Opposing Views: PODCAST: Francione - Why is Michael Vick Different than Meat Eaters?

Francione - Why is Michael Vick Different than Meat Eaters?

By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law - August 16, 2009

Comments(118) | (6)

Dear Colleagues:

As you know, I have since 2007 been wondering about why anyone thinks that Michael Vick is any worse than anyone else who consumes or uses animal products. (See 1, 2, 3)

In any event, Vick was released from prison in May, 2009, and on July 27, 2009, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conditionally reinstated Vick. The Philadelphia Eagles have given Vick a one-year deal with an option for a second year.

Judging from media reports and blog essays, many animal advocates are outraged and some advocates are calling for a boycott of the NFL.

In this Commentary, I explain why I think the Michal Vick matter is not really about Michael Vick or dog fighting. It is about fundamental moral principles that we claim as a society to accept.

© 2009 Gary L. Francione

Related posts:

Popout

Original audio source (20090814-araa-commentary-3.mp3)

Regarding Article

PODCAST: Francione - Why is Michael Vick Different than Meat Eaters?

He is different because...

...He enjoyed the suffering of animals . Meat eaters enjoy the taste and nutrition of meat . There is a big difference.

At any rate, Mr. Vick paid his debt to society . 2 years in prison is enough. He certainly does not deserve further retribution in the form of scorn for past actions.

Meat-eating people should not be directly compared unfavorably to a dog-torturer. We do not relish the pain and suffering. It does not excite us as a group. In fact, whenever I hunt a deer, I try with all my effort to make the kill as clean and quick as possible. Most meat processors do the same, like with cattle or poultry.

- SolarSanitizer August 17, 2009 1:39AM

Reply to this Recommend (5)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- then why not....?
  
  Hunt a human? i mean really what is the difference? I believe it was legal , or at least tolerated until relatively recently in Australia.
  
  Why not shoot someone gathering berries?... Really, law aside, why not?
  
  Would you feel it morally wrong for someone to shoot you to defend a deer? or hunt you for enjoyment?
  
  Why?
  
  - deadpoet August 17, 2009 2:53PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (4)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - I'll tell you why.
    
    With all the different meats I eat, I would not taste very good.
    
    That's why.
    
    - SolarSanitizer August 17, 2009 3:55PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (3)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - No difference?
    
    You really don't think there's a moral difference between humans and animals ? If it's right to kill animals it must be right to kill people?
    
    If so you are fortunately in the minority. The rest of us see people as uniquely valuable and animals -- like plants and rocks -- as resources to be stewarded.
    
    - ChrisB August 19, 2009 11:30AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Unfortunately
      
      deadpoet is not in the minority. Please do not assume that your beliefs/feelings are those of "the rest of us", because they certainly are not. I completely agree with deadpoet. I believe that human life and animal life is equal and should be treated as so. To view an animal as an inanimate object such as a rock is sickening. Rocks do not have the capability of feeling, they do not love or hurt nor are they living creatures.
      
      - smarty78 August 19, 2009 12:31PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (2)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - A large minority
        
        is still a minority. And I dare say this is a small one.
        
        There are many, many people who care deeply about how animals are treated who still do not equate them with humans.
        
        Animals are obviously not inanimate objects; just a part of the creation that we are to care for and use wisely.
        
        - ChrisB August 19, 2009 2:50PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Fortunately
        
        Deadpoet is distinctly in the minority. Other than fringe movements made up of radical animal rights fanatics, no one believes that human and animal life is equal.
        
        - donnawatkins August 20, 2009 9:06AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Speaking for everyone
        
        I wish people on here would stop trying to speak for everyone. How can you possibly say that "no one believes that human and animal life is equal"? I believe that it, am I no one? I know of several other humans who believe that exact same way. None of us are radical animal rights fanatics and even if we were our beliefs would still be valid.
        
        - smarty78 August 20, 2009 10:18AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Speaking for everyone
        
        If you believe that animal and human lives are equal, you are an animal rights advocate. There is no other way to describe it. No, you are not no one, but you certainly are AR.
        
        - donnawatkins August 20, 2009 10:34AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - An appeal to popularity doesn't prove anything
      
      Just because the majority of a population holds a view means nothing in relation to whether that view is right or not. 300 years ago slavery was an accepted practice in much of the world. Its not a stretch to say that the majority of the population had little to no problem with it. Quite possibly they viewed slaves in a similar way to how you and most of the world views animals today. Assuming that we are not adopting a relativist or skeptic viewpoint which would allow for both of these conflicting views to be right than apparently, either we are wrong today and African Americans along with other groups should be slaves or society back then was wrong. If we admit that a view the majority of people held back then is wrong than judging a view to be right today just because a majority of people hold it doesn't seem to hold up.
      
      This doesn't necessarily mean that the majority is wrong but it does require them to present arguments that their view is right. Having a simple majority of the population believe something is not sufficient evidence for its truth.
      
      - jordon August 19, 2009 5:54PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - An Appeal to Popularity..
        
        Obviously a majority DID have a problem with slavery and it was outlawed. But this is about the difference between humans and animals . Because we care about them, we have laws against abusing them for food or companionship. I love my pets dearly, but they are NOT children in fur coats. Yes, they feel emotions by instinct, some more than others, but they do not understand the difference between right and wrong. They know only what we teach them which is a simple understanding of "no" I don't find that acceptable and their instinct driving the rest of their lives. They are not children..they are animals who feel no remorse for any killing they may do. Those of us who love them and what they have to offer will teach them to love in our society . Those who vie for danger will teach them to kill or maim humans and other animals for pschotic thrills..like Michael Vick . And then there are those who have so little respect for human life, they have placed animals on an even kill or in a superior place to humans. The latter we call the animal rights advocates. Humans did not place themselves as higher beings than animals, nature did. We were given the cognizant skills to know right from wrong, to understand and physically change and use the world around us. Animals live and die by instincts instilled in them. Not all humans use their gift of cognizance wisely. Not all humans model their lives around the love that should be in each of us. Some are filled with hatred for themselves and their own kind and the world around them. But the majority DO try to do what they feel is right with the gift of reasoning inside them. Michael Vick is not one of those people. Animals are here for our use, be it for companionship or food, research or education , protection or entertainment . Regardless of what they are used for, they must be treated with kindness and respect. We've had good laws agaisnt abuse in place for many years and need only to enforce them. Many animals enjoy entertaining us, while others..like those used for fighting..do not. In the wild they normally kill only for survival. But they do enjoy playing and that is mostly what entertainment of animals is and should be about. Those raised for food are not pets. Humane slaughter for human consumption is much less violent than the death they would meet in nature. If killed by a predator in the wild, they may well still be alive for part of the time they are being eaten. That's the major difference between killing for food by humans who are cognizant of the difference killing humanely and quickly and nature's way of doing it. Michael Vick was one of those who knew the difference between right and wrong and chose to ignore it. Many don't belive he feels remores for his actions, only for being caught.
        
        - forfairplay August 20, 2009 10:08AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Reply
        
        "Obviously a majority DID have a problem with slavery and it was outlawed. "
        
        I was responding to someone whoe seemed to be arguing that because the majority of people hold a position that it is right. This view runs into problems when you consider that the views held by the majority change over time. It seems reasonable to assume that at some point in human history the majority of people believed slavery was moral. That at a later period thh views changed demonstrates my point. The two views about slavery, one that it is morally permissible the other that it is not, are contradictory. Both cannot be right. Saying that eating meat and the like are right because a majority of people support them also doesn't work out. You need reasons and arguments to prove a view is right.
        
