Hi,
I'm sorry if the picture offended some of you. I found it quite offensive also. I thought for those who may have been unaware of how the animals were treated it was a good means to educate.
Once again,
Sorry
3 Birds
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
-
Stan Austin
- Contributor
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
- Contact:
-
Joan Roberts
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:28 am
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
Jeff you said:
......and similar arguments can be made for banning veal. Indeed compelling arguments can be made relative to chickens and eggs.....and immersing a LIVE lobster in boiling water......or steaming clams.....or breeding a turkey with such a large breast that its legs can't support it.....or eating LIVE raw oysters.....or feed lots.....or dairies....or slaughter yards
Jeff, you are absolutely right. That is why we are vegetarians. And I didn't eat veal or lobster even when I wasn't. And while we are at it there are some human hormones that are injected into turkets to make such a large breast. It is scary.
LAWS/POLICIES
Legislation introduced in Illinois, Massachusetts, Philadelphia and New York, to ban foie gras cruelty.
Because of concern about its inherent cruelty, foie gras production has been banned in many countries, and the product is not sold in many establishments throughout the world. The laws of at least fourteen countries include language that prohibits force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras.
In some countries, the law explicitly bans the force feeding of ducks and geese, and in other countries, the general animal welfare laws are interpreted to prohibit the practice.
The following countries/states have enacted explicit bans against force-feeding:
California
Chicago
Austria (6 of the 9 provinces)
Czech Republic (1992)
Denmark (1991)
Finland (1996)
Germany (1936 and 1993)
Italy (2004)
Luxembourg (1965)
Norway (1974)
Poland (1999)
Turkey
The laws of the following countries have been interpreted to ban force-feeding of animals for foie gras production:
Holland
Israel
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Please note:
The European Union, which has already imposed a ban on other inhumane farming practices such as veal crates and gestation crates, is considering a ban on foie gras as well. Such a ban would outlaw cruel foie gras production in 15 European countries
There is plenty of great food to eat without inhumane farming practices. It won't injure our economy.
You know, I grew up with the motto: "Who for God's creatures small will plan will seldom harm his fellow man." Don't you think when we become immune to inhumanity to animals, that we become a little more allowing of it with others? And sticking our heads in the sand and not knowing how what we eat is made doesn't mean that we are better. JMHO
......and similar arguments can be made for banning veal. Indeed compelling arguments can be made relative to chickens and eggs.....and immersing a LIVE lobster in boiling water......or steaming clams.....or breeding a turkey with such a large breast that its legs can't support it.....or eating LIVE raw oysters.....or feed lots.....or dairies....or slaughter yards
Jeff, you are absolutely right. That is why we are vegetarians. And I didn't eat veal or lobster even when I wasn't. And while we are at it there are some human hormones that are injected into turkets to make such a large breast. It is scary.
LAWS/POLICIES
Legislation introduced in Illinois, Massachusetts, Philadelphia and New York, to ban foie gras cruelty.
Because of concern about its inherent cruelty, foie gras production has been banned in many countries, and the product is not sold in many establishments throughout the world. The laws of at least fourteen countries include language that prohibits force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras.
In some countries, the law explicitly bans the force feeding of ducks and geese, and in other countries, the general animal welfare laws are interpreted to prohibit the practice.
The following countries/states have enacted explicit bans against force-feeding:
California
Chicago
Austria (6 of the 9 provinces)
Czech Republic (1992)
Denmark (1991)
Finland (1996)
Germany (1936 and 1993)
Italy (2004)
Luxembourg (1965)
Norway (1974)
Poland (1999)
Turkey
The laws of the following countries have been interpreted to ban force-feeding of animals for foie gras production:
Holland
Israel
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Please note:
The European Union, which has already imposed a ban on other inhumane farming practices such as veal crates and gestation crates, is considering a ban on foie gras as well. Such a ban would outlaw cruel foie gras production in 15 European countries
There is plenty of great food to eat without inhumane farming practices. It won't injure our economy.
You know, I grew up with the motto: "Who for God's creatures small will plan will seldom harm his fellow man." Don't you think when we become immune to inhumanity to animals, that we become a little more allowing of it with others? And sticking our heads in the sand and not knowing how what we eat is made doesn't mean that we are better. JMHO
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
Lynn
And that's great....many people choose to be vegetarians, for a number of reasons, and that's fine.
