Animal Wrongs

[Editor’s note: Obama administration “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein hit turbulence during his 2009 confirmation hearings when critics charged that he was a “radical animal rights activist.” It emerged that Sunstein had supported banning hunting; that he had urged eliminating meat eating; and that he had even championed giving animals the right to sue. Sunstein’s views were decidedly out of the political mainstream, but they were typical of a movement that author Wesley Smith, a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute, analyzes in his new book, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement. Smith joined Front Page to discuss what animal right activists believe, why their agenda is anti-human, and why vegetarians are no more moral than meat eaters.]

FPM: Most people would say they support animal welfare and that they are in favor of the ethical treatment of animals. But you argue in your book that the animal rights movement has a broader – and more insidious – agenda. What do animal rights activists believe?

Smith: The problem is that the media uses the terms animal welfare and animal rights as if they were interchangeable. They are not. Animal rightists believe that humans have no more value than animals – they consider that “speciest” – and that humans do not have the right to profit even from the proper and humane use of animals. Animal rightists draw a moral equivalency between humans and animals. There is quote from PETA’s president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk, that captures it well. She said:

“Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.”

That is why some animal rightists are opposed to the domestication of any animals at all. They believe with a furor – many of their beliefs are entirely emotional – that what gives something value is the ability to feel to pain and to suffer, and so they believe, for instance, that cattle ranching is as odious as slavery and that research on lab rats is an equivalent evil to Joseph Mengele’s experiments during the Holocaust.

FPM: You argue that animal rightists are essentially against Western civilization. Can you explain your reasoning?

Smith: The West is founded on a Judeo-Christian moral ethic, which holds that human welfare is central and that humans and animals are not of equal worth. The animal rights movement tears at the heart of that. It’s a movement that is not based on rationality; there is a very strong anti-human element. For animal rightists, being human is not special. They don’t believe in human exceptionalism. They see us as an evil species, as killers and the causers of suffering. The misanthrope is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

This actually quite odd. We are the only species that tries to mitigate the suffering of other animals. No other animals, not even dogs, have emotional empathy to the same extent that we do. A hyena in the wild is not going to have empathy if it encounters an injured animal. It’s going to eat it. Only the human species is actively trying to mitigate animal suffering.

One of the more dismaying things about the animal rights movement is that Western universities have provided a forum to its more extreme voices. In 2007, Hampshire College in Massachusetts permitted animal rights terrorists to speak. Their slogan was “Smash the State, Crush the Cage!” Universities allow these radicals to appear on campus, and yet they prevent people like David Horowitz from speaking.

FPM: In your book, you defend using animals to promote human welfare, for instance through animal testing. Can you give us an overview of that argument?

Smith: Human beings derive incredible benefits from proper and humane testing on animals. One critic of my book, Matthew Scully, has claimed that I support experiments in which chimpanzees have their arms broken, but that is erroneous: There is no such case discussed in my book. On the other hand, medical research would grind to a halt without animal testing. There would be no way to test new drugs. Ultimately there is no way to go around animal testing – unless you were willing to use human test subjects. Animal testing makes life-saving research possible.

Let me give you an example. There is a class of anti-AIDS drugs called protein inhibitors that are used to stifle infections. In the first iteration of these drugs, the researchers tested them on animals, and they ended up destroying their livers. So the researchers went back to the drawing board and came up with a new, safer, and more effective drug that has yielded great benefit to humans. But imagine if the animal rightists had their way and the drug could not have been tested on animals. Let’s say that they had tested it on humans, and found that the drug causes liver damage. At that point, there would be a huge scandal, lawsuits, and the research would be suspended. That means that thousands of people would have been dead because there would not have been no new and improved drug for them to take.

And animal rightists would go further than abolishing animal testing. Gary Francione of Rutgers University has called for human society to get rid of all domesticated animals within a single generation. Francione has said that dogs are “refugees in a world in which they don’t belong.” Think of a society that has no meat, no seeing-eye dogs, no pets of any kind. It’s impossible to quantify the consequences to our society if all animals were suddenly off limits. But that’s the goal of the animal rights movement.

