Yet another example as to why you shouldn't eat meat, unless you know for sure that the farmer who raises them treats them humanely before slaughtering them, and also doesn't fill them full of growth hormones or antibiotics.

Oh my God. That's all I can say.

There are monsters among us and they look so normal.

ticonderoga wrote: "Yet another example as to why you shouldn't eat meat, unless you know for sure that the farmer who raises them treats them humanely before slaughtering them, and also doesn't fill them full of growth hormones or antibiotics."

That's very good advice for those who choose to eat meat (or dairy or eggs for that matter).

Having said that, I have been a vegetarian (consuming no animal flesh including fish) for 35 years and a vegan (consuming no foods of animal origin, including dairy and eggs) for 20 years. Frankly, going vegan is a LOT easier than trying to track down sources of meat, dairy and eggs that you can verify for yourself are genuinely "humane".

You can't just trust labels that claim the animals were treated humanely (eg. "free range", "natural", etc.), since these claims are not regulated and are often dishonest and meaningless. If you really want to be sure, you need to visit the place where the animals are raised and see for yourself what's going on. And if you care enough to do that, why not just go vegan?

There is NO need for animal foods in human nutrition. An entirely healthy -- and indeed superiorly healthy -- diet can be had from the "four vegan food groups" (fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes).

Likewise there is no need to eat animal foods in order to have a varied, delicious and satisfying diet -- there are plenty of sensational tasting vegan foods from cuisines all over the world, including Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern, and good old American traditions.

So, give it some thought. It wasn't that easy to even go vegetarian when I made that choice back in the early 1970s, but today even the big supermarket chains carry a lot of vegan foods from tofu to Boca Burgers, and of course whole grains and legumes and fresh fruits and vegetables, and it is a lot easier than you might think to go vegan and just withdraw ALL of your energy from the completely needless cruelty of raising and slaughtering sentient beings for food.

Fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes are looking better and better. It's harder to enjoy the BBQ when somebody comes along and imposes the "inconvenient truth" of at what price of cruelty it comes to us.

The more I look at myself(mankind)in the mirror the uglier I become. Maybe it is true that we really are the largest most destructive virus yet to evolve.
It would indeed interest me to listen to the excuses the worlds religions offer as to the treatment and destruction of "Gods creatures".

"Each year, 80,000 live sheep and lambs are taken from Britain to continental Europe, and campaigners believe they could be dealt with more humanely by being slaughtered before transportation."

I reckon the key word is "slaughtered."

There is no justification for a meat diet these days.
None.
You can never return to the supposedly wonderful family farm--because it was that type of farm that made Pythagoros and George Bernard Shaw vegetarian.

And when you have millions and billions eating meat--this type of slaughterhouse is the only one that can do it.
The only answer is vegetarianism.
It saves water, grain, protects the land, prevents ranchers from slaughtering wildlife, reduces global warming.

The "friendly meat" movement is merely something designed to let the meat and dairy industry claim public relation points. It is THEIR job to make slaughterhouse conditions better, not the job of animal activists and certainly not veg activists.

But with meat on the rise in Eastern countries I dont see a bright horizon. Maybe a resource collapse could change things but...

A good video to share with your children at supper time:
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/CA_2008_investigation?source=gaba89

Meat eaters either lack compassion, are stupid, ignorant, or combinations thereof. More often than not, all three.

Meat eaters, of all humans, pose the greatest threat to our planet. They have a propensity to violence, and in general squander valuable resources in their quest to satisfy a selfish desire ("Livestock's Long Shadow", UN Report, 2007).

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. - Albert Einstein

SecularAnimist, I agree with you. It is easier to become a vegan than it is to track down a local farmer who treats his or her livestock humanely.

Right now I'm a partial vegetarian, with my only animal protein coming from fish, free-range eggs and some dairy (cheese). I'm working on trying to eliminate those products from my diet, however.

I guess, however, that my point was that there is no way that everyone is going to become a vegan, but there are things that anyone who is unwilling or unable to stop eating meat completely can do to help combat cruelty to animals. But you already noted that, didn't you?

