Comment: then why not....? in Podcast: Francione - Why is Michael Vick Different than Meat Eaters? on Opposing Views

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

(Podcast) Francione - Why is Michael Vick Different than Meat Eaters?

By Gary L Francione

You are seeing 15 Comments. See all 118 Comments on this Podcast.

Regarding Comment

He is different because...

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.