FPM: I was intrigued by your observation that the recent tragedy in Orlando, Fla., where a killer whale drowned his female trainer, serves as a refutation of the animal rights movement, at least in so far as it illustrates the moral distinctions between humans and animals that they deny. How exactly did that illustrate the point?

Smith: This was a terrible tragedy, but what the whale did was not wrong in the moral sense: no one called for the whale to be arrested, tried, or punished. It was accepted that a killer whale was just being a killer whale. If I had done that to a woman, that would be murder. But animals don’t have moral agency and so we don’t call for them to be held to account in a way that humans can – and should – be held to account. This is a crucial distinction between humans and animals. We have moral capacities, the ability to reason, etc., that make us unique. That is part of human exceptionalism.

FPM: Although your book is primarily critical of the animal rights movement for it’s too-extreme definition of animal welfare, you’ve also been critical of those on the other extreme who suggest too narrow a view of animal rights. As you’ve noted, some have defended using animals as property; one writer, though not approving of his treatment of dogs, nonetheless defended Michael Vick’s right to treat them as his property. The majority of us would instinctively recoil at that argument, but can you explain why it is wrong?

Smith: The philosopher Descartes said that animals were automatons, and so it didn’t matter what we did to them. But today we understand that animals have feelings: they feel pain and they can experience fear. They are not inanimate objects, like a book that you can tear, trample on and burn. And they are not plants, which don’t experience emotional pain. Because we understand that animals feel pain, we are morally bound by a duty to animals to treat them properly, and not to cause them gratuitous suffering. This is our moral duty as humans. When Vick abused and tortured his dogs, he denigrated his own humanity.

It is because we have moral agency that we should seek ways to reduce the suffering of animals, whether it is cattle or pigs raised on factory farms. In my book, I have a chapter on Dr. Temple Grandin. Grandin is autistic, so she sees the world visually, like an animal would, as opposed to intellectually. And because she understood how animals see the world, she was able to design improved methods for slaughter that reduce animal suffering. The greater our ability to reduce animal suffering the more we should pursue it.

FPM: Are there any particular practices or treatments of animals in use today that you find especially objectionable?

Smith: Bull fights. They are remnants of a Roman, coliseum-like culture. It’s deeply distressing for the animal. You have a bull being baited, tortured, taunted and stabbed, until it tires long enough for the matador to run a sword through its heart. Someone may then eat the meat. There should always be some consideration of the benefit to humanity versus the suffering caused to the animal. I think bull fights would fail that test.

I would also oppose things like internet hunting, where you have people killing animals with remote controlled guns using webcams. This is killing for the sake of killing. But I am not opposed to hunting for food, and not even necessarily to hunting for sport. In Africa, sport hunting supports their ability to cull animal herds and maintain wildlife parks.

FPM: Finally, I would be curious to get your view on the vegetarian question. Are vegetarians inherently more moral than meat eaters?

Smith: Not at all. Humans are biologically omnivorous, and meat is a natural, nutritious food source. I respect those who don’t eat meat for ethical reasons, who refuse to eat anything with a face. But I see it as akin to monasticism. A monk is not more moral than a married couple that has normal sexual relations. The fact that some people choose not to eat meat doesn’t make those who do any less moral.

FPM: Wesley Smith, thanks very much for your time.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Inquisitor The_Inquisitor

    Great common sense answers to age old questions.

  • Right in left World

    Excellent interview. Perfectly, logically refutes most PETA or Humane Society points.

  • http://loboreporter.blogspot.com Lobo

    Same old, same old to justify humanity's destruction of the planet and lack of respect for other beings.

  • USMCSniper

    Edwin Locke at The University of Maryland says: The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.

    The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

  • Janet

    I would have asked Mr. Smith why bull fights and internet hunting are any more inhumane than puppy mills. Although I agree for the most part with all of his positions taken above, I happen to be the "mom" to three rescued pups, one of which was kept in a metal cage for the first six years of her life in the freezing cold all winter and blistering heat all summer producing litter after litter of puppies to be sold to Pennsylvania pet stores. It has now been two years since she was rescued, but it is obvious that the torture she endured will never be erased from her memory. I hope Mr. Smith will include the need for the eradication of the thousands of puppy mills which exist in this country in his interviews.