It never ceases to amaze me how hundreds of thousands/millions of people will support this kind of cruelty toward life, by ignoring its existence and by purchasing animal products with the only consideration being point-of-purchase price tag, yet become outraged by pregnant females in crisis undergoing safe, legal abortions, and support candidates who want to make abortion illegal and unsafe once again.

Twisted thinking is all I can say ...

"There is no justification for a meat diet these days."

--

"Meat eaters either lack compassion, are stupid, ignorant, or combinations thereof. More often than not, all three.

Meat eaters, of all humans, pose the greatest threat to our planet. They have a propensity to violence, and in general squander valuable resources in their quest to satisfy a selfish desire"

--

The posts go from condemning industrial meat systems and industrial slaughterhouses to condemning anyone, anywhere who eats any kind of meat...

Great to see such open-minded tolerance, critical thinking, and consensus-building here at CD.

ticonderoga__ You are incorrect in your statement that it is very hard to find a farmer that treats his animals humanely. I have been around many livestockmen and have been one myself, and that is not the case. Most use veterinarians immediately when their animals need treatment and give them proper care as they cannot afford not to and they do care for their animals.

As for the inhumane shipping methods, those are primarily other countries involved in long distances, which certainly should be looked into. We have laws on shipping times and care in this country so most animals are treated humanely although their will be a few exceptions. Do not brand all farmers and livestock handlers as monsters with no heart, as they are as good people as any other sector of the country.

Farming meat (even "free-range" meat) is not a sustainable practice. For that reason alone NO ONE should eat meat. There is absolutely no reason to eat meat anyway. We have other healthier options that could feed far larger numbers of people.

And there is a no humane way to slaughter an animal. Thinking that there is a humane way to butcher animals (that have emotions and a desire to continue living) is very republican-esque "logic", kinda like thinking the more we bomb Iraq the more they will love us.

There are not enough resources or room on earth to farm animals for everyone's meals, so thinking that some free-range choice from small "humane" farmers is a an option isn't logical. And again, there is no humane way to kill a living being that does not want to die.

Science should determine our stances- and all science says that farming meat is not sustainable, not humane, and not necessary. We do not need to eat meat. We choose to. So make the choice- either the humane vegan route or the inhumane carnivore route.

Thanks Common Dreams for featuring such an article--animal abuse is arguably the largest source of preventable suffering in the world today.

http://www.goveg.com/slaughterhouse.asp

Kernal, you have a point. I'm sure that many farmers treat their animals fairly humanely, whether for reasons of humanity or practicality.

But because of the mechanization of the animal products industry in America, the above is largely negated by the fact that most of America's small local slaughterhouses have disappeared, only to be replaced by a very few gigantic factory ones, and many of the stories that come from those slaughterhouses are truly horrific.

And if you go into your average large grocery store it is not easy to find meat that's labeled "meadow fed" or "grass fed," and it's also difficult to find "free range" eggs, so for the average consumer not eating meat or animal products at all is far simpler than trying to find animal products that come from animals that are both humanely raised and slaughtered, and that are also not pumped full of growth hormones and antibiotics.

So the only way to really be sure that the animals you eat were both humanely raised AND slaughtered is to either know the farmer who raises them, and to know where and how they were slaughtered, or to raise and slaughter them yourself. So it seems to me that it's much easier to just not eat meat or use animal products at all. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it seems to me.

At a time when we can see so clearly the harm done by the animal-exploitation, it would be foolish to act as though
the harm is not being done or suggest it is inconsequential.

I can only agree with these comments . . .

QUOTE:
"Meat eaters either lack compassion, are stupid, ignorant, or combinations thereof. More often than not, all three.

Meat eaters, of all humans, pose the greatest threat to our planet. They have a propensity to violence, and in general squander valuable resources in their quest to satisfy a selfish desire"UNQUOTE

The comments which defend this torture of animals seem little different from the comments made by those who
alibi TORTURE of humans.

We have a great deal to fear from those who support violence and it shouldn't be tolerated whether practiced
upon humans or animals.

So it's about sustainability now, eh?

Quick question. For those of us living in places like the plains of North America or the steppes of central Asia or the pastures of northern Europe, are you proposing that we humans eat the grasses that grow here? Since that's physically impossible, are you proposing that instead of raising animals (which we can eat) we plow up the prairie (destroying the topsoil) and irrigate the land (by damming rivers) to grow food crops? If so, how is that more sustainable in the ecological and long-term sense?