But make no mistake about it, the fois gras issue is a PETA campaign, and the first step in its agenda. You pick out a particular farming practice that can be portrayed as torture, and work for its ban. After fois gras will come veal, followed by factory chicken and pork production, then lobsters, clams and oysters.....and at the end of the road will be the killing of any animal (which is, of course, the ultimate cruelty) to merely satisfy our penchants for a steak. Of course it has much greater impact if the campaign centers around a downy duck, fluffy rabbit, or fuzzy lamb....oysters lack cuddle-ability.
And therein lies the very basis of the discussion. Regardless of whether the animal is crated or allowed to roam freely, fed scientifically designed feed, or allowed to forage, grown in a tank or caught with a net or hook, domesticated in a paddock or hunted in wild in the woods, we are talking about the ultimate in cruelty....killing another living organism so that we can consume its flesh. PETA, if it had its way, would see all humanity as vegans. The first step is to argue that a method of food production is cruel. We should avoid being cruel. And once that argument becomes a part of the rubric, then the push is on to ban the ultimate cruelty, the murder of defenseless animals so we can roast their flesh over the fires of our damnation.
And so we are faced with a choice. There is really, no middle ground. We either accept the proposition that the consumption of animal flesh is morally repugnant involving, as it does, the ultimate cruelty...intentionally inflicted death, or we choose to either ignore or diminish the fact that some poor animal was tortured by plunging it in boiling water, at the end of a line with a barbed hook, was imprisoned (without benefit of counsel) in a cage, was caused pain and discomfort, and ultimately put to death so it could be arranged with special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
So, by all means, choose to be a vegetarian. But I, for one, choose to smoke some baby back ribs today. I'll try not to let it trouble my conscience.
Jeff
That is why we are vegetarians. And I didn't eat veal or lobster even when I wasn't. And while we are at it there are some human hormones that are injected into turkeys to make such a large breast. It is scary
And that's great....many people choose to be vegetarians, for a number of reasons, and that's fine.
But make no mistake about it, the fois gras issue is a PETA campaign, and the first step in its agenda. You pick out a particular farming practice that can be portrayed as torture, and work for its ban. After fois gras will come veal, followed by factory chicken and pork production, then lobsters, clams and oysters.....and at the end of the road will be the killing of any animal (which is, of course, the ultimate cruelty) to merely satisfy our penchants for a steak. Of course it has much greater impact if the campaign centers around a downy duck, fluffy rabbit, or fuzzy lamb....oysters lack cuddle-ability.
And therein lies the very basis of the discussion. Regardless of whether the animal is crated or allowed to roam freely, fed scientifically designed feed, or allowed to forage, grown in a tank or caught with a net or hook, domesticated in a paddock or hunted in wild in the woods, we are talking about the ultimate in cruelty....killing another living organism so that we can consume its flesh. PETA, if it had its way, would see all humanity as vegans. The first step is to argue that a method of food production is cruel. We should avoid being cruel. And once that argument becomes a part of the rubric, then the push is on to ban the ultimate cruelty, the murder of defenseless animals so we can roast their flesh over the fires of our damnation.
And so we are faced with a choice. There is really, no middle ground. We either accept the proposition that the consumption of animal flesh is morally repugnant involving, as it does, the ultimate cruelty...intentionally inflicted death, or we choose to either ignore or diminish the fact that some poor animal was tortured by plunging it in boiling water, at the end of a line with a barbed hook, was imprisoned (without benefit of counsel) in a cage, was caused pain and discomfort, and ultimately put to death so it could be arranged with special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
So, by all means, choose to be a vegetarian. But I, for one, choose to smoke some baby back ribs today. I'll try not to let it trouble my conscience.
Jeff
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
Jeff,
This is not a slippery slope! Banning extreme cruelty doesn't mean you will have to give up your hamburgers - or your ribs. Gee Whiz.
Pope Benedict XVI Against Foie Gras Cruelty:
In a recent interview, Pope Benedict XVI, then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was asked by German journalist Peter Seewald about his views on animal welfare. The future Pope responded with empathy, calling animals our "companions in creation." He went on to advise that
we cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.
Pope Benedict XVI isn't a vegetarian or a member of PETA, just a caring human being.
This is not a slippery slope! Banning extreme cruelty doesn't mean you will have to give up your hamburgers - or your ribs. Gee Whiz.
Pope Benedict XVI Against Foie Gras Cruelty:
In a recent interview, Pope Benedict XVI, then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was asked by German journalist Peter Seewald about his views on animal welfare. The future Pope responded with empathy, calling animals our "companions in creation." He went on to advise that
we cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.
