Animals

Do you really not see the irony, Abby, in the way you come to these posts accusing people of just stating opinions (when actual facts and eyewitness reports are being relayed)--and then yourself just make statements without anything at all but your opinion to back them up?

There isn't a bit of false information here. If you think hunting dogs never get left behind or abandoned or neglected (or even that all hunters "spend thousands of dollars on those dogs"), you're gravely mistaken. The reports are out there. The photos of the dogs are out there. The rescues are out there. Even if you don't want to do any research yourself, all you have to do is click on that "treated terribly" link in this post for the proof.

You can't just say something and make it true. No hunters shoot recklessly simply because it's not "proper gun safety"? The fact that it's not safe automatically means they don't do it? And your evidence is what exactly? The "reckless" remark isn't something I came up with on my own--reread the post; "reckless" is how the hunters' behavior (including shooting) is being described by the people who witness it. Are you really arguing in this case, for example, that all the people in Louisiana complaining about the reckless shooting they witness firsthand are just making it up, and you know better?

"It doesn't happen because I say it doesn't happen" is a less-than-convincing argument. You keep coming to these posts with the assumption that you already know everything and that anything you read that challenges what you think you know must automatically be untrue. There's nothing wrong with considering, when faced with evidence to the contrary, that what you've always assumed to be true and assumed to be morally acceptable isn't necessarily true or acceptable just because it's what you've believed.

Bea, thanks so much for this detailed, thoughtful perspective, including for pointing out the "numbering" of the dogs. When I found two starving, skin-and-bones hunting dogs last year (a horrible experience written about in an earlier post), that the one I was able to temporarily save was identified only by a number written on her orange collar hit me in the gut. I assume, of course, that her companion who died that horrible death on the interstate was nothing but a number to someone too. Heartbreaking.

I am also from a farming / hunting community, and I can tell you that my experiences are VASTLY  different from what you claim.

The "cost" is often monetary, many people hire a trainer to train their dogs, or they buy already trained hunting dogs. Depending on the amount and kind of training, the price of the dog goes up. A trained hunting dog can cost several thousand dollars just for the purchase price of the dog.

"Off season" females are busy being bred? Hmmm... funny that BOTH my father's female hunting dogs are spayed! Most hunters do not breed thier own dogs. Most hunters only have a couple dogs that double as the family pets.

And hunters don't name thier dogs? HA! Good one! As I mentioned before I grew up in a hunting community, and also my mother runs a bed & breakfast that is booked full every hunting season. I have never heard a person that didn't have a name for their dog.

Hunting dogs should not be on the highways, and the dogs should have a reliable recall before going out and working. Does one occasionally run astray? Probalby, but so do pets. Far more pets are ran over than hunting dogs.

Dogs are starved? With any "sport" you have your dog do, whether hunting, agility, etc., you want your dog to be in top condition, NOT starved! A hungry, abused dog will not be a good worker. A happy dog that has a strong bond to it's owner will be a better worker. Also an out-of-shape dog won't be able to work the whole day, it would be exhausted after a short period of time, which is not what anybody who is working their dog, whether it be hunting, herding, etc., wants.

Most hunters where I live are also farmers or the family of farmers, they hunt on their own land. There are some public lands to hunt on, but those are typically used by out-of-town people that don't know anyone in the area. By law, hunters need to either own the land or have permission from the land-owner to hunt there. And most follow the law.

Are there SOME hunters that act the way you desccribe? Sure.
Just like there are SOME animal rights activists that fire-bomb research labs and people's houses.
But that is far from the majority.

Be against hunting all you want, you have a right to your opinion.
Be against people who DO treat their animals badly and don't follow the law, I agree with you on that.
But don't lump everyone of one group into the actions of a small minority. You don't like it when it's done to you, so why do it to others?