--

One other point - when it comes to killing living beings that do not want to die, why are we limiting our discussion to animals? Are we dismissing out of hand the possibility that plants also wish to continue living? If so, how is this justified given the amount of energy that plants devote to continuing to live and to produce offspring?

Simple Sauce:

What are you doing other than cherry-picking and antagonizing?

Did you have some critical insight to add to the discussion, or were you just going to continue being passive aggressive instead of discussing solutions to this cruel system?

The simplest, most comprehensive way to remedy such cruelty is to not eat meat. That is irrefutable, because otherwise the market will suppress any ethics or cultural compassion for fellow living creatures. Resource-wise, it is impossible for everyone to be "entitled" to meat and for horrific conditions to be eliminated.

But your critical thinking doesn't stretch that far, does it now?

Having grown up on a farm where we raised all of our food, and butchered the beef, pork, chicken, rabbit, and fish we ate, I'd watched it all happen. At seven, my "pet" chicken, and calf were butchered while I was in the hospital having my tonsils removed. After that, I saw it all in a very different light. At eight, I turned loose the calf my dad had penned up to fatten for the kill. I've eaten little or no meat since.

From a couple of things I've seen on tv shows, seeing where our food actually comes from, and the process for getting it to the store, might make a lot of vegans out of meat eaters.

Another sickening thing for me was driving down a major freeway and seeing the massive stockyards along the way where thousands of cattle were crammed in like sardines, with little room to move, and the hot sun beating down on them.

I saw part of what I'm guessing is on here on a special the other day. I couldn't watch it.

Simple Sauce wrote: The posts go from condemning industrial meat systems and industrial slaughterhouses to condemning anyone, anywhere who eats any kind of meat…

Great to see such open-minded tolerance, critical thinking, and consensus-building here at CD.

As ALL progressives on CD have noted, it is individuals that support the industrial complex. We all have noted that going after the industrial complex regularly fails, so instead we work at a grass-roots level and seek the support of thinking individuals.

As indeed ALL progressives are intolerant of the taking of human life, those of us who are thinking and compassionate are also intolerant of the taking of animal life.

"What are you doing other than cherry-picking and antagonizing?"

"But your critical thinking doesn't stretch that far, does it now?"

--

I'm simply pointing out some bizarre tendencies in the dogma of militant veganism/vegetarianism. I've commented elsewhere on reasonable alternatives to both industrial meat and puritanical attitudes that seem to accompany a lot of intolerant vegans on this site, including hunting in places where humans have caused overpopulation among large herbivores by killing predators and finding local pasture-raised meat farmers. (Note, I have nothing against vegans, I just take offense when people accuse me of things like being stupid, ignorant, or lacking compassion simply because I eat a diet that is sustainable for my bioregion. Believe it or not, I was a vegetarian for 4 years and a vegan for 6 months of that.)

Clearly, the solution to the problems caused by industrial meat systems is to not use them. Clearly, the solution to the problems caused by industrial agriculture is to not use it. On that, I think most of us can agree.

Where we differ is in determining what is sustainable and moral in choosing what lives to take to maintain ours. There's no need to talk down to someone as if they're stupid for not agreeing with all of your views.

Vegetarian animals are brutalized with impunity while carnivororous animals such as dogs and cats are pampered as love objects and treated better than children.

Ahh, well Simple Sauce:

You've illustrated your pithy little shitkicker arguments in full scope now.

One of those smug little morons that says "if you kill animals, aren't you a hypocrite for killing plants" and other contrarian shit.

Guess what, if sustainable farming were practiced universally, the plants are never really killed. That's why there is, and COULD BE a lot more, a more harmonious relationship between mankind and the natural (plant) world around us.

Jerkwad pretzel logic like this doesn't merit honest debate, certainly not when it's from a wiseass.

"One other point - when it comes to killing living beings that do not want to die, why are we limiting our discussion to animals? Are we dismissing out of hand the possibility that plants also wish to continue living? If so, how is this justified given the amount of energy that plants devote to continuing to live and to produce offspring?"