  • doubleblack4

    Of course there is some truths in the article. But let me ask this question. If a superior species comes along and regards us as less than themselves do they have the ethical and moral right to treat us as we treat lesser species? You probably taste pretty good, but of course they would slaughter you in a humane way.
    We are vicious and cruel to each other so what is the difference in treating animals the same way? Food for thought. (pun intended)

    • guest

      fully agree and respect your point very much. the ethical question is enormous,heck with judeo rodeo values. ie religious delusions passed down across generations

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      "If a superior species comes along and regards us as less than themselves do they have the ethical and moral right to treat us as we treat lesser species?"

       

      I suggest that you read Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End"

      fs

    • Mike

      It would seem you watch to many science fiction movies.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        Oh.. And why is that?

        BTW, it's a book not a movie. Try reading one sometime.

        fs

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JosephWiess JosephWiess

    Any person of faith, knows that we were put here to be stewards of the earth, and all animals within. Like most ethical stewards, that means culling the herds to prevent overgrazing. Good stewards take care of the animals, but realize that they are there for our benefit, not the other way around.

    • guest

      animals are NOT there for our benefit. who on earth told you that baloney. we are smarter by chance so we kill and abuse them for profiteering. had they been smarter and greedy like us they would have used and killed us for their benefit. you dont need a licence from some imaginary god to eat meat when hungry just as a tiger will not need a license to eat you if hungry. im sure the tiger will spit out your brain from the junk that its been fed, but back to reality, what some religion told you that animals are useless heartless dumb things some imaginary god created for your majesty to feast on??? if thats where youre coming from i pity your cognitive intelligence and inability to grasp global themes and pictures. people like you need to break out of the wooden brain mold and get a taste of real free fearless thinking practices instead of curling under the imaginary wing of some imaginary god here and ther on the earthly globe. who knows, maybe some god is there, but i seriously doubt anyone at all past or present had any access whatsoever to this putative god. rleigion is a scam but that doesnt mean that some kind of god necessarily doesnt exist, but your local prophet, savior,leader or pastor has no business lecturing you on what he hallucinates god told him as it is highly doubtful that god is so man like as these dim witted religions fool their adherents into submission.. a real god may be truly unfathomable to humans and definitely did not demand jewish babies foreskins for dinner nor did he ever tell christians to play masochist and let people flatten them by turning the other cheeck. these are all human attributes that warp your free thinking so in short mr weiss, we are animals, we do have bigger brains, we may or may not have a god since no one really knows and in the end animals are not NOT there for my benefit. they are there because they are there just as you and i are here no more, no less.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        Okay, they're there for my benefit. How a person treats their critters says a lot about the person.

        Keep your pity, and what you call free fearless thinking looks pretty narrow and unaccountable from here. I notice the greatest mass murders, wildlife kill or die offs, and most polluted places on the planet are where 'enlightened' people hostile to all faiths and religions, and answerable to none, rule or ruled.

        As someone who doesn't always see eye to eye with my pastor, church, or denomination, and other religions, yet doesn't condemn them, your blanket condemnation and derision of faith and religion speaks worse of you than them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        Unfortunately our "guest" is somewhat delusional.

        "animals are NOT there for our benefit. who on earth told you that baloney."

         

        If you're referring to the natural order of things many animals kill other animals for food. We just happen to sit on the top of the food chain. On the one hand I think that the way we raise many animals (calves raised for veal are a good example) are indeed inhumane, but on the other hand, does the lion kill the antelope in a "humane" manner. Being eaten alive sounds pretty awful to me.

        The sad thing about our relationship to the other animals IMHO, is that man is the only species that enjoys killing for sport. Bull fighting is the worst example of this to me, and many will agree, but what of a father & his son out on a lake fishing for bass?