Perhaps people in Florida just don't take proper care of their dogs.
Or perhaps your occupation (which you didn't say what you do) lends to you being around irresponsible dog owners. I've see pro-BSL people use the same type of claim, their job was to investigate animal cruelty, and they see a lot of fighting pit-bulls, so they want all pit bulls banned. Now are most pit-bulls fighting dogs? No, most are pets and owned by responsible dog-owners, but in their experience, they thought most pit-bull owners were thugs out to fight their dogs.

In Kansas, it's not "most" it is "the small minority". Here the vast majority of hunters do take proper care of their dogs.

Yes, I'm a supporter of the NRA, but that has nothing to do with this. I support them because they are the most active group in the protection of the 2nd Amendment, which has virtually nothing to do with hunting other than the same inanimate object is involved. We can't discuss anything about that though, as side discussions aren't allowed on this blog.

I can see how and why you arrive at your conclusions, Abby J.

You grew up in a family of hunters, surrounded by hunters. It's very hard to question, much less leave behind, one's customary lifestyle, habits, traditions.

Also, you happen to know "responsible" hunters who name their dogs, pay a lot for them, don't starve them, don't let them get run over, don't shoot helter-skelter, and eat what they kill.

I'm sure I'd think the same way you do if I were brought up in that environment.

You remind me of how a rodeo cowboy talks about the animals he rides and ropes. He says it is in his interest to not abuse them, not injure them, not kill them, because they are expensive to train, maintain, and replace. He says he doesn't allow his horses to be electroshocked -- or, if he does, it's because it doesn't hurt them. He says he always has a vet attend to his injured steer, bulls and calves right away -- or, if the vet isn't around Friday night or Saturday or Sunday, then Monday morning is soon enough. Meanwhile, he opines, there will always be the "small minority" of cowboys who mistreat their animals -- but he's not "one of them."

The same we-need-our-animals-to-be-healthy-so-we-treat-them-well arguments are made at dog races (including the Iditarod) and horse races, with the majority of trainers, owners and jockeys pleading innocent and pointing a finger at the "handful" of abusive ones who whip, starve, shoot or send to slaughter their slow animals, and who cage or chain their animals most of the day to "keep them safe."

My point? The bottom-line attitude toward animals in all of these "sports" is that they are here solely for man's pleasure and profit, and when they are "used up" or "in the way" or "too expensive" to keep they can be discarded along with the worn-out printer -- and empty ink cartridge.

Abby, you have a sweet-looking dog with butterfly ears that make me smile every time I see them. I know you love your dog and would do anything to keep him (or her) happy, safe, well.

Why, then, is there such a disconnect between your feelings for that doggie and your non-feelings for hunted animals? Don't you see how it's possible for most of us on this blog to love all animals equally, want to defend all of them from harm, and be sickened by the actions of men and women (and children) who cold-heartedly (that's how it looks to us) take their innocent lives away simply because the law allows it?

We don't think any living being should be property, any more than people of color should be property. It's not moral, in our minds, and it shouldn't be legal. (I'm not advocating the abolition of well-cared-for companion animals here!)

I understand your point of view. It is wrapped in tradition. So why can't you set aside your conditioned thoughts for a few minutes and try to imagine how we feel -- how we yearn to protect the lives of thinking and feeling beings with whom we share this planet? Do you really believe that a loving creator put us all here on earth to "manage" what nature knows how to successfully control on her own and to "kill" harmless beings who want to live as much as we do?

And, finally, do you not understand that the world only improves because a few people dare to defy the norm and are willing to think and act in unconventional ways? We on this blog assert that man's progress can't come from killing off other species, but is, rather, being held back by this form of violence, just as it is by every other form of violence. 

Why not prove how "big" your thinking and your heart really are, by consenting to at least crack the hard shell that is hiding both? 

Thanks for listening a little, I hope!     

Olivia,

I understand we have a difference in our philosophies, I come from an "animal welfare" philosophy while you come from an "animal rights" philosophy. And neither one of us is likely to change our mind on what we beleive. (I think trying to convince someone to switch their thoughts on a topic like this is like trying to get them to change their thoughts on abortion, both sides beleive what they beleive for a reason, and don't think the other side's reasons outweight their reasons.) So I will just say that I respect your opinion even though I don't share the same opinion.

