Letters to the Editor
-
Nice article...
The truly non-hypocritical way to eat meat - raise them, let them have a happy life, and slaughter them as humanely as possible.
Whilst I do agree that you shouldn't eat animals and blind yourself to the reality of killing them, I do definitely do this myself.
Hope one day to improve in that respect, though I doubt to the extent of spending $100 on a freakin' bird (although she did get a pet for 6 months into the bargain.)
I'm not sure if anyone's heard of him your side of the atlantic, but Hugh Fearnley-Wittingstall does lots of good stuff about homesteading and the like with his River Cottage books and programmes.
-
With tears still flowing from reading that piece
While I admire the forthright intentions of the author, I find it impossible to reconcile that even those of us most concerned with avoiding undue cruelty to animals place the highest value on the relative taste and tenderness of the meat. I have long believed that the best way to coexist with other species symbiotically (to have our cows and eat them too) would be to accept our role as benevolent caretakers of animals in exchange for which we would have the right to make use of their flesh after their natural deaths. Sometimes this would be earlier in life, sometimes later, and sometimes we would still end up having to be the killers, in the case of injuries too severe to recover from. But we would have cleaner consciences and a societal respect for life that is horribly lacking in our world now. The only true objection anyone has is not a practical matter, but a chilling self-absorbed point: "But young meat tastes best."
-
I eat meat
And yet, this feels wrong to me.
The meat I eat is most likely not "free range" -- it's the cheapest meat I can afford on my limited budget. So, I have to assume that I eat animals who suffered before they died.
Still, I could not spend six months with an animal and then kill it. When I know an animal personally, I can't help loving the animal and feeling a connection. I cherish my pets and I get weepy at the thought that one day, they will die of old age. The idea of harming them is unimaginable to me.
I just feel like when you care for an animal, when the animal comes to depend on you for survival, you have an obligation to keep caring for him as a pet, assuming that you're not dying of starvation.
I know that you're right. You are kinder to animals than I am, because you chose to raise your turkey instead of buying one that suffered. I'm the one who is a hypocrite. But I still felt sick when I read this article.
I wouldn't have been brave enough to face the reality of where my food comes from. But if I had tried to raise my own meat, I would never go through with it. I couldn't bring myself to swing the ax.
-
Human nature
I agree that Harold had a better life than most factory meat, so if you're going to eat meat, this is probably the way to go. But it says something very chilling about a person's sense of empathy when they can live with an animal for six months, name it, know something about its personality, and then take an axe to it and eat it.
I don't understand how everyone doesn't become vegetarians after this type of activity. I think it's the most moral choice for this day and age. But still, kudos to the author for her honesty and for taking good care of Harold while he was alive.
-
Salon Goes for SHOCK VALUE? Never!
Could this possibly be another article displaying Salon's cheeky counter-trend of forgoing compassion?
Oooo! Daring!
-
My god, Salon
Next it'll be snuff pieces. Is there a ratings war? Is this the liberal version of Jerry Springer?
Eds. I'm thinking you likely have one in the hopper? Confessions of a rapist? Written so we'll sympathize?
By the way, Norma...NICE MEMORY YOU GAVE THE 10 year-old. (I'm sorry, TJ. Your adults are modeling horrible self-righteousness in the guise of "courage.")
Bah. Don't eat meat, you morons. I don't care if it's newly trendy. Is that your criterion for what to do?
(Sure seems to be Salon's. I so hoped for moral leadership along with good writing here. Not to be. Unless we're talking politics or war. Everything else is the fall of Rome.)
BY THE WAY, SOMEONE PLEASE FIND OUT WHERE NOVELLA LIVES AND STEAL HER PIG. Pigs are loving, smart and loyal, and she will break its heart before she slits its throat.
-
There is nothing morally wrong about killing an animal if you eat it
As I read these letters and others I have read on Salon's forums, I realize that a very strange and dangerous meme has entered the modern consciousness: the idea that it is somehow wrong for one animal to kill another for food. This is how it always has been and always will be. It's called "Nature," and some of you might want to look it up in a book or something, or better yet walk right out your front door and open your eyes. I'm sure there's a bird eating a worm or something. Is it wrong for a sardine to eat krill? Is it wrong for a salmon to eat a sardine? Is it wrong for a sea lion to eat that salmon? Is it wrong for a white shark to eat that sea lion? Of course not! Many of these animals are obligate carnivores and would literally starve to death without meat. There is ample anthropological evidence that demonstrates that hunting meat is what made us become human, that it was the spur for the development of our large brains and language ability. Why is the natural order of things suddenly considered somehow immoral and unethical? Why is it wrong or even morally questionable for a human being to eat animals? The answer, of couse is that it is not morally wrong. While factory farming has obvious environmental implications that warrant grave concern, it does not follow that humans should stop eating meat. That would be like going naked because Asian garment factories use 12-year-olds as slave laborers.
And to save the thread from being jacked, loved the article.