        Personally, where I draw the line is that there's nothing wrong in killing an animal if you want to eat it. I fish for tuna, and dorado, and striped bass, & don't feel at all guilty about it. Who here would hesitate to shoot a deer if it was the only way he could feed his family? And who would argue against a farmer killing a steer for meat? But if that bothers you, and you've ever eaten at McDonald's or Burger King, then you're just a bloody hypocrite.

        fs

    • Mike

      I agree 100% with you. God has told us to be good stewards of the land. A lot of what is going on is due to God being taking out of peoples lives.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        Oy!

        Not another one…

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    Christianity instead of forbidding eating meat teaches that everything was created for our benefit including the animals that were created for us to eat and serve us.

    Did you ever look into the eye of a cow? There is nobody home or suffiently aware to worry about whether they have a face or not when considering eating them. And ironically eating these dumb animals is said to have made us intelligent.

    Therefore let’s eat meat— lots and lots of it because the human race is in need of intelligence or anything that will cut through the darkness.

    • guest

      as a cow whisperer i was told the cow looked back into your icy blind eyes and said to herself as she chewed on the tasteless corn you fed her, she thought ;why does this human bitch stare so dumbly at me? hasnt she seen a cow in her life? does she expect me to moo phantom of the opera? i am already having a stomachache eating this shitty non cow food she gave me and all i need is her moronic stare. might bitch be a cow eye doctor? whatever shes too dumb and self narcissistic and ignorant and illiterate to worry about. oh wheres that cow fart.god let it choke her so she can get her toothpicky human ugly ass outa my face. im eating for chrissake bitch!!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        Tasteless corn? Yea, you obviously know a lot about cows. Too bad you weren't around to whisper to some of the Bulls I've come across, though I'm not sure i could have let you try in good conscience. Now, it would be kinda poetic.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        Who the hell left the attic window open this time?

        You're letting the bats it, and they're driving me nuts…

        fs

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

      Absolutely right SHW (nice to see you btw), being omnivorous isn't just a survival trait, our bodies and minds function best when we're eating both.

      When I was growing up my family never had more than a half dozen out of a herd of a dozen cows on my dad's best friend's land, but I got to know them pretty well. We had to take care of them before we could go hunt, fish, or ride the dirt bikes. They're pretty dumb for such a big animal.

  • Linda

    I would like to be the fly on the wall to see how Cass Sunstein really lives. I would be willing to bet he does not live the way he preaches.. furthermore, I think the man is like all of his ideology, a complete nutjob, and a very dangerous one. He's in a position to influence the education of the masses. Oh did I just say education? I meant indoctrination.

    While we stil have to worry about terrorists with a religious ideology who like to behead, beat and stone and rape women and children; we still have to be vigilant and fight those like Cass Sunstein and the myriad of others who have been appointed by Obama. and for the record, I would like to say he's another man with a dangerously twisted mind.

  • Matt

    Lobo – you're right, same old same old. Another animal rights activist with no logical argument beyond "You shouldn't do that!." If you want to object, go ahead, but trying to force the world to adopt your views on the issue is fascism smart guy.

    DoubleBlack- That's one of the worst comments I've ever read. Here's a thought for that deep and meaningful philosophy major brain of yours- Any animal on the planet that is hungry and eats meat wouldn't hesitate to eat us. If they didn't, it would only be due to the fact that we taste horrible. Your 'superior species' theory is one of the worst hypotheticals in the world…you're saying that they wouldn't be able to recognize our distinct difference from the rest of life on earth, and once again equating humans to any animals.

    If anyone honestly thinks any species on earth is the equivilent of a human being, just give up, you're holding our species back. Go start a drum circle and never return to modern society.

  • Alan DelRay

    One insidious aspect of the animal "Rights" movement is that once granted, they will of course need human lawyers to fight for their rights in court and human advocates to help them spend the damages awarded. I'd sure like to be in charge of spending the billions of damages and reparations to cows and chickens and pigs. In the end, it's a scam to get money for nothin'.