        You seem to be arguing that humans are inherently better than animals because of our superior mentall abilities. This doesn't apply to all humans. For example infants, some extremely senile people and extremely mentally retarded people have lesser mental abilities than many animals. Pigs for example have the mental ability of about a three year old child. If mental ability is some sort of moral trump card, then why is it perfectly acceptable to kill and experiment on pigs and other similarly inteligent animals, but not young children , senile people and the severaly mentally retarded? If mental ability is all that matters then we should treat them equally.
        
        You also argue that animals behavior is entirely determined by instinct. You need to supply more support for this claim and define exactly what is meant by "instinct". I also don't see how, even if true, this would change the way we should treat them. Please explain.
        
        "And then there are those who have so little respect for human life, they have placed animals on an even kill or in a superior place to humans. The latter we call the animal rights advocates. Humans did not place themselves as higher beings than animals, nature did."
        
        How do animals rights activists not respect people. Many of the early leaders in the animal rights movement were also advocates against sexism, racism and the like. Furthermore you haven't provided any reason why humans are so much better than everything else as to allow us to use them at our leisure. Other than some preference for your own species this doesn't play out. Furthermore if humans are some "master" race I would presume this would be because of some increased moral sensitivity. Apparently we are so good at not torturing, murdering, raping and otherwise using to our own advantage, other creatures, that it gives us permission to do all those things to animals because they might not understand them as well as us?
        
        "Humane slaughter for human consumption is much less violent than the death they would meet in nature. If killed by a predator in the wild, they may well still be alive for part of the time they are being eaten."
        
        Well for one being raised under terrible conditions on a factory farm, then shipped in the back of a truck to a slaughterhouse and killed isn't such a great alternative either. We aren't doing animals any favors by raising them for food . It would be better that we spare them this miserable. and short, life by not breeding them into existence.
        
        - jordon August 21, 2009 2:54PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Hunting humans in Australia?
    
    What are you referring to?
    
    - donnawatkins August 19, 2009 12:43PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - hunt me?
    
    deadpoet, you think you want to hunt me to defend a deer - go ahead and try. But you better spend some serious time on the range because you won't get a second shot.
    
    As far as the morality of it, people have been killing animals and eating them since the beginning of time as we know it. You think you want to judge the thing that made us intelligent beings?
    
    I can't believe you would say something so stupid where everyone can see it.
    
    - spatin August 19, 2009 8:49PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - people have always had free will
      
      "As far as the morality of it, people have been killing animals and eating them since the beginning of time as we know it."
      Well, we also know that people have been killing, and often brutally, one another for around the same amount of time. Does that mean that's what God intended? That that's what's right?
      
      - Mirek2 August 20, 2009 3:25AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - what God intended
        
        I don't know what God intended, mirek2, but if God had a hand in the writing of the Bible, it looks like God most certainly did intend for men to kill each other, and brutally so. Read the first several books in the Bible and you will see what I mean. There sure was a lot of smiting going on back in those early days. Now we just smite with more sophisticated weaponry.
        Notwithstanding what God intended or what is written in the Bible, the fact remains that killing and death is part of the game of life. Deal with it. You are not going to change it.
        How did we get on this subject? We were talking about eating animals .
        P.E.T.A. = People Eating Tasty Animals
        
        - spatin August 20, 2009 10:34AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vick: a moral difference?

Solar:

Michael Vick inflicted suffering and death on animals because he enjoyed the "sport."

Even though we do not need to eat animal products for nutritional purposes, we inflict suffering and death on billions of animals--we actually treat them worse than Vick's dogs--because we enjoy the taste.

I am sure that you try to kill the deer quickly but we all know that many, if not most deer, particularly those hunted with bow and arrow, die excruciating deaths . I know. I have seen it happen where I live. In any event, you hunt deer because you enjoy doing so. With all respect, how do you differ from Vick? If he ate his dogs afterward, would it have made a difference?

As for poultry/cattle processors, I have seen the conditions on the farm and in the slaughterhouse. The word " torture " applies.

I think that a great deal of the Vick reaction has to do with the fact that dogs are involved (we treat them specially) and that Vick is a man of color.

I apologize if anything I have said here is in any way insulting to you. It is not my intention. I am trying to bring out what I see as a fundamental social/cultural inconsistency.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
www.abolitionistapproach.com

- Gary L Francione August 17, 2009 12:47PM

Reply to this Recommend (13)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- It's a good point
  
  Morals is what it get's down to. Because dogs and other domesticated animals are viewed by many as part of the family it makes them closer to human than a wild (Deer, Elk, Bear etc.) or bread for food animal (cows, chickens, lambs etc.)
  For me it's a respect thing. When I go hunting I respect the animal that I am hunting. When I would go bull riding I would respect the bull I was getting on.
  Vick didn't respect the dogs he was having fight.
  
  - ttut21 August 17, 2009 1:29PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (5)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Reply to tut21
    
    But I have met dog fighters who claim to love and respect their dogs. Would that matter?
    
    If I killed you but respected you, would it make a difference. It certainly would not make a difference legally, but I am asking you about whether it would matter morally.
    
    Isn't the issue whether we can morally distinguish the harm? Don't we have to have a justification before we impose suffering and death on another sentient being? Is our enjoyment or pleasure or amusement a sufficient justification?
    
    Gary L. Francione
    Professor, Rutgers University
    www.abolitionistapproach.com
    
    - Gary L Francione August 17, 2009 1:36PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (11)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Fruits-nuts
      
      SO what is a man to eat?Plants have to die for you to eat them!Do you take pleasure in killing plants or raping them for there fruit?
      
      - countryboy August 18, 2009 5:41PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Sentience
        
        Plants are not sentient; they do not have any sort of mind. They do not have a nervous system of any sort.
        
        Moreover, even if plants were sentient, it takes 6-12 pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh. Therefore, it would still be the case that you were killing fewer sentient beings by eating plants than eating flesh.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 6:16AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (7)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Not sold
        
        [Plants are not sentient,they do not have any sort of mind.They do not have a nervous system of any sort]
        Can you say plants have no feelings?
        
        - countryboy August 19, 2009 6:18PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Plants
        
        Plants are alive; they are not cognitively aware of pain or pleasure and there is no proof to the contrary. Indeed, plants lack every mechanism that we associate with perceptual awareness of pain and pleasure. Plants have no sort of cognitive apparatus.
        
        Indeed, were plants sentient in the way that nonhumans are, such sentience would present a serious challenge to evolutionary theory!
        
        Why would plants develop perceptual awareness when there is nothing that they can do in response to pain? Sentience is a mechanism that allows sentient beings to become aware of, and protect themselves from, dangerous situations. Dogs, chickens, etc. can and will run away from a flame. A plant cannot move.
        
        Plant sentience would be at odds with basic evolutionary theory. It would not help organisms to adapt at all;indeed, it would do the opposite.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 7:16PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        'Expert' Gary....
        
        When I was in college we hooked up a plant at the beginning of botany class to an ohm meter. Then each of us walked by a plant and one had been given the assignment to cut the plant viciously.
        At the end of the semester; the plant was brought back into the class; and the ohm meter put back on it.
        Everyone walked by the plant again; and when the guy who had cut the plant up walked by; the ohm meter went crazy.
        Not for anyone else; just him.
        
        We do not understand the reality of plants. We do not understand the reality of animals . They have their own realities.
        
        Trees and bushes and fields full of life are cut down; the animals that live their killed in the process; or they die from lack of a place to exist.
        Then plants are planted that satisfy ~your~ taste Gary - and in growing them; herbicides; and pesticides and fertilizer are used to enrich the production of the plants.
        These chemicals and the chemicals that are put into them to get rid of them ( see 'other ingredients' on labels) get into the soil; and kill animals and plants alike.
        If animals start to destroy vegetables in production; the animal is killed.
        But it is all for the production of food made of plants.
        Animals die: to allow plants to grow.
        