Pope Benedict XVI isn't a vegetarian or a member of PETA, just a caring human being.
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.
So, apparently, as long as we allow animals to scamper in the grass before we kill them, it's okay? As long as we're nice to our food before we kill and eat it there's no problem? How, does it make it better to be able to say, "I treated that pig with love, kindness and dignity, then killed it"?
(Query at this point: Isn't it in fact crueler to give the animal some false sense of well being, only to have the rug pulled out from under it when its time to make bacon? Or does that just make us feel less guilty?)
Ultimately, what could be less humane than raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them, regardless of how they're treated while they're alive?
My point is simply this: There is an innate cruelness in raising animals with the intention that they be put to death to be eaten. You can be as humane as you want while they're living, but in the end, you intend to inflict the ultimate cruelty....and the "kindness" exhibited (or if you're the pig, experienced) during the process doesn't make the ultimate end any more acceptable to the pig.
SO, if we choose not to be hypocritical about this, concerns over the cruelty in the raising of animals, must, of necessity extend to the ultimate cruelty of putting them to death, the Pope notwithstanding.
So, it is, in my mind an extremely slippery slope, one well greased (with vegetable oil, of course) by PETA, because, if you limit practices which are defined as cruel, you must, in the end, come to banning the ultimate cruel practice of gratuitous executions. Their web site makes no bones about eliminating the eating of animal flesh ("Animals are not ours to Eat"). And with their push against veal, commercial chicken, egg and pork operations, and yes, fois gras, the elimination of the consumption of all animal flesh is exactly where they're heading. PETA won't require that we all become vegans, but the only meat that will be available will have died of old age.
Jeff
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
Jeff,
Your argument is exactly what convinced me to become a vegetarian many, many years ago. I could no longer be hypocritical and argue that what I bought in the grocery wasn't a cow, or pig because it no longer resembled one. When I couldn't justify to my children how I could take them to a petting zoo and then eat what they pet, we became vegetarian.
That being said, before that we often had kosher meat because it was killed in the most humane way.
But you mean to tell me, abusing an animal all of their life and then killing it is better than allowing an animal to have a wonderful life and then butchering in the most humane way? If you were a animal, which would you prefer?
Genesis 1: 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So the question becomes what do we do with this dominion? I think it is our responsibility to treat those God has entrusted with our care with respect - even if it means that we are raising it for food.
If you stop selling fois gras, the geese will stop being tortured in this disgusting way. While many will argue that they can't live without meat, few would think that they couldn't live without fois gras.
There are many, many people that don't eat fois gras and eat meat every day of their life. This is not a slippery slope. and I bet people in
California
Chicago
Austria (6 of the 9 provinces)
Czech Republic (1992)
Denmark (1991)
Finland (1996)
Germany (1936 and 1993)
Italy (2004)
Luxembourg (1965)
Norway (1974)
Poland (1999)
Turkey
Holland
Israel
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
eat meat quite often. I don't see them banning meat - just cruelty. Of course, I would expect PETA to be for it, but that doesn't make it a radical concept.
BTW, I enjoy debating with you - particularily when I'm right.
Your argument is exactly what convinced me to become a vegetarian many, many years ago. I could no longer be hypocritical and argue that what I bought in the grocery wasn't a cow, or pig because it no longer resembled one. When I couldn't justify to my children how I could take them to a petting zoo and then eat what they pet, we became vegetarian.
That being said, before that we often had kosher meat because it was killed in the most humane way.
But you mean to tell me, abusing an animal all of their life and then killing it is better than allowing an animal to have a wonderful life and then butchering in the most humane way? If you were a animal, which would you prefer?
Genesis 1: 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So the question becomes what do we do with this dominion? I think it is our responsibility to treat those God has entrusted with our care with respect - even if it means that we are raising it for food.
If you stop selling fois gras, the geese will stop being tortured in this disgusting way. While many will argue that they can't live without meat, few would think that they couldn't live without fois gras.
There are many, many people that don't eat fois gras and eat meat every day of their life. This is not a slippery slope. and I bet people in
California
Chicago
Austria (6 of the 9 provinces)
Czech Republic (1992)
Denmark (1991)
Finland (1996)
Germany (1936 and 1993)
Italy (2004)
Luxembourg (1965)
Norway (1974)
Poland (1999)
Turkey
Holland
Israel
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
eat meat quite often. I don't see them banning meat - just cruelty. Of course, I would expect PETA to be for it, but that doesn't make it a radical concept.