I do know more than "a few" hunters. I grew up in an area where everyone knows everyone. You drive down the street and you know who lives in every house, what they do for a living, what their kids names are, what their kids are involved in, etc. A good percentage of the population hunts, whether they are teachers, doctors, police, or even cheerleaders. I am basing my opinion on my experience with hundreds of hunters.

Most people (hunters included) are good people.

Thank you for the compliment on my dog Josie. She's a sweetie.

I always find it interesting when people are confronted with example after example after example of instances that contradicts their own position, and instead of questioning their own reasoning, which would be rational, they simply push it aside with, "Well, maybe that's just your experience; my experiences, however, is still what happens most of the time."  

You are correct that people do that. Olivia and I have both done that above.  Who's right? We both think we are. I don't want to call anyone a liar, so I'll just say that I guess we have just had experiences with very different people.

And Bea. Sorry, didn't mean to leave you out Bea, I did read what you said about your side of it, too.

Doug,

Your logic doesn't follow. The "well-trained army" analogy works as a matter of necessity. This doesn't hold for eating nonhuman animals because the issue isn't one of necessity, but choice (e.g. taste). Therefore, your inconsistency is hypocrisy or willful ignorance because mere "choice" doesn't work as an ethical principle when the issue concerns causing harm and death. 

Even if you agree with the principles implied in the "animal welfare" position, unnecessary harm and death must be limited to the greatest extent possible, by definition. And therefore, given that omnivorism is indeed a "choice," it isn't necessary, and therefore even for the "animal welfare" minded individuals, veganism is the only consistent position to hold without falling into self-contradiction.    

Actually, animal protein is the most efficient source of certain nutrients; the science about how well you can substitute for all animal products is not totally conclusive, as I understand it.  In addition, many vaccines apparently need to be cultured in egg whites.  Also, it is possible to collect milk and eggs without harming animals.  I also don't see why vegetarianism is so much worse than veganism, judged by your stated standards, although you claim the latter is the only consistent position.  Even if you're right, it does not follow that anyone holding my position must be committing hypocrisy or willful ignorance -- is there no allowance for plain old confusion?  Interesting that you so readily concede the other example, which I would say is also controversial.  No less a thinker than Einstein asserted, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."  (I don't happen to agree with him, but I certainly respect his opinion!)  In short, I still think the issue is a bit more complicated and "iffy" than the way you see it, and the conversation should respectfully reflect the amount of room we have for reasonable people to disagree.

For all the research I've done on nutrition in my 16 years as a vegetarian then vegan, I've learned that the only nutrient not to be found naturally in the human diet (omnivorous or vegetarian) is B12.  We need to get this vitamin from an outside source.  The most common way people get it is from beef, but it's just as easily obtained, and in more appropriate dosages, in vitamin supplements or fortified foods.  Getting B12 is as easy as reading a label.

Other than that, suffient amounts of protein, which is often what people are the most concerned about when going veg*n, can be found in more soluable forms in beans and other plant foods.  If anyone is concerned about proper nutrition on a veg*n diet, they simply need to consult their doctor, and grab a bottle of full spectrum vitamins.  I, though, have never taken supplements - I find it more than simple to balance my diet without dead animal flesh or secretions.

The idea of what is "moral" is different to different people. Many people do not find eating meat "immoral", humans are naturally omivores. Are they any less moral than you? You might think so, but they don't.

A few other examples:
- Some animal rights activists think having pets is immoral. Are they at a higher level of morality than you? In thier opinion they are, in your opinion they probably aren't.
- Some Christians think it is immoral to listen to any music that isn't Christian music. Are they at a higher level of morality than you? In thier opinion they are, in your opinion they probably aren't.
- Some cultures think is is immoral for woman to show their face, arms, or legs. Are they at a higher level of morality than you? In thier opinion they are, in your opinion they probably aren't.