        Thing is Mr Expert; there is a rule on this planet that you cannot except; but it remains a rule anyway.
        That is that in order to live on this planet; something has to die.
        
        That is reality Gary.
        
        Check out the rain forest; go look at how many animals live in a natural setting; and then walk to the neighboring field of vegetables; and see how your vegetable production costs the lives of animals.
        
        Its reality Gary.
        
        - Elfking August 19, 2009 11:25PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Non-expert Elking
        
        First, I do not believe what you report on the matter of the ohm meter.
        
        Second, even if your report is correct, it would not indicate that plants are perceptually aware in the way that cows, chickens, pigs, fish, etc are.
        
        Third, putting that aside: given that we have to cultivate more land to grow crops to feed animals because it takes between 6-12 pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh, we are still killing more plants and more field animals with animal agriculture than we would if we were vegans .
        
        It takes approximately 1/6 acre to feed a vegan for a year; it takes 3 1/4 acres to feed an omnivore.
        
        Fourth, the death s of field animals can be greatly reduced through more careful farming methods.
        
        Fifth, no matter how you cut it, and even if plants were sentient in exactly the way that animals were, it would still result in far less harm than a omni diet .
        
        It's reality Elking.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 20, 2009 5:54AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
  - Empathy and justice are far more relevant
    
    I can’t see the relevance of ‘respect’ when the behavior is disrespectful. There is nothing respectful about killing or exploiting another being, human or nonhuman.
    
    Empathy and justice are far more relevant. Specifically, what would it be like to be born into a world where you were treated solely as an object of another species’ amusement, whether for food , entertainment , or any other use and killed, eaten, or tossed out? What did Vick’s dogs or the chickens who are tortured and killed for eggs or the cows who are tortured and killed for dairy products do to deserve such a fate, other than, through no fault of their own, born into a human-created hell? What did the sentient being shot by the hunter do to deserve being executed? What would it be like to reverse roles with these beings?
    
    - dan August 17, 2009 1:47PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (10)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- oh please
  
  It isn't because Vick is a man of color that people are outraged at his actions. Even if he was not a man of color people would be outraged .. not everything is about race even if such person is a man of color....give me a break.
  
  - momof4kiddos August 19, 2009 11:21AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Race
    
    I respectfully disagree. Race still plays an important role in American life. Do you know what goes in rodeos? There is an enormous amount of suffering purely for entertainment value. So what's the difference?
    
    It somewhat like the O.J. Simpson case. Men kill their wives every day. Sometimes, rich, white men do it. But you get a televised trial and national obsession when a man of color is accused of killing a white woman.
    
    Gary L. Francione
    Professor, Rutgers University
    www.abolitionistapproach.com
    
    - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 12:05PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (4)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Race
      
      Race most certainly does play a part but I can't think of any white people who were proven to have treated dogs the way MV did, that got off scot free. Do you?
      
      Plenty of black men kill white women. The difference in that case was celebrity.
      
      Just as it is in this one. Michael Vick and OJ Simpson are both celebrities who happen to be black. Phil Spector murdered his wife and he happens to be white.
      
      - donnawatkins August 19, 2009 12:26PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Reply
        
        In my years as a lawyer, I can tell you that there are plenty of times that white, middle-class people do terrible things to dogs and nothing happens.
        
        Yes, Phil Spector murdered his partner. And did we have a natione glued to the television and thoroughly obsessed to every ruling in the trial? No.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 12:34PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        And
        
        there are plenty of black people who do terrible things to dogs and nothing happens.
        
        On the court channels? Yes, there certainly were people obsessed with the trial.
        
        I have not heard one person make any racial comments directed towards Vick, whether in person or in any of the myriad blogs and newspaper articles that exist. Not to say that there aren't, just that I have not seen any. I personally think it's encouraging. People are equal opportunity haters of scum who abuse animals for entertainment .
        
        - donnawatkins August 19, 2009 12:42PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Race
        
        I have heard tons of people make racist comments and adopt racist perspectives regarding the Vick situation and many others involving people of color. Obviously, racism is not the only factor motivating people to judge Vick as a bad or evil person and there are many who do so without any racist motivation. But if you believe that "people are equal opportunity haters of scum who abuse animals for entertainment ," that our society is really over racism to that extent, then you live in a fantasy world. Racism is not as overt and deep as it once was, but it is still a major aspect of people's psychological makeup, and it is just not logical to think that somehow it is not going to affect the way anyone thinks about Michael Vick 's actions.
        
        But equally if not more important in allowing people to view Michael Vick as "scum" because of the way he treated dogs while they continue to eat animals for nothing other than their own pleasure is speciesism. In our society, we are taught to think that the lives and well-being of dogs matter more than the lives and well-being of the animals we grow up eating.
        
        - jmelton August 20, 2009 8:33AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
    - Race
      
      Did you forget about Scott Peterson? He killed his wife and unborn child, is Caucasian, had a televised trial and national obsession. All the same as O.J. Simpson. The only difference was that O.J. was already a famous person. Oh yeah, and O.J. got away with it.
      
      - smarty78 August 19, 2009 12:45PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - GARY GARY GARY !!!
      
      Ever really been involved in rodeos Gary? I have; my son rode in them; and I have been to many.
      Bulls that are used in rodeos are there because they are bred from bulls that bucked in other rodeos.
      These bulls are pampered pups; they react to people differently - some stomp people into the ground for fun; but many are big puppy dogs that follow you around and eat grain out of your hand.
      They learn the routine- they enjoy the routine; they enjoy the crowd; and watch them Gary - they act proud and tough; but they know where the door to leave the arena is; even though its in a different place each rodeo.
      They act tough; go 'backstage' and its obvious they are proud.
      Then they get treated really well actually- its the income of the owner and the chance to have a bull that has bucked off hundreds of cowboys- because that is how he makes his money .
      These guys do not make money by abusing the bulls.
      
      With horses; used for bucking - most got there because they could not be trained to accept a rider. What do you do with a horse you can't ride? Do you think people feed horses that have no purpose? Well they do a lot - but most end up selling horses that buck; and rodeos save those horses life.
      And they take good care of their horses; keep them in tip top shape so they can really buck.
      What Gary do you think the alternative is?
      The purpose of a rodeo is NOT to hurt an animal.
      The purpose of a dog fight is to have one dog inflict damage to another dog: over the damages done to it.
      See the difference?
      
      - Elfking August 20, 2009 12:03AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - ELFKING! ELFKING! ELFKING!
        
        Yes, I know quite a bit about rodeos.
        
        # Horses and bulls have broken their neck or back in bucking events.
        
        # Cattle have broken a leg in roping events.
        
        # Calf roping causes severe bruising around the throat.
        
        # Flank straps, spurs and electric prods are used to make animals buck.
        
        # Rodeos are brutal events that cause stress and injury to animals for the sake of entertainment .
        
        In any event, here's something for folks to read:
        
        http://www.mercyforanimals.org/rodeos.asp
        
        Elfking, to paraphrase a question that Barney Frank asked in response to a comment on Obama's " nazi " health plan at a "town hall" meeting: "what planet do you live on?"
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 20, 2009 6:08AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Which planet ?
        
        Earth: Gary.
        
        A planet that held the ingredients for life; and that life evolved; it evolved Gary; not because of the intellect needed to survive while eating grass; but the intellect needed to hunt those that eat grass.
        
        Lions are meat eaters; they are pretty smart Gary; and so are wolves and coyotes; and is a safe bet that any given predator is smarter than any given plant eater.
        
        It is a matter of fact that 'mans best friend' is a predator; and cats- well they are predators too. And we get along with them in our homes and except them as part of our families.
        