BTW, I enjoy debating with you - particularily when I'm right.
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
Bryan Schwegler
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
- Location: Lakewood
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
Lynn
Of course you're right.....you have made a decision that is right for you and that's great.
My point continues to be that there are all manner of cruelties inflicted on our animal meat food source, not the least of which is their being killed. To pick and choose which cruelty is acceptable while tacitly approving the ultimate cruelty is hyprocrisy. You can't take it by degrees, you can't accept "just a little" cruelty. I eat meat. I accept that because I eat meat animals die, and live in conditions that are not very nice. I simply can't say that I can oppose a feeding technique, while at the same time be in favor of killing the animal that is fed. In my mind, you're either a vegan because the use of animals as food is cruel, or you eat meat and accept that there exists various levels of cruelty. Differentiation of the cruelty level isn't a factor in the analysis.
Jeff
Of course you're right.....you have made a decision that is right for you and that's great.
My point continues to be that there are all manner of cruelties inflicted on our animal meat food source, not the least of which is their being killed. To pick and choose which cruelty is acceptable while tacitly approving the ultimate cruelty is hyprocrisy. You can't take it by degrees, you can't accept "just a little" cruelty. I eat meat. I accept that because I eat meat animals die, and live in conditions that are not very nice. I simply can't say that I can oppose a feeding technique, while at the same time be in favor of killing the animal that is fed. In my mind, you're either a vegan because the use of animals as food is cruel, or you eat meat and accept that there exists various levels of cruelty. Differentiation of the cruelty level isn't a factor in the analysis.
Jeff
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
Jeff, you said
If this is hypocrisy, then you partake in it everyday. You live in a nation where we have the death penalty and we engage in war. Our nation does engage in the torture of prisoners - in fact I believe our Attorney General authorized it.
That is from the Seattle times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002122028_mayerfeld17.html
But just because our nation partakes in cruelties, does it mean that we can't be a compassionate nation also? Of course not. We everyday determine which cruelties we wish to engage in. I suggest we start with eliminating the most severe cruelties in an effort to make us a more compassionate nation.
One of the cruelties that we can get rid of that effects very few people's lives or quality of life is fois gras. I could also argue that we should follow the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners - but by your hypocrisy theory - who cares about torture if we engage in the ultimate cruelty of killing.
To pick and choose which cruelty is acceptable while tacitly approving the ultimate cruelty is hyprocrisy. You can't take it by degrees, you can't accept "just a little" cruelty.
If this is hypocrisy, then you partake in it everyday. You live in a nation where we have the death penalty and we engage in war. Our nation does engage in the torture of prisoners - in fact I believe our Attorney General authorized it.
Gonzales bears direct responsibility for the cruelties inflicted at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere, because as White House counsel since 2001, he helped develop the revolutionary doctrine that the president and his subordinates are unbound by any laws, international or domestic, that prohibit torture or inhuman treatment of captives seized in the war on terrorism.
That is from the Seattle times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002122028_mayerfeld17.html
But just because our nation partakes in cruelties, does it mean that we can't be a compassionate nation also? Of course not. We everyday determine which cruelties we wish to engage in. I suggest we start with eliminating the most severe cruelties in an effort to make us a more compassionate nation.
One of the cruelties that we can get rid of that effects very few people's lives or quality of life is fois gras. I could also argue that we should follow the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners - but by your hypocrisy theory - who cares about torture if we engage in the ultimate cruelty of killing.
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
-
c. dawson
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:22 pm
I dunno, I think we should ban produce sections at grocery stores ... after all, those fruits and vegetables didn't ask to be eaten ... and we cruelly pull them from the ground or pick them from the trees ... haven't you heard the silent screams???
Okay, being facetious. But remember, vegetarianism is a choice. Eating meat is a choice. Banning something removes choice; it becomes someone saying "I don't like that, I don't agree with that, and I want it stopped." Never mind someone saying that they like it and want it, they don't count, apparently.
Some people like foie gras. I don't. But I don't want to see it banned ... because then something else gets banned. And then something else ... and it keeps going. And who decides what gets banned and what doesn't get banned? I know many folks feel that they are moral enough to decide what the rest of us should eat or do, but are they? I'm sure they wouldn't like me making choices for them ... so why do they feel they are allowed to make choices for me?