Please, you are comparing mamals/fish to plants. Yes all life contains life energy but there is a big difference between mamals/fish and plants.

As far as where you live are you saying you only eat locally grown food and meat right now? If not, you eat imported food like everyone else, pretty simple.

If you do only eat locally, then yes some climates don't work for vegetarian. So you eat meat to supliment your diet as needed. That is not the issue here. The issue here is people eating meat every meal not giving a care where it came from or how the animal was treated or how their crazy meat consumption affects everyone else in the world.

HUGE difference between a person who shoots an elk and has the meat butchered, shares it with their family and friends and someone who walks into a grocery store and buys whatever meat is on the shelf.

Simple Sauce wrote: For those of us living in places like the plains of North America or the steppes of central Asia or the pastures of northern Europe, ... are you proposing that instead of raising animals (which we can eat) we plow up the prairie (destroying the topsoil) and irrigate the land (by damming rivers) to grow food crops?

A little research shows that the majority of the top three U.S. crops-corn, soybeans, and hay - are largely dedicated to fattening livestock. 80% of all corn grown in the US is for livestock feed. 56% of soybean products are consumed by livestock. All hay produced is consumed by livestock. In short, most of the agricultural land used in all countries is dedicated to raising livestock. This represents a considerable environmental disaster (through tilling, overuse of topsoil, water and fertilizer).

All that land, all that energy dedicated to raising livestock could be returned to natural prairie, creating natural grasslands for people to enjoy.

Please do some research before posting irritating questions that serve only to negate the guilt you feel for being a stupid, arrogant and uncompassionate meat eater.

Peace Czar:

Thanks for calling me a pithy shitkicker, smug little moron, jerkwad, and wiseass because I have questioned the dogma that animals are somehow superior to plants in the universal hierarchy of life. It happens to be a distinction that I don't feel qualified to make, just as I don't feel right in judging that humans are superior to all other forms of life.

Forgiveness:

See also my response to Peace Czar (minus the inflammatory name-calling) regarding the distinctions between plants and animals.

I'm glad that we agree that eating meat in some locally-based diets is not the issue here. I also agree that eating meat as often as most North Americans do from industrial meat systems is a huge problem.

My main point in this and other threads on this topic has always been that it's not as simple as the black-and-white militant vegan perspective claims. I take issue with people who say that it's never moral and never sustainable to eat any meat of any kind under any circumstances. I find that kind of dogma to be unhelpful in trying to influence others to adopt more sustainable diets and lifestyles.

Simple:

Are you a robot that inputs no emotion or personality into your writing. This is not a subject you can talk about as though a robot. In fact, I don't find many issues in the world around us worth discussing like a robot.

Ever heard the notion of "elite meat"? Try explaining to regular folks at McDonald's or Burger King why their food is NOT OK, but your hamburgers are totally acceptable, in fact, the right choice.

Hypocrisy and elitism are major issues in their own right. The easiest and most compassionate solution is to forego animal consumption. Period. As for the tiny slivers of the population that don't readily have every resource at their fingertips, go ahead and have your whale blubber or whatever.

I see it all know. You have a level of zen that none of us can achieve, we must withdraw from rage and compassion to approach all with meditative thought.

I'll do some spiritual musings on the cornstalks' place in the universe next time I drive by the local turkey factory farm and slaugherhouse.

Douchebag.

WTF:

We've tangoed before, and you should know by now that I don't eat industrial meat. Your point about returning prairie farms that grow grains for industrial livestock is indeed true. I'm not defending industrial meat, and I'm with you on the need to not support it and to dismantle it. You seem to think that hunting or raising locally indigenous species (like native-grass-fed bison on the plains) is somehow identical to industrial meat production. Being arrogant, stupid, and whatever-else, I do not agree.

Peace Czar:

Now I'm a robot because I remain calm when discussing the ethics of eating? Okay, you win...

As for "elite meat," I don't see your point. I'm not talking about rich vs. poor here. I'm talking about the source of meat as carrying a particular moral weight. I'm not wealthy, and I probably spend less on food than most. I just happen to hunt and support local grass farmers who raise and slaughter animals in a manner that I agree with.