        That is because we are animals too Gary.
        
        So that answers that question for you Gary; and I think Barney Franks use of the question: was far superior to yours.
        
        Any animal killed in a rodeo is not killed on purpose. The audience is full of people that love horses; and love the power and strength and the smart tactics of bulls. They do have tactics; and half the score the bull rider gets: is those tactics of the bull.
        
        Flank straps do not injure the animal it just makes them want to buck harder. You do not hurt the animal; and make it react in panic; you don't want a wildly bucking animal; you want one that bucks and moves in a predictable pattern. That happens when the animal is angry - not hurt.
        As most of the bulls are treated really like kings - sometimes when the cowboy gets on them - they get complacent and then a guy will zap it on the butt to remind it of its job.
        
        Its not a permanent or severe torture ; people that have horses; and cattle and all kinds of pets use electric fences- to keep their livestock and pets from injuring themselves in fences; or by getting out into vehicle traffic or other trouble.
        
        And its not enough shock to do what police officers do with their tasers. Tasers though knock a human to the ground; even really big and bad humans; and keep them there.
        So the amount of shock done to the bulls is less than that; and tasers are excepted for use on humans. Police officers taser each other so they can understand what they are doing to suspects.
        
        Tasers are more powerful than the cattle prod. And socially expectable on humans
        
        Nobody enjoys an animal being injured or killed in a rodeo; its not what rodeo is all about. I have been to hundreds of rodeos; and when that rare moment comes when an animal is injured; the audiences reaction is always one of sorrow. I have never heard the crowd cheer when an animal is injured. Never.
        
        That part is all in your mind Gary.
        
        Thanks for the links. Its always a sign of expertise to do that. [sic]
        
        - Elfking August 20, 2009 3:21PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Question
  
  How is a quick death from a bolt suffering worse than being kicked to death or drowned?
  
  How is the fact that Vick is a POC relevent? I have heard many people say anti-pit bull sentiment is racial but I am not convinced.
  
  Thank you.
  
  - donnawatkins August 19, 2009 11:25AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - "Quick death" is not an accurate characterization
    
    Animals raised and killed for food suffer a great deal more and over a longer time than do fighting dogs (although I certainly think that dog fighting is horrible). "A quick death from a bolt" does not in any reasonable way describe the life and death of a "food" animal.
    
    Gary L. Francione
    Professor, Rutgers University
    www.abolitionistapproach.com
    
    - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 12:08PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (5)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Quick death
      
      But that is not true of all animals raised for food , just as it is not the case for all pit bulls.
      
      Could you please address the POC comment, if you have time?
      
      Thanks!
      
      - donnawatkins August 19, 2009 12:10PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Reply
        
        I would disagree with you about whether any animal raised/killed for food are not treated in ways that would constitute " torture " if humans were involved.
        
        I did address the POC issue in other posts.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 12:18PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Reply
        
        So animals that treated humanely, in free range farms are still being "tortured"?
        
        - donnawatkins August 19, 2009 12:23PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Reply
        
        That's right, animals raised in "free range" situations are still subject to treatment that constitutes torture . Sometimes, free range situations are worse. For example, in the dairy industry, when cows get mastitis, they are given antibiotics. In organic situations, antibiotics are generally not permitted and, in many cases, cows can suffer more. But that is just one example. The treatment of animals in free-range situations also involves terrible suffering and death at a hideous slaughterhouse.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        www.abolitionistapproach.com
        
        - Gary L Francione August 19, 2009 12:31PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
    - Animal Suffering?
      
      Let me see I feed my food animals before I eat, I water my food animals before I drink, I make sure they have shelter and protection before I go to bed each night and thats cruel? Doesn't matter the day or weather I always take care of my animals before I care for myself, thats the way my father did it ,my grandfather and relatives. If my animals are so stressed and suffering why do they walk my to me for attention or a backscratch? You do a very good job of taking a small minority of irresponible people who "raise" animals and project that entire image over everyone involved in agriculture. Animal rights people find the worst people and cast that shadow on the rest of us. If PETA or HSUS for example cared so much for animals why did they not instantly end/report animal abuse when it was first taped on various undercover occasions instead of waiting for months till it would have the most shock value? Like it or not animals are used for food and many people I'm associated with have the utmost rescept for our animals even if they will end up as a steak on somebodies plate.
      
      - jmcv02 August 19, 2009 12:55PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - A few questions about your philosophy
      
      I have a few questions about some of your views. I'm interested in adopting a more developed philosophy on animal rights and I would like to get a better understanding of abolitionist veganism. For one I am curious about what your differences are with Peter Singers views. I am also wondering which one of your books you would recommend reading to get the best all around understanding of abolitionist veganism. Would "Rain Without Thunder" be the best choice?
      
      Thank You
      
      - jordon August 21, 2009 11:46PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Thank you
  
  Thank you for your well written article and for starting this thread. I, too, believe that Michael Vick deserves another chance. Hopefully this sad situation can promote communication and introspection, re: animals in general and pets in particular.
  
  Someone said to me, "I think they are being too hard on Vick. After all, he only killed the losers. He didn't kill the ones that won."
  
  That "got me to thinking" and wow, that's what all "responsible" dog and cat breeders say. "All my puppies get good homes" ie, they win. Many dogs and cats don't win, the ones that lose the "life-lottery" and got bad homes, homes that get forclosed, so now they wander as strays, starve, die of disease, waste tax dollars in pounds, costing money being killed and for dead pet disposal. PETA says Vick laughed as he killed the dogs. But the smiling Westminster photos and Cat Fancy magazine says it's all ok. Westminster/Cat shows and enormous amounts of pet suffering and death happens simutaneously, and the breeders laugh and smile, too.
  
  A responsible breeder is like a responsible pedophile. There is NO SUCH THING.
  
  - practicalone August 19, 2009 11:53AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (4)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- WARNING
  
  You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to ranching and meat processing !!! I would think you believe every living animal should be left alone, therefore I am assuming you are a PETA and/or HSUS follower. WARNING TO ALL- PETA is not what it appears, they tell you what they want you to believe, dig deeper. The following is from a FBI release. “Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat, according to the FBI. So far, the agency says extremists have been responsible for more than 1,800 criminal acts and more than $110 million in damages and it is investigating more than 170 incidents across the country. “ PETA and HSUS do not want animals used for anything – just think of all the consequences, it is mind boggling. When theses terrorist control our food supply they control us.
  
  - petakills August 19, 2009 1:20PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - fear mongering....
    
    fyi... Gary does not support PETA OR HSUS... Gary is an abolitionist not a welfarist.
    
    Please correct me if I am wrong Gary.
    
    to the rest of your post.. sorry, but it is filled with the ramblings of misinformation. To your "FBI" concerns, like many other government agencies and politicians, the FBI lies or uses half truths to achieve results. The fact that they call it animal rights and environmental "extremism" in itself is a term to incite fear. What's more extreme? ---- torturing and killing of animals for food you don't need and unnecessary testing for your shampoo or choosing not to consume those products. To me, it is the latter. We don't NEED to use animals for anything therefore to use them is selfish and "extreme".
    
    But my real question is, what is so mind boggling to you about the consequences of not using animals for anything? What is this horrific fate you see prevailing on a world free of violence against animals?
    
    What is mind boggling to me is attitudes so fearful of non-violence!
    
    - c-la August 20, 2009 6:19AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- EXPERT?
  
  I think the need for animal protein to help in feeding the brain; and to think clearly: has been ignored by this "expert".
  
  I have read a lot of stuff here by Franicone that is just plain ignorant.
  
  I need to know for clarity; at what point does an animal become one that you ( Francione) are concerned about?
  