Look, CHOICE means CHOICE. If you don't want to eat foie gras, don't eat it. I don't like what KFC does to chicken, and I don't eat there, but I'm not going to try to ban them from existence, just because I don't like what they do, because others are very fond of what they do. If they want to eat there, it's their choice. Who am I to say they shouldn't? And who are you to say they shouldn't? Are you on a higher plane of existence than I? Are you godlike? Does eating a vegetarian diet make you better than me in every way, shape and form?
Isn't there an old saying, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?"
Hey, I agree and support some of the things PETA does, but other things they do annoy the heck out of me, because they act very high-and-mighty about some of their stances. Frankly, I don't need them or anyone else to tell me how to lead my life. It's my life, and I'll make my choices as I see fit, whether the consequences are good or bad ... but unfortunately there's plenty of people out there who will say that THEY don't like something, and THEY want it banned or stopped, so that I cannot have it, or do it.
This, I believe, is wrong.
If you choose to be a vegetarian, fine. But frankly, keep your choice to yourself. As much as you enjoy it, that's wonderful, but don't feel a need to evangelize it. Don't feel a need to find any examples of animal cruelty in food processing to build a pulpit to tell me or anyone else how bad we are for eating meat. While you may feel smug or that you occupy the moral high ground, be glad that you can AFFORD to make such a choice, that you live in a country where you have so many eating choices, and a cost of living that allows you do make those choices. While PETA and other folks hope that we all become vegans and live in harmony with our animal friends, there are numerous countries out there where people barely eke out enough to survive on. They have no choice. They eat whatever's edible, whether it's a plant or an animal. Are they wrong? Are you willing to go to their country, and tell them that they're wrong, that they're being cruel to animals and they need to quit eating that and instead eat some lovely organic vegetables?
I don't care. I'm fond of some meats, and I eat it them when I feel like it. It is MY choice. And while someone may disagree with that, too bad. It's MY life, and it's MY choice. I'm not going to sit here and evangelize my eating choices, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't evangelize yours.
Okay, being facetious. But remember, vegetarianism is a choice. Eating meat is a choice. Banning something removes choice; it becomes someone saying "I don't like that, I don't agree with that, and I want it stopped." Never mind someone saying that they like it and want it, they don't count, apparently.
Some people like foie gras. I don't. But I don't want to see it banned ... because then something else gets banned. And then something else ... and it keeps going. And who decides what gets banned and what doesn't get banned? I know many folks feel that they are moral enough to decide what the rest of us should eat or do, but are they? I'm sure they wouldn't like me making choices for them ... so why do they feel they are allowed to make choices for me?
Look, CHOICE means CHOICE. If you don't want to eat foie gras, don't eat it. I don't like what KFC does to chicken, and I don't eat there, but I'm not going to try to ban them from existence, just because I don't like what they do, because others are very fond of what they do. If they want to eat there, it's their choice. Who am I to say they shouldn't? And who are you to say they shouldn't? Are you on a higher plane of existence than I? Are you godlike? Does eating a vegetarian diet make you better than me in every way, shape and form?
Isn't there an old saying, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?"
Hey, I agree and support some of the things PETA does, but other things they do annoy the heck out of me, because they act very high-and-mighty about some of their stances. Frankly, I don't need them or anyone else to tell me how to lead my life. It's my life, and I'll make my choices as I see fit, whether the consequences are good or bad ... but unfortunately there's plenty of people out there who will say that THEY don't like something, and THEY want it banned or stopped, so that I cannot have it, or do it.
This, I believe, is wrong.
If you choose to be a vegetarian, fine. But frankly, keep your choice to yourself. As much as you enjoy it, that's wonderful, but don't feel a need to evangelize it. Don't feel a need to find any examples of animal cruelty in food processing to build a pulpit to tell me or anyone else how bad we are for eating meat. While you may feel smug or that you occupy the moral high ground, be glad that you can AFFORD to make such a choice, that you live in a country where you have so many eating choices, and a cost of living that allows you do make those choices. While PETA and other folks hope that we all become vegans and live in harmony with our animal friends, there are numerous countries out there where people barely eke out enough to survive on. They have no choice. They eat whatever's edible, whether it's a plant or an animal. Are they wrong? Are you willing to go to their country, and tell them that they're wrong, that they're being cruel to animals and they need to quit eating that and instead eat some lovely organic vegetables?
I don't care. I'm fond of some meats, and I eat it them when I feel like it. It is MY choice. And while someone may disagree with that, too bad. It's MY life, and it's MY choice. I'm not going to sit here and evangelize my eating choices, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't evangelize yours.
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
-
Bryan Schwegler
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
- Location: Lakewood