why can't we just shut up and eat our tofu and leave poor, defenseless little meat-eaters alone?

Absolutely again, I became a vegetarian because I believe it's okay to kill a LITTLE pig. Or to just chop the tasty pieces off a living pig. There is no compromise here. It's like asking an abolitionist to compromise and allow A FEW people to be slaves.

We believe animal cruelty and unnecessary slaughter is an absolute evil. We know it, because we've seen the videos. We know that intelligent animals fight for their lives. We know they experience pain and terror and confusion and betrayal. We will do our best to stand up for them, and we will unfailingly remind you that not eating meat is actually quite an easy choice -- I know that because I'm lazy as hell and I can do it.

You think the fact that bacon tastes good changes anything? I like bacon. But bacon's tastiness is not a moral argument in what is, whether you like it or not, a moral debate.

And the intellectual, moral dishonesty of Sarah Hepola in characterizing the anti-slaughter position as merely "I'm revolted" calls into question her qualifications as a writer (I won't dignify it be calling it journalism) and the whole sad, sick spectacle of Slaughter Week at Salon CERTAINLY calls into question Joan Walsh's judgment. What's next "Dog - the OTHER other white meat"? I can't wait for the whole parade of self-righteous ids screaming that we shouldn't judge them just because Lassie is so tasty, mmmm.

I used to be vegan (purely voluntarily, not because I was raised that way). Now I'm planning my first-ever hunting trip, in pursuit of wild boar.

There are those who believe that meat in any form is inherently unethical to consume. Like all the chefs quoted in this article, however, I believe that there is a respectful and humane way to eat meat. It's not a new idea -- keeping kosher, after all, is predicated on the idea that there is a morally correct way to slaughter meat and prepare food, and there is a morally incorrect way to do so. As gavin pointed out, it is possible to be a conscientious consumer of meat, and in response to those who have cynically labeled the purchase and consumption of ethically raised pork a silly, superior, self-indulgent hobby of the upper-middle-class left, I say this: I bought Niman Ranch meat when I was on food stamps. I didn't (and don't) eat meat very often, but when I do, you can be damn sure I will shell out for meat that I can believe in -- and this in spite of the fact that I make under 20k. However much money any of us has, we can all choose to spend it on what we value, and ethics and progressive ideals are not, in fact, a luxury of the privileged.

And to be honest, I'm really excited -- though in an odd way -- about going hunting (which I have never done before). To take the life of any animal is a powerful thing, and I am preparing to use and store every single piece of that animal that I possibly can. Who knows; perhaps, after the experience of directly taking an animal's life, I will become a vegan or vegetarian again. What excites me is not the prospect of killing -- I dread having to pull the trigger -- but the knowledge that I will be participating in something so spiritually and ecologically (yes, ecologically) primal, a very basic but deeply felt engagement with life, death, and nature. Yes, there will be meat as an outcome, meat to be consumed -- and in its consumption, a reminder that this was once a living being, a part of nature, as we too are parts of nature; and our position at the top of the food chain is not a license to act with impunity, but rather a responsibility to act as ethical stewards of our foodways.

Eating -- which so many of us do so mindlessly -- is among the most profound and political acts that any person can undertake. I hope Salon continues to present articles exploring the implications of our gastronomic decisions as an intersection of taste, culture, and ethics. Pork is certainly a significant (and controversial) example, but it hardly stops there!

Really, breed doesn't matter that much, a few generations of feral exsistence and they aren't that different from each other.

Fall after oaks drop their acorns is the best time to hunt. The pigs have fattened themselves on the acorns and the meat is at it's prime.

It's also much cheaper than buying internet order at $10.00 per pound. 100lb plus dressed is not at all uncommon.

Plus, you don't have to worry about how it's slaughtered, you were there.

I think that now I've made up my mind, Salon has truely gone the way of swine. Try eating fish, it's the aquatic white meat.

You write that "There is no such thing as "ethical" or "humane" meat." Just because something is not necessary to survival doesn't mean that doing it is unethical. We don't need indoor plumbing either, but using indoor plumbing is not unethical. I argue quite the opposite - there's no such thing as "unethical" when it comes to eating meat. There is indeed such a thing as "inhumane" treatment of animals, but that comes from our ability to understand suffering and death, not something innate in the animal. Pigs evolved as a food species long before humans started eating them. Pigs are low on the food chain; humans are high on the food chain. We are natural hunters; they are natural prey. They have not evolved the ability to contemplate their existence; we have. So choosing vegetarianism is just that - a choice. It is not a moral or evolutionary imperative. We are the only predatory species that has evolved the ability to domesticate its prey, so along with that we have a responsibility to minimize suffering. Eating meat is not immoral, its amoral. Every argument I have seen for ethical vegetarianism includes something along the line of "if you've witnessed the horrors of industrial slaughterhouses, you would never eat meat again." Most of the meat eaters who have responded here are in full agreement that industrial slaughterhouses, and in fact industrial animal husbandry in general, have become inhumane. That doesn't make the actual act of killing and eating an animal inhumane. The death of an animal for food is part of the food web in the world in which we live. As rational humans, we have much more of an ability to minimize suffering than does a wolf or a bear. But it doens't mean we aren't like a wolf or a bear. We have still evolved physically to eat meat. To say that a human doesn't need to eat meat is only to acknowledge that we have figured out scientificly how to replace nutrients in meat with a variety of sources from the plant world. We could also replace much of our consumption of plant matter with nutrient pills and bulk fiber and carbs, thus saving vast tracts of land from industrial farming. But it would make for a poor existence indeed. Better to attempt to improve our farming techniques to reduce our impact. Many of the arguments pro and con are simply red herrings in the debate (what about eating dogs? What about all those helpless bacteria you kill every time you shower? Isn't mankind aging genocide against viruses, mosquitoes, etc.? What about your leather shoes and wallet?) These arguments are really just distractions and don't do justice to those who decide to eat or not eat meat. Attitudes of superiority on either side are really as ridiculous as the Christian and Muslim who argue about which religion is superior.