  • http://www.frontpagemag.com Jacob Laksin

    Janet: I would agree on puppy mills and I think it highly likely that Smith would, too. Those were just two examples he provided; certainly there are others. So I wouldn’t hold that against him.

  • guest

    I love this website and agree with many perhaps a majority of the issues. however when it comes to animals, nature and wanton drilling, i feel that there is deep failure to grasp the core arguments and feelings involved . there is wooden talk of judeo christian values to somehow counter an alleged agenda for animal lovers or defenders. this is pure bull. nothing in christianity per se dictates savaging animals or torturing them or killing them wantonly for profit and greed. i have no idea if peta or others have "hidden" agendas and how these might threaten the supposed judeo christian values some parrot all the time. i personally respect and try to defend animals . i brake for animals whenever possible, i donate to shelters. i boycott dolphin and whale products and a bunch of affordable assistance to animal wellbeing whenever possible. i have had pets since age 7 till present. i know without ANY shred of doubt that animals have intelligence, feelings personalities unique and a lot of love and communication skills. i could go on forever. and no iam not a frikkin leftie nor am i soft headed(im a medical professionalwith 30 years career behind me. i do not like shrill feminists, i hate islamic terrorist and apologists and commies and i love the constitution. i dont buy any of the religions available now but believe in the miracle of life on earth and in the universe. i fear for the environment as it is being ruined and depleted. and we as yet have no home other than earth. and as for animals, we too are nothing but animals whether anyone likes to hear that or not. all of medicine and pharmacology and all the hard sciences of living organisms ie physiology neurology metabolism parasitology prove and operate on the fact that we are nothing but a part of the animal kingdom with particular mutations allowing more forebrain, better grasp by thumb and converting sound signal to systematized language. in this we are different just as a giraffe is uniquely different with its anatomy, an elephant with its memory and trunk, a bird with its wings etc. these fact should not bother anyone. if youre bothered or feel slighted that we are part of the animal kingdom, then you need to question why that bothers you. it really shouldnt. i also am amazed why many of my fellow US citizens limit themselves to left with all its non valid arguments included or right with all the preposturous beliefs also included. somehow many of us have been brainwashed into becoming limited in our thinking and choices so we are either all left or all right. this is not intelligence at work nor freedom of choice. a free man will choose each and every value he follows according to the merits of that value ,not because he belongs to some polarized party or the other. a normal free individual can go left on some issues and go right on others.use the free brain god gave you and dont be a sheep following your party line or pastors line or therapists beliefs etc. no one is free of junk and mistakes not even the allegedly holy prophets and other myths. time for america to regain its wits and become an intelligent,discriminating discerning nation of intelligent sensitive and pragmatic people again.

    • coyote3

      Major contradiction in that statement, among a lot of other things.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      "nothing in christianity per se dictates savaging animals or torturing them or killing them wantonly for profit and greed."

      WTF are you talking about you loon?

      "and no iam not a frikkin leftie nor am i soft headed(im a medical professionalwith 30 years career behind me."

      Yeah right… "for profit and greed"… you're a lefty all right…

      And for a "medical Professional" that's about the most pathetic example of writing I've ever seen. Did you even pass elementary school English? That's the longest run on paragraph I've ever seen, & does the concept of capitalization mean anything to you? Geeze Louise….

      fs

  • lovezion

    Cruelty to animals is one of the most significant vices of a low and ignoble people. Alexander von Humboldt

    Mr. Smith, I didn't bother reading your stupid article as I know what thoughtless and inhumane heart the likes of you have! You think nothing of wasting efforts and your time (and the readers') in such egotistical declaration! Your rabid disdain towards other living beings who were created by the same Nature (or God if you will), that created YOU, should best be used against those arab muslims who are destroying everything and thousands of innocents who don't believe in their allah. YOU as a Jew may very well be beheaded by them….yet, you choose to bash those poor innocent nonhuman animals who only want to be left alone in their own habitats just as God and Nature dictated.