Everyone is a hypocrite in someone else's eyes. Other people's "truth" isn't the same as your "truth".

I'm not going to get into an "is eating meat right or wrong" debate, I'm just saying that different people have different ideas of what is "moral" and "immoral". Even different people within animal rights have different views of what is considered "moral".

Well, see, Bea, it's like this: on a family farm or ranch, where the cows graze in the pasture and the chickens run around in the yard, somebody milks the cows and somebody collects the eggs the hens lay.  All the abuses you described happened in large-scale industrial settings, not on the farms and ranches I've been on.  Whether the practices I saw are practical and profitable on a large scale is another question, but possible?  Well, it sure looked that way to me.

And actually, there has been a fair amount of research on alternatives to egg whites for vaccine culture, because some people have allergic reactions to the egg proteins, and other media are often less expensive.  Some microbes grow well in other media.  Some don't.

Similarly, some people clearly thrive on vegan diets.  This does not prove that everybody would.

And, yes, most people do fail, some for quite a while, to process information they clearly have.  My professional work involves why organizations full of apparently smart people do stupid things, and usually the reason is precisely that people aren't sharing and using the information they have.  It's frustrating to deal with and difficult to change, but that doesn't prove anybody is immoral.

Obviously I cannot speak for anyone else, but personally the choice to buy plant-based foods (which yes, also result in the death of animals) represents my attempt to cause as little harm as possible.  The amount of animals (not counting insects) killed to protect crops is small compared to the number of animals going through the slaughterhouse every day.  Most veg*ns have done research into the effects of both an omnivorous & vegetarian diet on the environment & animals.

That said, everyone knows that animals die for every ounce of food we take into our bodies. So the question is how can we lessen the suffering?  How can we avoid as much death as possible?  Grow our own garden? Buy local?  For each person, the answer to that question is different and highly personal. 

For me, I just do the best I can with what resources I have.  And I do what feels right for my conscience.

My sentiments, and thoughts, exactly. Thanks, Lisa, you are what I strive to be like. Your example of kindness and thoughtfulness is greatly appreciated by so many.

Bea,

I'm not getting into the "eating meat is right or wrong" with you. That will get this thread locked.

If you don't think that everyone is a hypocrite in some way, you aren't looking very hard. Even though you don't think you are a hypocrite, someone else probably does. Do you have pets? The anti-pet animal rights people probably look at you in the same way you look at hunters or those who eat/use animal products.

I will address the "humans are omnivores" though. Saying humans aren't omnivores is like saying grass isn't a plant. Even most animal rights and vegetarian/vegan groups admit humans are omnivores, the only ones that don't are those trying to use faux-science to push their agenda.
- http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm 
- http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml
- http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/959372412.Ot.r.html

None of the genus "homo" have been herbivores. Our earlier ancestors, under the genus "australopithecus", were herbivores. Unless you are millions of years old, the last of the pre-homos, you are an OMNIVORE. You may choose to cut out meat from your diet, but that doesn't change your physiological makeup.
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/evolution/eating_meat.html

This is the only thing I could find that was close: "Every cow over 20 months of age should be tested for BSE before being used in food for humans or pets, and restrictions should be put in place to ensure that high-risk tissue from rendered cows does not end up in human or pet food."

"as advocates for veganism, there is a plethora of isssues that may spark people's concerns... health, environment, world hunger, sustainability, ethics..."

Bea, this is a great way of putting it.  My mom is what I would call a semi-vegetarian now.  But she will deny up and down that it's "because of animals", she'll give you all sorts of health related reasons. And you know what?  I'm not one to sit there & say "you can only be one of 'us' if you proclaim you are for animal rights."  No.  I won't do that to my friends or family. 