I'm glad that you're comfortable with your choices for your diet. I'm disappointed that you're not willing to consider the moral decisions weighed and made by others.

"I see it all know. You have a level of zen that none of us can achieve, we must withdraw from rage and compassion to approach all with meditative thought.

I'll do some spiritual musings on the cornstalks' place in the universe next time I drive by the local turkey factory farm and slaugherhouse.

Douchebag."

It's not about me being morally superior. Nor is it about militant vegans being morally superior. It's about finding a sustainable food system to support people wherever they live, and that means that there is no single right answer. I don't see how withdrawing from rage or compassion is either necessary or a good thing. I also don't see how name-calling is either necessary or a good thing.

We both see industrial meat operations as atrocities. I also see industrial agriculture's plantations as atrocities. Perhaps you do, perhaps not. You've been too busy coming up with insults to state your position on that.

Humans are herbivores. The entire practice of violating, confining, slaughtering and eating tortured animals only evidences the depth of insanity and depravity that human society has fallen into.

See this Bizarro comic video on human anatomy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q

Visit The Herbivore Awareness Site: http://allinharmony.com

And discover for yourself the truth:

"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

William C. Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of
Cardiology

And...

From "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD

Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HUMAN: Well-developed

Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small

Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted

Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary

Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple

Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails

Simple Sauce wrote: "Are we dismissing out of hand the possibility that plants also wish to continue living?"

We know from science that our own human capacity for subjective experience, ie. sentience, is correlated with our complex central nervous system, including the brain. Mammals and birds raised for food also have complex central nervous systems, and also exhibit behavioral indicators of having subjective experience, as do other vertebrates including reptiles, amphibians and fish. Evolution, physiology and behavior all strongly support the conclusion that vertebrate animals have subjective experience, including the ability to suffer.

Plants do not have any central nervous system, let alone a complex brain like mammals and birds, which science tells us is the physical correlate of subjective experience; nor do they exhibit any behavioral indications of having subjective experience. Nor is there any evolutionary reason why plants would have developed, for example, the ability to experience pain.

And indeed, plants that produce seed-bearing fruit have evolved to depend on animals eating the fruit and distributing the seeds widely in their excrement.

In short, there is no physiological, behavioral or evolutionary reason to believe that plants have the capacity for subjective experiences such as pain, fear or other forms of suffering, while there is every physiological, behavioral and evolutionary reason to believe that mammals and birds raised and slaughtered for food have a very rich capacity for subjective experience, including an acute capacity for suffering.

Simple Sauce wrote: "I also see industrial agriculture's plantations as atrocities."

The vast majority of industrial "factory-farmed" crops in the USA, including corn and soybeans, is used for animal feed for factory-farmed animals raised for meat, dairy and eggs. The factory-farming of massive quantities of corn and soybeans is indeed an "atrocity" -- it is also an integral part of the machinery of producing massive quantities of cheap meat.

I don't understand something…Why is it that it is perfectly okay for "vegetarians/vegans" to be so incredibly aggressive and downright hostile towards "meat-eaters"? I resent it.

I respect peoples' beliefs, I am a compassionate and caring individual who has spent years helping the homeless and mentally challenged, mentored children and run numerous animal rescue services. Yet because I eat meat I am labeled less-than-human, and let's not forget… "Meat eaters either lack compassion, are stupid, ignorant, or combinations thereof. More often than not, all three. I can assure you I am none-of-the-above!

I asked my doctor about the need and/or desire to eat meat. She told me that we as humans evolved with certain organs and teeth to be able to basically eat and digest just about anything. Yes we can survive without meat, but more and more studies have shown that there are some essential components to meat that we just cannot get from vegetation, at least not yet. She also told me that more and more studies are showing that children especially should be allowed to consume meat at least until they stop growing.

Speaking of children…In this day and age when children are treated as mere objects, "things" that can be abused, tortured and killed, just like the animals we speak of, how can anyone (animal rights groups, etc…) expect animals to be treated better? Wouldn't we be better-off first trying to save the children and educate them to the cruel and inhuman ways we treat our food and once we have saved them, then work together to help the animals?

Back to being a "vegetarian/vegan"…How come no one speaks about all of the fossil fuel needed to grow enough food for everyone? How about fertilizers, pesticides, etc…What about the economic loss from doing-away with meat production. It's the poor underpaid folks who work in the meat industry who will pay the biggest cost.