    You feel superior to them because you can invent and use lethal weapons against other humans? At least humans can defend themselves by the same means as you. But…when you promote hate against nonhuman animals and against those of us who try to defend them, you become SELFISH & IGNORAMUS!! You promote killing nonhuman animals simply because… (Cont'd)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      "Mr. Smith, I didn't bother reading your stupid article as I know what thoughtless and inhumane heart the likes of you have! "

      Well that must make you uniquely qualified to criticize him then….

      Putz!

      fs  

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

      Maybe you should have read the interview, I see neither cruelty nor disdain for animals anywhere in it. There are too many people out there like you describe, perhaps you should find one of them to vent on.

  • lovezion

    you can, because you KNOW they cannot defend themselves, which makes you a COWARD! They have the same capacity to suffer (or rejoyce) physically, mentally and spiritually as the humans do! The world doesn't belong to the human animals only, the world belongs to ALL inhabitants. They form families, they organize themselves, they have their own language (which humans of your like are too stupid and egotistical to understand), in wars they don't send their best young "armies" to be killed, the 2 leaders alone fight and the best "man" wins! All species have their own intelligence to survive…PROVIDED humans don't interfere! they've shown to ve successful as opposed to humans who continue destroying one another nonstop. Who can call THAT intelligence??? I'm copying below a few great thoughts by great people of the past and present: (Cont'd)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

      Name a critter without a means of defense.

  • lovezion

    I'm copying below a few great thoughts by great people of the past and present:

    —————————————————————–
    People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this were a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times. *Isaac Bashevis Singer (Nobel Laureate)

    It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living, by its purely physical effect on the human temperament, would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind. *Albert Einstein

    The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women for men. *Pulitzer Prize Winner Alice Walker "The Color Purple"

    I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race in its gradual development to leave off the eating of animals as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with civilization. *Henry David Thoreau
    (Cont'd)

  • lovezion

    For some time now he had been thinking of becoming a vegetarian. At every opportunity, he pointed out that what the Nazis had done to the Jews, humans were doing to the animals. *Isaac Bashevis Singer (Enemies, A Love Story) (Awarded Nobel Prize in Literature)

    In a world older and more complete than ours, animals move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth. *Henry Beston "The Outermost House"

    In the next 10 to 15 years, one of the things you’re bound to hear is that animal protein is one of the most toxic nutrients of all that can be considered. *Dr. T. Colin Campbell (Nutritional Biochemist, Cornell University) (Cont"d)

  • lovezion

    … they [who stop eating flesh] will live longer. The average age of a meat eater is 63. I am on the verge of 85, and still at work as hard as ever. I have lived quite long enough, and am trying to die; but I simply cannot do it. A single beefsteak would finish me; but cannot bring myself to swallow it. I am oppressed with a dread of living for ever. That is the only disadvantage of vegetarianism. *George Bernard Shaw (From his letter)

    The Animals, you say, were "sent" – For Man’s free use and nutriment. Pray, then, inform me, and be candid – Why came they aeons before Man did, To spend long centuries on earth Awaiting their Devourer’s birth? Those ill-timed chattels, sent from Heaven, Were, sure, the maddest gift e’er given – "Sent" for man’s use (can man believe it?) When there was no Man to receive it! * Henry S. Salt (Contd)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mackac Mackac

      You are frickin loon.

  • lovezion

    CONCLUSION: The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in front of it. *Axel Munthe

    Tigers don't eat lettuce, Men weren't meant for meat; Monkeys, men or tigers – We are what we eat. *Unknown

    Poor animals! How jealously they guard their innocent bodies… that which to us is merely an evening’s meal, but to them is life itself. *T. Casey Brennan

    And God Said, "Behold,…I have given you every herb-bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree-yielding seed; to you it shall be as meat." *The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:29

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

      "And God Said, "Behold,…I have given you every herb-bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree-yielding seed; to you it shall be as meat." *The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:29"

       
      Now that's what I call a serious and well reasoned argument in support of the vegetarian life style.

      Well wasn't that pleasant….

      I always like to end my day with a thousand word diatribe by a pompous and arrogant crusader.