Look, when it comes down to it, one less person eating meat (for whatever reason) is still one less person eating meat.  I'm going to encourage the dietary choice in response to whatever works best for that particular person.  Friends who say they care about the environment?  Hey, go veg! 

The result is the same!  Thanks Bea for pointing this out!!

Hi Bea,

   Two simple questions. How much lifelong daily experience have you had with a wide spectrum of animals ?

    Secondly, why is it any of your business what people do in LA. and why aren't you trying to help people first? Sorry, that was three questions.

    Most animal rights types seem to me to be very unhappy in their relationships with humans AND animals, with unrealistic expectations of both. To think that animals have human emotions is foolish. Would your son and your husband fight to the death to "mate" with you ? Would you abandon your oldest child to nature as soon as the newest is born ? Would you kill over food ? Would you helplessly mate with the "dominant male" after he has defeated all the other males in bloody fights ? Animals do all these things at one time or another.

  I grew up and still live in the Atchafalaya Basin in LA., and with the exception of the time I spent in college and traveling in Europe and the Orient, I have spent my entire life in the Atchafalaya Wilderness on a daily basis. I forgot more about nature and animals than you will ever know. It never ceases to amaze me that people from big cities think they have a right to tell other people how to live. To try and project your overly sensitive worldview on animals would be hilarious, if it weren't so tragic and sad.

   More native LA. rainforest was sacrificed to the "soybean gods" in the early seventies than the entire area of CT and RI. They dozed and burned Bea, all in the name of soybeans that fried-hippies like Stephen Gaskin tell us will be the saviour of the world. What about all the animals that lost their homes and what about all the indigenous people that had to move or be forced to work on other peoples terms ??????

  You people have intellectualized your total and multi-generational disconnect from the natural world into a type of pseudo-moral-superiority.What makes a city dweller automatically assume this posture of moral and intellectual superiority over a rural inhabitant with a southern accent ? I speak Cajun French, Spanish, Chitimacha, Choctaw, and Atakap-Ishak Indian dialects. How many languages do you speak ?

    My people(Atakapa-Ishak) have lived in this swamp since time immemorial and have hunted deer with our Catahoula dogs for centuries. Where do you get off telling a Native Son anything ?

   The money and amount of time that you people spend interfering with millenia old interaction between people and animals is wasteful and insensitive to HUMAN needs. Why not spend all that time and energy raising money for St. Judes Childrens Hospital ???? Think of the innocent little babies with terminal cancer and the pain their moms and dads are going through before you attach so much importance to someone elses way of life and culture in another state and to what an animal feels.

  Living "to do as little harm as possible" is an escapist, frightened outlook on life. You will never do enough to save yourself or anything or anyone else Bea. Only Christ can do that. Maybe you should cruise by Billy Grahams website and humble your over intellectualized self long enough to listen with an open heart and open mind. Key word here is "humble" Bea. Not basic Yankee arrogance. 

   Get a life Bea. Tofu kills brain cells AND true compassion.

              From Isle des Vert, Atchafalaya Basin,

                                          Jeff

So much anger, Jeff. Take a breath. You obviously have been "wronged" by someone or something lately to take out your aggression on Bea and her opinions.

Look inside yourself to see what is really bothering you, and please stop make so many assumptions about people you don't know at all.

Find a new place to attack people and be impeccable with your words. If you truly mean what you say...you must eat a lot of Tofu!

A life of ignorance is no real life at all.

Find a cause to be passionate about. Support a non-profit. Joining change.org and putting in a name with no information about yourself and then commenting and attacking people who really care....well that's just a coward with anger that he wants to vent.

Take a breath. Peace out.

Thanks  Michele for diverting some poison arrows away from me. :)

But Jeff has asked some questions and I'll do my best to answer...
"How much lifelong daily experience have you had with a wide spectrum of animals ?
 Secondly, why is it any of your business what people do in LA. and why aren't you trying to help people first? Sorry, that was three questions."