  Do you allow mosquitoes to inject West Nile in you to save the Nile virus' life - or to save the mosquito?
  
  Do you allow mice and rats in your home or in grain and vegetable production to poop in your food ? Do you turn your head at that point to those animals ?
  
  Where do you draw the line ?
  
  - Elfking August 19, 2009 11:12PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No moral difference

I would agree with Gary in that there is no moral difference in this case.

If Vick coaxed two different animals that we don't regard as " pets " into fighting there would definetely not be the outpouring of so called 'moral' outrage against this. There is no difference between hiring someone to kill an animal because you enjoy the taste of his or her flesh and any other form of animal exploitation. Yes, what Vick did was horrible, but the way we allow 53 billion+ animals to be enslaved, raped and slaughtered in our name is equally as horrible.

ALL of our use of animals comes down to greed and enjoyment and definetely not need.

- bletheringvegan August 17, 2009 2:09PM

Reply to this Recommend (8)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Raped?
  
  One drunk redneck's horse fetish dosen't mean that all the animals are raped.
  It is a need. Humans need meat . That's why when you quit eating it you have to get some factory made replacement.
  Is it ok for someone to go out and hunt for their dinner. Are you just anti pens or mean meat eatting animals in general?
  
  - ttut21 August 17, 2009 2:46PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Yes, raped.
    
    In order for a cow to produce the unnatural amount of milk she does for our consumption she has to be artificially inseminated. This to me equates as rape as she is not consenting. And it is a very widely known fact that humans don't need animal flesh to live, I don't know where you would get the information to lead you to this conclusion? And no-one needs factory made replacements, most of these provide very little in the way of nutrition and are mainly just to satisfy junk- food cravings (which I indulge in probably far too often).
    
    Yes I believe it is wrong for someone to go out hunting for their dinner, as it is not necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by anti-pens. I am against ALL forms of animal use. To me, as to all abolitionist vegans , this is the issue.
    
    - bletheringvegan August 17, 2009 3:04PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (10)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - RAPE
      
      Hate to say your wrong but you are wrong!Not all cows a raped.Have you ever heard of heat watch? When the cows in heat bring on the bull!
      
      How do you think Animals come by?They reproduce just like you would or do.
      May I say more?
      
      - countryboy August 18, 2009 5:11PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Do you know what standing heat is?
      
      Since "bletheringvegan" seems to know little about dairy cattle or animals , I will try to explain. First cattle are inseminated while in standing heat which means they are receptive to being bred by a bull or on occasion artifical insemination. This naturally occurs and even if she was bred naturally by a bull she would still produce the same amount of milk. If anything artifical insemination reduces the stress and injury possibly of natural breeding. FUN FACT: A recent study (British I believe!) shows vegan have 6-10% weaker bones because they don't eat meat or dairy products!
      
      - jmcv02 August 19, 2009 1:03PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Issue of consent
        
        JMCV02 can you tell me 100% that she would CONSENT to either forms of insemination? Of course not, because a cow is unable to give her consent. So therefore again it could equate to rape.
        
        And your 'fun fact' is ridiculous. What study was this? It sounds like it was funded by the dairy industry! The protein in cow's milk actually leeches calcium from your body, hence studies showing that osteoporosis is HIGHER in people that consume 'dairy products'. It is widely accepted that people can get everything they need through a vegan diet .
        
        - bletheringvegan August 19, 2009 1:40PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Vegan study
        
        Here is a link to that study:
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-08-09-yourhealth10_N.htm
        
        - donnawatkins August 20, 2009 7:21AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        The study disproves your claim
        
        This study has nothing to do with veganism, it has everything to do with a poorly planned vegan diet , but ANY diet can be poorly planned. The study even states:
        
        "It's not that vegans can't get enough bone-building calcium in their diets. With enough leafy green vegetables, nuts, beans and fortified foods ranging from tofu to orange juice, vegans can get recommended amounts (1,300 milligrams daily for teens , 1,000 mg for adults under age 50 and 1,200 mg for older adults)."
        
        - bletheringvegan August 20, 2009 9:55AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Issue of consent
        
        There are too many what ifs and coulds in your post to convince me of anything. A cow is unable to give consent in her "natural" life, either. Who are you to presume to talk for a cow?
        
        - donnawatkins August 20, 2009 7:23AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I can't claim to speak for a cow...
        
        ... but are you seriously suggesting that if given the choice between living happy and free for 25 years or being enslaved, milked until she can no longer be milked and then murdered 20 years before she would die naturally that she would choose the latter?
        
        And also, I think you lack an understanding of how agriculture works, there is no such thing as a "natural" cow as we know them today, they are bred into existence for us.
        
        - bletheringvegan August 20, 2009 9:52AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
  - humans don't need "meat"
    
    ttut21, your assertion that humans need meat (presumably that they need to eat it to survive) is simply false:
    
    http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl /media_22003_ENU_HTML.htm
    
    - Eric Prescott August 17, 2009 3:06PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (11)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Vegans can = more pollution
      
      Why don't vegans ever consider the fact that they could be a worst problem then meat -eaters? Vegtables are grow on soil (mostly) that has to be fertilized (naturally or artifically), must be cultivated (with machines or chemicals ) so they can compete with weeds, harvested then transported to market. Besides taking lots of time, energy , labor and resources is it really that much better for the environment ? After all your promoting soil erosion, water pollution, energy consumption, lower calories per pound of food . At least with animals you can graze them in a pasture, let them harvest their food, let them spread manure their around to fertilize plants naturally and still leave wildlife unharmed. It's a low cost, low input way to produce food. Yes if you feed them grain to promote meat quality you end up cross canceling out benefits but at least with meat production you have options. Vegtable/fruit production (even organic) you still have to deface/vandalize the surface of the earth to produce food. I find it hypocritcal that vegans don't ever think about that.
      
      - jmcv02 August 19, 2009 1:32PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - You must not be replying to my post
        
        Your post is threaded after mine, but it seems to bear no relation. After all, my point was that animal products are not necessary for human survival, and your point is to make a factually inaccurate argument against a strawman (or someone above other than me, perhaps).
        
        Regardless, it takes more plants to feed animals so that they can later be fed to humans, they pollute the environment , and millions of 'nuisance' animals are killed each year by Wildlife 'Services' on behalf of ranchers. But even if these facts were not true, it would still be *morally wrong* to use other sentient beings as our property.
        
        If it was less environmentally harmful to eat the mentally incompetent and infants than to be vegan, would that make it acceptable to do so? Of course not. The environment, such as it is, is not a trump card over the lives of sentient beings.
        
        - Eric Prescott August 19, 2009 10:29PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Need
    
    I am sure that bletheringvegan was not referring to a drunk rednecks fetish but rather to the forced insemination process.
    Humans do not need to eat meat . It is certainly not a need. Replacements are also not necessary. I would suggest that you do some research about a topic before trying to debate it :)
    
    - smarty78 August 19, 2009 12:54PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (3)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - thanks smarty
      
      You're so smart. :)
      
      - ttut21 August 19, 2009 6:33PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Need?
    
    It is hard to believe that there are still people who believe that meat is something that humans need. Mainstream nutrition researchers concluded long ago that animal products were not only completely unnecessary for good health , but actively harmful to health when consumed in large amounts. As just one example, about half of Americans die of heart disease, whereas the rate of heart disease among vegans (those who eat neither meat nor any other animal products) is virtually zero. I'm 48 years old, have not touched meat in almost 25 years, and am in far better health than most people my age, cholesterol is low, blood pressure is low, etc.
    
    - jmelton August 20, 2009 7:30AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
difference

One difference is that Michael Vick spent close to 2 years in prison and is presumably remorseful of his past mistakes.