I think this is a really big issue that needs a whole lot of research and discussion.

I personally think if we did-a-way with the politicians, ceo's and religious leaders of the world, we would be able to come together as a "human-race" and deal with these issues.

PeaceCzar? Douchebag?

Oh well.

The world is not ready for globalization. This is what happens when the people doing the decision making,the law making do not have a clue about what is happening in the practices they prescribe for others. That cruelty exists whether you eat it or not. This is needless suffering and it has become a convenience to ignorance.

SecularAnimist:

Good points. To your scientific arguments about nervous systems in animals vs. plants, I don't disagree. I'd say that subjective experience as we understand it does not justify a hierarchy of life. That's just my perspective. I'd point to Derrick Jensen's A Language Older than Words for some interesting thoughts about plants and sentience.

As for the plantations that support industrial meat, we agree. I've seen plenty of plantations that are equally atrocious that have nothing whatsoever to do with meat, including wheat, sunflowers, palms, olives, fruits, vegetables, etc. My preference is for the abandonment of all industrial agriculture, not just that associated with the meat industry.

"I don't understand something…Why is it that it is perfectly okay for "vegetarians/vegans" to be so incredibly aggressive and downright hostile towards "meat-eaters"? I resent it."

This is typical. Falsely accuse, demonize... turn public opinion. I have NEVER met a 'hostile' vegan! The very idea is oxymoronic.

I have met (and I am one myself) motivated and very dedicated people who have made huge sacrifices to help others understand the nature of their concerns.

We cook (all the time for others so they can realize that 'vegan' does not include taste compromise), we nurse (others get sick, we stay healthy so we are always on call and always trying to make it easier for others to make healthier choices), we leaflet (spend our own time and money on resources), we put up with people who are knee-jerk-reactionary and virtually spit at us these days because society has now convinced them it is OK to treat vegans like deranged assholes.

Sorry, bud; I have been a practicing human herbivore for over two decades. I have been violated in ways you can not imagine from physical attacks to numerous attempts by undercover agents at entrapment, to theft of property (small and large), break-ins, threats on my life, and unbelievable slander campaigns.

Vegans are not the problem. We are the ones who have been trying to get healthier options in all the places people are likely to want them for decades... and we work tirelessly at it and against HUGE and well funded corporate and government syndicated efforts to block our efforts.

And we do it for your health, your sanity and for the sake of ALL life; plant, human and other animal.

Munch1, if you don't mind I'd like to add one more thing to your list of examples illustrating that vegans are the ones who are really being marginalized by society: Dennis Kucinich.

Have any of you vegans ever seen a dog or coyote catch and eat a rabbit? It is not a pretty and humane sight, but it happens thousands of times a day in this country. What do you think we should do about that as those rabbits wanted to live too. Also. as we move up the food chain, many more species of animals meet the same fate.

Apparently, most of you have never read the Old Testament of the Bible where God gives his people commands about which animals are alright for them to eat. I do not believe in setting oneself up to dispute the word of God.

I applaud efforts to treat animals as well as possible, but do not think some posters are justified in putting down people who believe differently about the use of animals.

SecularAnimist:

You hit the nail on the head with that point. Animal livestock and agriculture increases the need for industrial agriculture many fold, because the input of resources so heavily outweighs the yield. There's no closed, sustainable loop that's possible on their current scales of operation.

Thanks to you, munch1, and others for saying all the things that we know, but have to say out for everything looking for that loophole to magically justify eating meat. I'm in more of an eye-gouging mood today than one of baby-spooning the facts, though I applaud your patience and apologize for my own lack thereof today.

-----------

Simple:

Don't be so damn pithy as to question, "do I oppose industrial agriculture, not just industrial meat." Are you talking to toddlers here? I actually have a secret death wish against plants... I care deeply for the animals tortured in CAFO's, but revel in delight at the pesticides and GMO madness to our grain supplies. I particularly hate safflower... call me a sadist if you will.

Stop being so mealy-mouthed and polite if you actually want a discussion. Roll up your sleeves and present some valid points for discussion. And get a sense of humor while you're at it. I don't mind a few jibes if you're actually going to talk legitimately and openly.

