Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Veganism is Murder

Hmm... Here's the article. It appears in the National Review which is respectable and the guy is apparently writing a book on the subject (the article isn't quite as confrontational as the title). Since this is flexible blog land and I've written quite a lot on the subject, I'd like to get a response from anyone who clicks through to read it (this means you Trevor). I'll post it here if you like, or I'll check your blog.

Does it seem reasonable?

7 comments:

Greg Torr said...

Very wise article (I could tell from my 10-second skim). Vegetarians are like minimum wage advocates. Vegetarianism makes them feel better about themselves, even though it's actually worse for animals.

Trevor Black said...

Is it reasonable?

The quote is very funny.

The study on mice & field animals vs. cows & lambs sounds plausible. I like the fact that he got a counter opinion from an animal activist.

I agree with Francione that there is a difference between intentionally pulling the trigger and the trigger having a possibility of being pulled if you perform the task.

Problem is it is not the same as the examples he uses. We know the animals will die... plus, the argument is not that meat eaters are saying that is wrong.

I have always had an uneasy feeling, especially about antagonistic vegetarianism...

I don't see a moral dilemma with death. It is not such a big deal. It seems to me to be a `non-intelligent' animals role?

I think you could have a greater impact campaigning for more humane conditions and slaughter. Fewer people would disagree there.

You can't have slogans like `Meat is murder' and then get upset with `Real Girls Eat Meat' T-shirts.

Well, actually you can. Go ahead. Get as upset as you want, but I don't think it will help achieve your aim.

In short, yes, the article seems reasonable to me.

Greg Torr said...

By the way, a better title for your post would have been "mange tout is murder".

mutt said...

OK. So what would you guess my gripes with it would be?

I didn't know what mange tout was, but that's very funny..

Anonymous said...

Smith compares field mice killed per acre of harvested crops to what would be killed if 'grazers' wre allowed to forage on half said amount of land. The majority of animals raised for food today are done in factory farms. These animals never see the light of day or a field mouse, for that matter. The intentional harm done to these creatures far out weighs the harm done to animals living in the wild. They can try and run. Farmed animals don't have that option. Yes, I am an antagonistic vegan, thank you very much

Anonymous said...

Even though this article is no longer available from the link on this site, I was able to find and read it.
I wanted to point out that the author was correct on one point- that if your soul concern is the killing of animals (and a life is a life is a life) then there is no reason to become vegan.
HOWEVER, was I the only one that noticed the statistic which divulged that the same land area that would feed one omnivore would feed 20 vegans?
1 in 20? Is this not an outrageous figure?
There are millions of people starving in the world. MILLIONS!!!
So, perhaps a life is a life is a life and slightly more small animals are dying due to a vegan diet, however, millions of people are still going hungry due to a lack of food (or access to food).

info2 said...

Actually the article says that the Oregon State study calculated that there would be 300,000 FEWER animal deaths annually from the omnivore's diet.

Here's the article link: http://www.discovery.org/a/6351