- Jampani August 17, 2009 8:59PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- mistakes?
  
  well, actually he only served 18 months -- fyi
  
  but really, mistakes implies actions done by accident, without intent of the "do-er". Vick was fully aware of what he was doing when he was torturing, electrocuting and drowning animals .
  
  Of the omni society , I would assume a large percentage is aware of the torture and abuse that is going on in slaughterhouses...
  
  so again, what is the difference?
  
  - c-la August 18, 2009 5:52AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (5)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Knowledge is the difference
    
    I wouldn't be too quick to make the assumption that a large percentage of the omnivorous society is aware of the torture and abuse going on in farms and slaughterhouses.
    
    While undoubtedly most understand that animals must first be killed in order to become their chicken nuggets and corn dogs- on-sticks, many people are simply unaware of the depth of misery and abuse which we subject on animals prior to killing them. Whereas Michael Vick was well aware of the torture he was inflicting on the dogs he exploited for his own amusement.
    
    Many argue that the taking of life is what ultimately matters and treatment prior to death is irrelevant. While I agree that killing for any reason except self defense is morally objectionable and criminal, I also believe that there is something truly sinister and sociopathic about torturing any being - human or non-human.
    
    If I were a prisoner of war, for example, and it was the intent of my captors to kill me, I would much rather not be tortured first. Of course, I'd rather not die in the first place, but torture+death is worse than death alone, imo...
    
    - jtyler August 19, 2009 1:07PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Sociopathic?
      
      It is well-documented that people who are not in any way sociopathic are capable of treating other people, or animals , in ways that amount to torture , given the right circumstances. Not only social psychological research such as Milgram's obedience studies or Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, but real-life events that take place quite often--for example, the torture that US military and government personnel have engaged in at various prisons the last several years, the daily work of livestock farmers, fishing (which I engaged in as a kid)--shows that it doesn't take a sociopath to inflict severe pain and suffering on other beings in a face-to-face situation. It is often done by perfectly "normal" people who have convinced themselves and been convinced by others that what they're doing is okay. The human mind is capable of rationalizing virtually any action.
      
      - jmelton August 20, 2009 7:39AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- mistake?
  
  well, actually he served only 18 months....
  
  but really, a mistake implies that there was no intention from the "do-er" of said mistake... a mistake is an accident -- Vick knew exactly what he was doing as he drowned, electrocuted and hung his victims.
  
  I would assume, of the omni population, a large percentage know about the abuse and torture that occurs at the slaughterhouse before it gets to their plate.
  
  so again, the difference?
  
  - c-la August 18, 2009 6:35AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (3)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Meat
    
    So are you saying a bullet to the head is OK?I dont torture my animals and I dont send them to the slaughterhousse I do it my self!
    
    - countryboy August 18, 2009 5:26PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Time
  
  Good to see not all here are off base.Vick did this time.Now let him be.
  
  - countryboy August 18, 2009 5:20PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonveganism just one ''imperfection'' among others?

In an essay, entitled, ''A Vegan Perspective on Michael Vick ,'' Virginia Messina equates eating animal products to ''buying luxuries'' and ''spending time in self-indulgent ways'' when she states that ''[n]one of these choices... are defensible — but even good-hearted compassionate people do them. '' A statement that is informed by an ideology the most prominent representative of which, Peter Singer, argues that not donating to charities is morally tantamount to killing, that, that the word isn't perfect and that, therefore, we should not be fanatical about ethics .

In a world which is ruled by ''self-preservation'' (Messina), the adherents of that ideology refuse to distinguish morally between not being perfect and treating sentient beings as things. But according to Messina, we can make a distinction between torturing dogs for dog fights and using animals in other ways – mainly by consuming animal products --on the grounds that it is different whether a human tortures and kills a nonhuman ''with his bare hands'' or whether he allows her to be tortured and killed on his behalf. A difference which divides those who engage in these behaviours into two categories: people who use sentient beings as things because of the pleasure they get out of it, but who are ''good-hearted and compassionate animal lovers, '' on the one hand; and people who do the very same thing for the very same reason, but are not ''good-hearted,'' on the other.

While people's motivations and psychological dispositions may differ in that some enjoy inflicting suffering and death for the sake of it while others enjoy the benefit they get from someone's being subjected to suffering and death – their actions which equally cause the victims to suffer and die are equally morally unjustifiable.
It is deeply depressing to see that some vegans who claim to take an ethical stance against animal exploitation, along with non-vegans, keep ignoring this when they argue that Vick's deeds differ morally form what any non-vegan does on a daily basis.

- Karin Hilpisch August 18, 2009 1:59PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
slim

I am sorry and really do not wish to offend but I feel a need to, even though Yall will really rake me over the coals, make a comment.
I think you are all full of it. Arguments from both sides are not relevant, factual nor true. Get some real education before you open your mouth and show your ignorance. Let us hear something besides unsubstantiated emotion. Love from a sheep dog!

- SLIM August 19, 2009 11:57AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What About Bugs?

Is sentience too low of a baseline to decide what to eat? I can understand why people may not want to eat or exploit vertebrates, say, (fish, birds , pigs, cows) but this exploit-no-sentient-creature logic starts to fall apart with arthropods (insects, arachnids, crustaceans.) The entire vegan diet itself, at least in the US, is built on the commercial exploitation of a sentient creature, the honeybee. “Honeybee,” in fact, is a bit of a misnomer. Most honeybees are used primarily as migrating pollinators, with the apiarists selling the honey on the side. And the bees are treated like commodities - they are carted around in trucks, fed an inferior liquid sugar diet (because the apiarists want to sell the honey) stuck square symmetrical hives (to pack more bees into the crate, instead of the asymmetrical hives bees usually build, easier to defend and ward off mites, it is believed), queens are restricted in their movement, (to control the rest of them) and they are often just left to freeze in the winter. The bee use is unavoidable, too. They are used to pollinate virtually every fruit from Apricots to Zucchini. (It’s actually easier to list the fruit they don’t pollinate: peaches. For some reason, the European honeybee never took to our peaches.) So if one arthropod’s exploitation gets a pass, why not others? Is being a vegan morally different than someone at a lobster boil? At least the lobsters live most of their normal lobster life in the wild; it is only the end of their lives where they are confined, unlike the honeybee, which is confined and exploited its whole life before it is abandoned or left to freeze. Is it the fact that they are bigger and thus their suffering is more visible to us than that of a honeybee the difference? Even that can be mitigated now with a lobster zapper known as the “Crustastun” (real product, btw, Google it.) Bees or other commercially exploited arthropods don’t even get that courtesy.

- heathu August 19, 2009 12:56PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Unavoidable?
  
  I believe that the enslavement of bees is avoidable. Although I'm not an expert, if we encourage the growth of certain varieties of wildflower that attract bees then they would pollinate our food naturally.
  
  If everyone went vegan then the enslavement of bees would not happen as not only would there be no consumption of honey, the practice itself would not be consistent with a vegan world.
  
  So again - veganism is the answer.
  
  - bletheringvegan August 19, 2009 3:56PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - A little off their rocker.
    
    So not pollinating vegtables/fruits would be a good way to get rid of vegans ? You're saying by planting wildflowers bees would just naturally decide to help us out? Thats crazy, first no one makes the bees pollinate, its their survival instinct, second beekeepers don't leave them to freeze or they would be out of business real quick (but you didn't say that so thats not on you),third as a vegan you depend on the "enslavement of bees" to produce your food ,planting some wild flowers isn't going to help you in any way besides maybe to make yourself feel less guilty and fourth your still killing a life form even if you think it has no feelings or central nervous system. Veganism is never the answer more often a hyopcritical lie. Veganism says its not okay to kill animals but its okay to kill plants because are a lower order lifeform. Eating honey is like eating grain from a wheat plant, your still stealing produce from another life form to benefit yourself. If you really want to practice the ideals of veganism don't eat any lifeform at all!
    
