Interesting discussion -- well done. Thanks.

heh, have you seen the new Frontier airlines commercials about having leather seats? "Ooooh, that's why we don't put cows [pictures] on our tails..." 'Yeah, it'd be creepy.'

I fell over laughing, but I'm sure someone had apoplexy over it... meat is murder after all... I mean, think of how many innocent bacteria are killed with antibiotics every year... it's genocide on a global scale.

OI!

I find it interesting when either side of this gets a bit irrational. No, you shouldn't expect to kill everything and live well, even if the dead are animals - but there's another side.

Imagine: you wake up looking at nurses. You can't speak for the tube in your face, but you can hear. The doctor explains that because of the helicopter, you have a good chance of survival even though your injuries would have been fatal just a few years ago. And then she says, "I've done this operation on the simulator a hundred times. Don't worry."

So some animal testing is still mandatory. You know Eight Belles had to be killed for two broken ankles, and the soft-hearted were outraged until it was obvious what the truth of the matter was. But I don't see anyone from PETA volunteering to be the test case for any procedure designed to save animals. I don't think they're really serious.

The only moral thing to do is starve.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp

The Silent Scream of the Asparagus

At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

Good grief what is wrong with people?

> the soft-hearted were outraged

I was outraged, and my heart is coal!

Not really outraged, but let's admit that these animals are bred for speed, not sturdiness. If as much effort had been put into breeding such that suffering like that (brief as it was) didn't happen to race horses, you'd be able to hire Shaquille O'neal as your jockey and still claim the Blanket of Roses.

This is a reprint of a misery-inducing article that mentions a West LA facility that until recently was about 3 blocks from my home.

Short verion: A lot of American attitudes about animal life --including the shallow emotional indulgence of children and other seeming gentlefolk-- have holocaust-type consequences.

You don't have to be an animal lover to be appalled about this.

(PS - No slam meant toward Amy. If she says she keeps her dog feed, cleaned and stimulated, there's no reason to doubt it)

Too many people take life too lightly. Wasteful killing of animals I'm absolutely against, and spaying and neutering is just a must. Lucy is fixed, of course, and treated like a furry child...which she pretty much is.

I'm glad the dude's speaking up against this stop animal testing nonsense. Without animal testing, our lives would be much shorter and much less pleasant.

The vegans bug the hell out of me. Like it or not, we have to kill to eat and survive ourselves and why is animal life more sacred to those morons than plant life? Just because we're animals? It's still life, right? I was going to mention the ridiculous specie-ist thing the vegans are starting to promote but Winston beat me to it. Now I see by the article he links, they're taking their ridiculousness to a new height. Good God, maybe I never should have made that point about plant life if I have to worry about "murdering" a daisy!

Sometimes I ask myself how detached we can be from the things that assure us our survival. Right now, we don't see the butchering of cows, we are only seeing the net product: A piece of steak neatly wrapped in an aisle of a supermarket. Until we came back to the idea that a cow might be the only thing between us and starvation, we will hear idiots talking about Human-Bovine equal rights. There's nothing noble in seeing Indians starving while there's a sacred cow next to them.

I think I will lunch out today, I am some carvings for a rose-beef sandwich from Subway...

a lot of medical testing done on animals cannot cross over to human subjects. the genes aren't the same, the test results aren't the same, and oftentimes testing starts again at square 1 once human subjects are involved. I have always thought we should conduct medical tests on violent offenders in prison for life. 'you want to pay off your debt to society and become a viable human? donate your body to science.'

as far as the vegan comment goes, why would you concern yourself with how others subside? most vegans don't preach to others, they live their lives following their beliefs. no one can argue the fact that animals who are produced for consumption definitely do not have any quality of life. people stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the realities of the commercial meat industry.

Want to meet animals produced for consumption that do have "quality of life"? Go to the foie gras farms people have tried to shut down across the country. All those Perdue chickens would petition to get into those farms if they could.

so does one decent farm organization make up for all the crappy and inhumane ones?

Amber, if they weren't preachy, I wouldn't be reacting. And why did you feel the need to jump in and preach at me here?

And this may be harsh, but I really don't give a damn if the chicken I'm eating had a happy life prior to becoming my dinner or not. Same goes for the cow. Oh, my, guess I'm a speci-est!

I know! How about you stop killing grain for their feed and we eat them when they starve to death, hopefully before we do? See what quality of life they have without us feeding them before they feed us. Well, it makes about as much sense as the vegan argument.

Let me suggest that the point of view, held approximately by PETA et al, that "all life is sacred", is just an emotional "stopper". In reciting that line, glorious feelings of piety and worth can be generated in the speaker.

Like reciting a slogan or a prayer, this dulls the need to actually do something. It doesn't actually make anyone a better person, even as some may claim that for themselves.

I examine process controls as part of my job, and even though it's not my field, I can see there is a lot of room for improvement in food production - but it has to be driven by the consumer. Amy, you've lamented the public's affection for "light" foods - those culinary frauds - for years now. It's one of the many indications you have real wit. If there is "cruelty" in the food chain, that's key to fixing it: cut down on eating merely to get "full" (read, "distended, diabetic and otherwise unfit").

donna, the reason I *replied* to your comment about vegans was because it was uninformed and based on ignorance. im not preaching, I don't care if you and I agree or not. most vegans I have met (ya, its anecdotal, but whatever) do not tell other people what to eat or how to live. yet when the 'average' person finds out an individual is vegan, comments are made about a lifestyle choice. do some actual research-it costs much more in time, money and resources to maintain cattle for consumption than to maintain a vegetarian (not even vegan!) lifestyle.

amber -

I think that your assertion that vegans don't preach, would be more palatable were it not for a rather large contingent of vegans who do just that. I am sure that most vegans don't, but the ones that do are as bad as the worse religionists.

I'm intrigued by the proposition "people and cows are born equal." If it's true, then people and wolves are born equal too. And raccoons. And bears.

Therefore we don't need to feel any more guilty about following an omnivorous diet than they do.