      Perhaps you'd find a more appreciative audience in a public park. Why don't you take your soapbox and go sell it to the pigeons… They'll probably enjoy your literary style.

      fs

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

      What, no quote from that famous vegetarian adolf hitler? Thanks for the laughs.

      "There's a place for all God's critters…right next to the mashed potatoes." Get used to it.

    • coyote3

      This is a joke, right? It sound like the skit that they used to do on the old "In Living Color", where the guy is talking on the telephone in jibberish from prison. It was hilarious.

    • Joe

      Michael Jackson, Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Vincent Van Gogh, Voltaire, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, Dalai Lama, Thoreau — and millions of other people past and present are vegetarians. Including me. Being one does not give anyone moral superiority over anyone else. "God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them:…..'Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants." (Gen.9:3)

      I am a vegetarian because I think eating meat is unhealthy. But I support growing animals for food and hunting wild game. We should treat animals humanely because we are stewards of the earth, but the only "rights" animals should have are those that we give them.

  • BS1977

    I wonder if there are any vegans or strident vegetarians who sneak a cheeseburger once in awhile when no one is looking. I tried living as a vegetarian for seven years….but I gave up….I was over eating sugary foods and carbs….eating too much starch and rice, beans and rice, rice and beans, tofu and rice, rice and tofu……..uggghhhhhh. TO this day, I cannot stand tofu. It turns people into gas machines.

  • http://federatedrepublic.com Federated Republic

    I too tried the veggie route, but after having a heart attack anyway and clogged arteries, I had to ask myself WTF am I doing?

    Even though I never gave up seafood and fish, I am now back to eating meat in SMALL portions and only buying free range animal meat and eggs! I don't patronize fast food restaurants that use feed lot meats or mass production animal meat. I do not approve of feed lots and mass poultry/egg production. Those situations are animal cruelty to my thinking!

    I do love wild animal meat though and have recently taken back up hunting and fishing with my rabid hunting and fishing brother:-) I have always been taught to respect nature and animals whether in the wild or as a domesticated partner/friend. Animals must be respected and I for one appreciate everything they do for us whether as a loving friend or as nourishment for my tired old body;-)

  • http://federatedrepublic.com Federated Republic

    PETA = People Eating Tasty Animules;-)

    • Andy

      I do agree with you but honestly sometimes I hate seeing people who turtured our animals.. They are supposed to be taking care of. what causes white spots on teeth

  • Marco

    That's a great picture of that rich bitch getting red ink all over her coat. Love it!

    Marco

    • http://ohbelanova.com restyg

      I think this is funny, yet wrong… belanova

  • Maureen K

    The argument is not about whether animals have rights. Of course they have rights. They are born with all the equipment required by nature to eat, breathe, find shelter, find a mate, reproduce, and survive on this planet. Whether this came about through creation or evolution, the fact is that animals are born with the right to live life, to move through the world, and to eventually die. We humans have the same rights. What we do not have is the right to arbitrarily decide that we can remove rights from other species. It is only our arrogance that allows us to believe that we can own, enslave, and exploit other species in any way we choose. In the U.S., we used to think we could do that with Africans, just as ancient Egyptians thought they could do it with Jews. Women have been considered less worthy than men, and in every case those who believed they were superior ignored the protests of those they considered unworthy of rights. As humans, we ignore the preferences of all other species and claim our dominion was granted by a God who created us in his image. We pray to that deity to be merciful to us, but we show no mercy to those we consider beneath us. The hypocrisy and arrogance is obvious to anyone who has an ounce of objectivity. We share the Earth, we do not own it. We do not have the right to destroy the Earth or to usurp the rights of other beings, human or other. Hubris – in ancient Greece, it referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser. Hubris often indicates a loss of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities, especially for those in positions of power.