    - jmcv02 August 19, 2009 5:39PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - I don't see how this helps you?
      
      You say that we would be enslaving bees because they pollinate food crops. If they live free in the wild it would appear to be a mutually beneficial relationship. They get nectar from pollinating the plants and our plants get pollinated. I don't see how we would be exploiting them in this instance.
      
      As far as eating plants go I think you are inaccurately generalizing vegans . First of all I am not aware of any single vegan rationale for not eating animals . Though I'm not qualified to express their views for them, I believe that Professor Francione Mr. Prescott and several other users are abolitionist vegans who base morals off of animal sentience, not whether it is alive or not. I believe their rationale behind eating plants is not that they are a lower lifeform but that they are not sentient. However I am no expert on their beliefs and I apologize if I misrepresented them somehow.
      
      I also don't see how arguing for moral rights for plants helps you defend meat eating. Making it wrong to eat plants doesn't make it any less wrong to eat animals. It arguably makes it much worse as a pound of flesh requires multiple pounds of plant matter to create, resulting in much more death.
      
      If there is a connection between plants having rights and it being ok to eat meat then could you please explain it.
      
      Thank you
      
      - jordon August 19, 2009 11:57PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The truth

Animals are property. You may not like that fact, but it is true anyway.

Now, a nice person will treat animals well, and will not cause them to suffer. However, no one has the legitimate authority to punish a person for destroying his own property no matter what "laws" may be passed.

If you don't like how Mr. Vick treated his property, then do the ethical thing and shun him. Otherwise you are only showing the holes in your own ethics .

- KentMcManigal August 19, 2009 1:06PM

Reply to this Recommend (2)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Property
  
  Actually, the point of animal rights is to abolish the property status of animals so that their moral rights can be properly reflected in the law . Professor Francione's abolitionist approach focuses on one basic right for animals: the right not to be human property.
  
  - Eric Prescott August 19, 2009 10:35PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Animal Welfare Yes - Animal Rights-NO
    
    Sorry Eric - you and the Prof are animal rights extremists pure and simple, along with Peta and H$U$ - we all know your goals are to eliminate all animal ownership and do away with domestic animals and for us all to be vegans ! The American public is slowly realizing what H$U$ and Peta are all about. Do you know how many peole that are listed as domestic terrorists on the FBI watch list are supported by H$U$ and Peta?????????
    
    We who believe in animal welfare are fighting the AR and will fight them with everything we have!
    
    - Aussies4ever August 19, 2009 10:54PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Extremism
      
      You are certainly entitled to your opinions, as am I. Personally, I find that keeping tens of billions of animals as property and killing them for the mere sake of pleasure and convenience is extreme, and millions of people agree with me. As humanity continues to expand its circle of concern, don't be surprised when you meet more and more vegans .
      
      - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 7:30AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Extremism
        
        Of course you are entitled to you opinions as I am to mine. Well millions of people happen to agree with my side also. I think your statement that people kill animals for pleasure is so misguided and untrue. We as true animal lovers do not take killing of any animal as a pleasure. Count me out on the Vegan crap - humans are not herbivores - never have been never will be. Yes animals are property and it is our duty to care for them and provide them with the care and love they need, But to elevate them to having the same rights as human is nuts!
        
        - Aussies4ever August 20, 2009 11:14AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Counterfeit "laws" don't change things
    
    You can add all the "laws" you want and it won't change the truth. It will only add to the law pollution we struggle under.
    
    - KentMcManigal August 20, 2009 12:18AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Shift in social paradigm
      
      Kent, abolitionists recognise this. Laws generally reflect the social paradigm of the day and so therefore the only way for an animal rights law to ever be a possibility is if there was a shift in the social paradigm. This is why abolitionists focus on creative education as opposed to the ridiculous publicity stunts by Peta.
      
      - bletheringvegan August 20, 2009 2:15AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Insulting
        
        To equate animal rights with "abolition" is incredibly insulting to those who have died throughout history for, and continue to struggle for, the abolition of human slavery. Animal rights activists are trying to increase human slavery by way of governmental control even as I try to abolish the same.
        
        Even a change in paradigm won't change the fact that animals don't have the same rights as humans. Paradigms can change through brainwashing as well as by learning new information.
        
        What do animal rights activists (of any stripe) wear? If you can't wear fur or leather, what then? Cotton or even hemp impact the environment and result in animal deaths . Synthetics are even worse. I have a buckskin jacket that I tanned myself. I know exactly how many animals died for it. But as for my jeans..... how can I know how many animals died during the cultivation, processing, manufacturing, and transportation that resulted in my pair of jeans?
        
        - KentMcManigal August 20, 2009 11:54AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Then what is the objection to hunting?
    
    If the point of animal rights is to abolish the property status of animals , then why do animal rights proponents oppose hunting ? Hunting seems to be the only relationship humans have with animals where they are not our property. And whatever rights an animal has, how could it have the right not to be eaten by a predator in the wild, whether that predator is a person, (or to borrow an animal-rights term, a non-human person?) Do we have an obligation to intervene if an animal is attacked by a predator? I don't understand how we can be imposing human laws on natural processes.
    
    - heathu August 20, 2009 8:48AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Hunting
      
      Killing a free-living animal for your benefit (as opposed to, say, euthanizing a suffering animal) is an act of making that animal your property.
      
      - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 10:15AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Re: Hunting
        
        Yes, the corpse becomes what we would today call the "property" of the hunter, but hunting pre-dates any type of legal concept of property - it is a label that modern societies have placed on it. Calling it property is another example of imposing human laws or moral codes on natural processes, which is the part of this debate I'm having trouble with.
        
        Also, the prey animal certainly wasn’t anyone's property when it was sentient, which is what I thought the animal-rights advocates had the problem with.
        
        - heathu August 20, 2009 12:38PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Test
        
        I've had 3 posts disappear into the void. Testing a different browser.
        
        - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 12:46PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Hunting
        
        The problem here is treating other animals as if they were your property. Because humans regard nonhumans as ours to do with what we please, we treat them all as a means to our ends (basically the definition of property) rather than as ends in themselves. AR respects animals as ends in themselves and objects to viewing and using animals as means to our ends.
        
        - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 12:49PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Experts

Who certifies "experts" on here. Francione is an animal rights extremist, nothing more. His ignorance regarding agriculture including animal husbandry is obvious.

Spike

- larryK August 19, 2009 2:39PM

Reply to this Recommend (3)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Certification
  
  Is it obvious? Can you prove him wrong? Go ahead.
  
  Meantime, I recommend reading Professor Francione's books and blog, and listening to his commentaries. They're rather informative.
  
  - Eric Prescott August 19, 2009 10:37PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Francione
    
    I was raised on a livestock farm in Illinois. All this talk about rape and torture is nonsense. It would be counterproductive for farmers and ranchers to mistreat their livestock.
    So he's either ignorant or a liar. Take your pick.
    
    Spike
    
    - larryK August 19, 2009 10:57PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - proof?
      
      I guess the all the video proof of abuse and torture is fabricated too?
      
      - c-la August 20, 2009 6:25AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Larryk
      
      Maybe you disagree with terms used, but it is a fact that cows in the dairy industry are artificially inseminated. I've been to USDA's site, and I've seen humans with an arm into a cow up to their shoulder. As for torture , I believe that term is being used to refer to painful procedures routinely performed on animals without anesthesia, such as the castration of piglets. But regardless of how they are treated, like humans nonhuman animals have a morally significant interest in not being property.
      
      - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 7:40AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Terms
        
        Eric,
        Yes, I do disagree with the terms such as rape and torture . I believe they are improperly used well beyond their accepted definition. The animal rights movement takes hyperbole to excessive and intentional inflamatory levels. This only further detracts from your unrealistic message in the opinion of the majority of Americans .
        
        Spike
        
        - larryK August 20, 2009 8:15AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Larry K
        
        Hello they AI humans too - so are you against that? Please when were you ever on a farm????? Farmers and ranchers all across this country care for their animals very well - if they tortured and abused their livestock they would soon go out of business! I think your brain is lacking protein!
        
        - Aussies4ever August 20, 2009 11:18AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        I'm LarryK aka Spike
        
        Hi Aussie,
        I hope you didn't get me mixed up with Eric. I completely agree with you and oppose Eric's philosophy.
        
        Spike
        
        - larryK August 20, 2009 11:36AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Larry K
        
        No I did not get the two of you confused - sorry if you thought that! I was responding to his response to you!
        
        Well time to take my rib eyes out of the freezer for dinner :o) To appease the Vegans on here - will also be having yellow rice and green beans :o)
        
        - Aussies4ever August 20, 2009 12:00PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Your posts grow ever more absurd
        
        I'm starting to feel like Barney Frank at a health care townhall meeting...
        
        The humans you refer to are consenting adults who seek out treatment. The nonhumans we are discussing are non-consenting sentient beings who are being impregnated for the profit of another. No comparison.
        
        I spent time on a farm as a child, yes. Regardless of how animals are being treated on a farm or ranch, and no matter what scale operation, using them as a means to your own ends is unjust. Also, even in these operations, animals are harmed routinely, whether branded or castrated without anesthesia. As for " torture " and "abuse", I don't tend to focus on such terms. Animals are harmed in all sorts of ways without quibbling over what to label those harms.
        
        Of course, killing an animal harms that animal as well. It would be absurd to argue that an animal has no interest in his or her life. Sentience itself is a means to the end of survival, a simple demonstration of an animal's interest in continuing to live.
        
        Finally, your commentary on protein is also absurd. Rather than spoonfeed you the facts, I'll ask you to read up on nutrition and simply move on.
        
        - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 12:54PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Francione

I truly believe you totally live on another planet - along with Newkirk and Humane Wayne! I respect your right to be a Vegan but you have no right forcing it on anyone else!
Animal Welfare -YES

Animal Rights - NO The day my dogs can vote , drive a car and hold a job is the day they cam have the same rights as HUMANS!

- Aussies4ever August 19, 2009 10:36PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Misunderstanding of the rights position
  
  You obviously have read nothing of Francione's work, if you had you would realise that Francione is very much opposed to Newkirk and Peta (and has written extensively as to why) and that we don't say that we should give animals every right we hold, indeed the rights you mentioned there are social constructs only relevent to certain societies. We hold that we only need to give animals one single right: the right not to be regarded as property.
  
  - bletheringvegan August 20, 2009 2:20AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Misunderstanding rights
    
    Sorry animals are property ( which deserve to be treated with compassion and respect) always have been and always will be. Yes I have read his work and he is beyond being a caring animal lover! Ya'll have been smoking way too much funny stuff and drinking the AR kool aid! Especially in Europe!
    
    - Aussies4ever August 20, 2009 11:20AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Rights
  
  Actually, no one is "forcing" anything... yet.
  
  At the moment, we are merely out there educating people, and people will choose for themselves to respect the rights of nonhumans not to be used as property. There will come a day, of course, when sufficient people agree with this proposition that we will see animal rights recognized by the law . At that time, I suspect the minority will indeed feel that this is being forced on them.
  
  I'm afraid I don't feel bad about this. Slave owners weren't too happy about having the abolition of slavery forced on them, either, but it was the right thing to do.
  
  - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 12:57PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Rights
    
    Well now you have admitted your and your buddies Ingrid, Wayne and Franicone do have an agenda - which is to force your beliefs on everyone regardless how they feel about your point of view! So that in a nutshell is what it all boils down to - a minority trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. Wake up Eric last I heard this still is the USA -
    
    Excuse me there you go again equating humans with animals in the slavery equation. Sorry but animals are not human - never have been never will and they will never be able to think and reason like adults!
    
    Let me guess you are against animals being used in labs for finding cures for diseases ? Which if so means you are anti human! So fire bombing universities is OK to save the animals??
    Let me know when you and your ilk start volunteering to be test humans for drugs - never will happen!
    
    - Aussies4ever August 20, 2009 2:20PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Rights
      
      I never hid my "agenda." I have stated clearly from the outset that I support animal rights . I have tried (and, apparently, failed) to help you understand the concept, which not even Newkirk and Pacelle seem to fully grasp. Of the three you mentioned, only Francione understands the demands of abolishing institutionalized animal exploitation. I strongly recommend you read his book, Introduction to Animal Rights, as I'm too busy to go around in circles with you. If you still think I equate humans and animals , you haven't even been reading what I wrote. While we are morally obligated to give the like interests of nonhumans equal consideration with our own, that does not mean that they are the *same*.
      
      I will continue *educating* people about animal rights and veganism (and continue to oppose fire bombing anyone or anything), and people will continue to choose for themselves whether to continue harming animals or to go vegan. Perhaps I will have some small impact in forming a genuine animal rights movement in this country. But, for the day that Congress abolishes the property status of animals, effectively "forcing" veganism on the citizens of this country, that is out of my hands. As you point out, this is *still* the USA, and the authority to pass laws rests in their hands.
      
      Anyway, that wraps it up for me. There's only so many times I can attempt to have a sane conversation with someone who refuses to listen and understand.
      
      - Eric Prescott August 20, 2009 5:15PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Let's be realistic
        
        Eric,
        I'm convinced that you and your ilk are completely detached from the natural world. Most AR believers are urban dwellers with little concept of where their food actually comes from. Man evolved as an omnivore not a herbivore and you people are not capable of ever changing that fact. So enjoy your tofu and rabbit food and leave the majority of Americans who don't share your narrow religion alone.
        
        Spike
        
        - larryK August 20, 2009 6:01PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Reply to Aussies4ever
      
      I think the crux of the matter is whether or not it is morally wrong to kill, experiment on and misuse animals . If it is immoral to kill animals then making it illegal would seem to be the right thing to do regardless of the populations sentiments. If the majority of a population were in favor of killing and eating infants then ending that practice, even by legislation, would seem to be the right thing to do. It would seem that both situations are analogous.
      
      Using intelligence as a justification of regardin our interests as better than animals runs into problems. For one there is no universal standard of intelligence among humans. If being smarter than something else allows you to ignore its interests, then don't we allow smart human beings to kill and enslave less intelligent humans. For example Stephen Hawking is many times smarter than I am so why shouldn't he be able to use me to satisy his own interests. Perhaps you can respond by creating some [very likely arbitrary] level of intelligence that matters. This also runs into considerable problems as there are animals that are more intelligent than some people. For example infants and some mentally retarded people. For example the pig has intelligence roughly equal to a three year old child. If it is ok to kill and enslave the pig then why cant we do the same to young children and the mentally retarded? If intelligence is all that matters then there would be no reason other than compassion not to.
      
      - jordon August 21, 2009 11:18PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Because he is different than meat eaters

Do the math; how many people enjoy torturing and killing animals are there compared to those that eat meat ?

I know a lot of really decent people that eat meat; the meat eater that is a torturer of animals; that would promote dog fights? Sorry- just never met one.

Met a lot of meat eaters though: that were wonderful people.

- Elfking August 19, 2009 11:04PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.