I can juggle insults and facts all day; I'd all the same prefer to really discuss matters.

You will find that animal cruelty and child abuse are linked.

You will also find that hunger is tied to eating animals rather than following our natural diets and you will also find that those with a vested interest in keeping the public ignorant on these issues controls land usage and food distribution in order to PROMOTE hunger.

The land required to feed a practicing human herbivore is 1/16 of an acre. Fifty times that amount of land is required to feed a typical American meatarian. It does not just represent a huge waste of land (promoting deforestation and desertification), these insane practices also deplete fresh water supplies and because of the manner in which animals are now being raised, pollute them as well.

Nothing is going to be well on this planet until humans turn the corner on this issue. It is fundamentally about human ignorance and the cost to all life for that ignorance.

Simple Sauce: It's about finding a sustainable food system to support people wherever they live, and that means that there is no single right answer

Well, you just described a single right answer that simply parameterizes the ecology. We can arrive at sensible policies when we use reason, parameterize carefully, and put a lid on the liberal extremism that allows the capitalist to rampage, plunder and destroy everything.

Actually, Kernel, although I'm not strictly a vegan, I have seen a coyote catch and kill an animal. It was a woodchuck, though, and not a rabbit. And it was over in a second.

The thing is, the coyote has no choice in the matter. It simply cannot survive on a strictly vegetarian diet. But we can.

And if you want to bring God into this, I hope you don't eat clams or oysters, because, according to the Bible, God says you're not supposed to eat shellfish.

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."

- A. Whitney Brown

Simple Sauce: I applaud your temerity. I, too, live in a rural area and although I have significantly reduced my meat consumption, I also believe that there are sustainable systems that include human use of animal products. And I, too, have been trashed for that belief on CD in the past. I have rarely seen people bring such a religious zeal to any discussion as they do to the vegan religion. For many vegans, progressive tolerance is apparently a great thing as long as it meshes with their beliefs.

Peace Czar:

I'm not exactly sure how being polite precludes actual discussion. The rest of the posters here have politely raised and defended points, with a couple of exceptions.

I didn't see any of the militant vegans bringing up points about how industrial agriculture plantations of all kinds (not just the ones that raise feedlot feed) are damaging and unsustainable. I didn't see anyone talking about how hunting in areas of herbivore overpopulation where the predators have been wiped out can reduce starvation and disease in indigenous animals. I didn't see anyone talking about the importance of bioregional diets (which sometimes must include meat or else preclude human habitation).

These things are all important to discussions about the ethics of taking life to support oneself, especially as industrial civilization begins to slow down an collapse under the weight of its impacts on the natural world. I managed to bring them up without calling anyone stupid, ignorant, evil, uncaring, a moron, or a spiteful shitkicking douchebag. I don't see how that's a failure to engage on my part.

Perhaps you'll care to enlighten me as to why it's not only immoral to eat meat in an ecologically appropriate and sustainable way, but also why insulting people in a print medium is necessary to discussing these things.

Simple Sauce wrote: You seem to think that hunting or raising locally indigenous species (like native-grass-fed bison on the plains) is somehow identical to industrial meat production.

You just don't get it. OK, let's play your game of justifying hunting indigenous species in a world where raising animals for slaughter does not exist. Given the paucity of wild animals, how long do you think it would take before all those wild animals are eliminated? Natural areas in the US cannot sustain unlimited hunting, especially for a population of 350 million. Maybe you think there should be a licensing system, whereby the hunt is limited? Or maybe a lottery? How long would it be before the elite would control the licensing/lottery? How long would it be before greater-than-thou types circumvent the licensing system and hunt illegally. How would YOU justify your place in the meat queue for the last bison in the US?

Well get in line, because there are at least 100 million Americans just like you who will say anything to justify their consumption of meat.

You just don't get it. Industrialized meat production exists because the natural environment cannot support the vast over population of homo sapiens. The only egalitarian way out is for EVERYONE to stop eating meat. Period.

So you either support industrialized meat production, or you support an egalitarian approach to saying no to the unnecessary slaughter of animals. There is no middle ground because there are too many people.