  • wsg

    "It is because we have moral agency that we should seek ways to reduce the suffering of animals, whether it is cattle or pigs raised on factory farms."
    Mr Smith – Please define "factory farms."The animal rights fascists define almost 100 % of modern animal husbandry as "factory farming."
    Pasture raised animals are exposed to the extremes of weather and predators, Then there are the natural and deadly habits of the animals themselves ie., sows eating their new born piglets, "pecking order" killing of the weak and injured in chickens, turkeys and other species as well.
    Maureen K – Life IS NOT a Disney movie and animals are just that – animals and not voiceless humans. Humans – despite what you have been brainwashed to believe are NOT destroying Mother Earth ! Ask the poor souls in Chile or Haiti how we puny humans are fairing in the battle with Gaia !

  • Twister

    I wish PETA imbecile(s) walk up to my wife and pour some paint on her mink fur in my presence.
    Be it guys or gals, their teeth would pave the sidewalk and some red dripping will occur. Not a threat – just an information.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder, says Michael Savage, rightly so.

  • Samurai Hit Woman

    Yes our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics that have served us well in maintaining our freedom. Forbidding the eating of meat was given in the New Testament as a false religion.

    And by the way thank you to those who insulted me for my first post. I drew blood and that is what I intended to do because the eating of meat is fine and dandy and all who forbid it are following a false religion.

  • Vivek

    What I have never been able to figure out is how come PETA and other animal rights groups have never ever voiced any opinion on halal. Does PETA think halal is an act of kindness to animals? In fact few years back PETA and other animal rights groups in India lobbied to get Indian meat banned in the Gulf nations because cows and other animals they claimed were treated roughly prior to being halaled. Does that not take both the cake and coke for sheer absurdity.

  • http://www.RadioJihad.org Alan Kornman

    I am a staunch Conservative 21 year Vegetarian who used to be active in the Animal rights movement.

    Just because I choose NOT to eat Meat, Chicken, or Fish does not give me the right to force my dietary choices on anyone else.

    Here is the bottom line folks – Food animals cows, chickens, veal calves, goats, etc… have souls and experience fear, pain, cold, and abuse. I have more respect for hunters who track, hunt, kill, and dress out their meat animals much more than these ivory tower conservatives who would not be able to get bloody for their meat products. It's so much more sanitary to go to the grocery where your meat and chicken are sanitized and packaged all nice and clean – no guilt meat eating.

  • http://www.RadioJiahd.org Alan Kornman

    Part 2

    The author is correct the Animal Rights Movement has a clearly liberal/Socialist political leaning. However, vivisection is just plain bad science but the NIH has turned it into a proverbial cash cow for pseudo scientists to torture animals in the name of bad science.

    My philosophy – If I choose to not eat meat, chicken, or fish it is my choice as an individual. It is not my right to force anyone else to accommodate, change, or adjust to my food choices – how arrogant for anyone to do otherwise.

    That especially includes the Islmasits demanding America accommodate to their Halal food practices. Do what you want but don't tread your beliefs on me.

    Alan Kornman

  • http://jezitechsolutions.com tech solution

    i like that,thanks for your information news

  • http://browsergames-kostenlos.de/kostenlose-browsergames/ Browsergames

    That's a great picture of that rich ***** getting red ink all over her coat. Love it!

  • http://language1st.com/services/esl-online-classes bret

    This post has shared the information about the unique creature. This page is where I got the most useful information for my information gathering. I am extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your weblog. Thanks.

    PMP Certification Orlando Florida

  • http://language1st.com/services/esl-online-classes daisy

    Either way keeps up the excellent quality writing, it's rare to see a great blog like this one today. Thanks for sharing me here.

    esl job abroad

  • marianrivera

    I enjoyed reading this story. I will not say it was something surprising, anyway it was fine. Anyway, merci for your post. Move ahead doing well. Surplus Circuit Breakers

  • http://www.ogdenrestaurant.com/ogden-catering Ogden UT Restaurant

    I am very thank you to share this article,it’s very good,I hope you can share more,and I will continue to read

  • thiagodaluz7

    Wow, that is really interesting. I know an eye doctor in Ogden who talks about animal rights a lot(usually when people ask why he doesn't have the classic fish tank), but I don't HE thinks it goes that far. It's certainly strange and even a little concerning to think that so many people espouse that sort of radical view.