Well, I used to live on close to 7 acres... adjacent to a National Forest here in Florida.  I've encountered everything from wild boar, domestic pigs, cattle, raccoons, flying squirrels, moles, armadillos, bobcats, deer, goats, peacocks, owls, hummingbirds, dolphins, manatees, rattle snakes, alligators and other assorted reptiles/amphibians... oh yes, and domestic cats and dogs.  And all of these species (excluding dolphins, manatees) have been on my own property.

I think it's my concern to care about these animals - and all others because they have no voice of their own.  They cannot defend themselves against harm from people here or in LA. 

You also assume I don't "help people first" - I don't know how caring for animals prevents me from acting on the behalf of children and seniors too.  And without going into a list of philanthropic deeds done on the behalf of humans... Suffice to say - You're wrong that I neglect others of my own species...

"To think that animals have human emotions is foolish."

Actually, nonhumans do possess a wide range of emotions similar to humans... They feel pleasure and joy, distress, loneliness, boredom, frustration, fear and pain. In fact, the "darling" of animal agriculture, Ms Grandin, says so! :)

"Would your son and your husband fight to the death to "mate" with you ?" Would you helplessly mate with the "dominant male" after he has defeated all the other males in bloody fights ?"

Well, there have been many accounts of the "enraged boyfriend" and "cuckold husband" who certainly have killed over their mate... Ever hear of Cleopatra? Helen of Troy?  "Crime of passion"? "Insane jealousy"?  More wars have been fought over "women trouble" than history cares to tell...  And there's a lot of women/girls out there that "choose" a mate based on his success as a football player, drag street racer, gang leader, Wall Street exec, etc. 

"Would you abandon your oldest child to nature as soon as the newest is born ?"  Uhhh... you mean like the woman who sent her car over a bridge with her kids in it?  Or like the woman here in Florida who got rid of her 5 year old daughter so she would be more "marketable" in the dating circle?  Or so many other incidents of infanticide?  No, I wouldn't - but humans have killed their children... many, many times.

"Would you kill over food ?"  If it was a matter of "survival", with no other choice - yes.  But... what is my "prey" eating?  Human or non,  odds are they would be eating plants to stay alive... So I'd probably "compete" with them for the vegetation first...

"More native LA. rainforest was sacrificed to the "soybean gods" in the early seventies than the entire area of CT and RI. They dozed and burned Bea, all in the name of soybeans that fried-hippies like Stephen Gaskin tell us will be the saviour of the world."
 
The top 4 soybean consuming states are: North Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia and Texas "These states consume so much soybean meal because they are the leading pork-, poultry- and beef-cattle-producing states. "When 98 percent of your soybean meal goes to livestock, it's good to know who your customers really are..."

Soy Checkoff News - issue 15, 2007
www.unitedsoybean.org/FileDownload.aspx?file=sic_issue15.pdf

80% of corn, 95% oats, altogether 56% of all agriculture in the U.S.A. land used for beef production. 260 million acres of forest have been cleared for meat-based diet. "Divine Nature" a book by Michael A. Cremo & Mukunda Goswami - this book can be found in Library of Congress.

According to www.soyatech.com:
"About 85 percent of the world's soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed. Some two percent of the soybean meal is further processed into soy flours and proteins for food use... Approximately six percent of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia."

And soy is also being made into car seats, substitutes for plastic, bio-fuel, Adhesives
Coatings and printing inks
Lubricants, etc
Of the small percentage of soy being used to feed people, don't be fooled into believing that the majority of it is used to make meat or milk substitutes to feed vegans and vegetarians.   Believe this: livestock are eating the majority of our "food" and our resources.

"How many languages do you speak ?"  I speak the language of reason and compassion. 

"Where do you get off telling a Native Son anything ?"  Ah, but it's my planet too!  And if I'm speaking for the voiceless and the exploited... not only is it my "right" but my duty to do such. 

"Living "to do as little harm as possible" is an escapist, frightened outlook on life. You will never do enough to save yourself or anything or anyone else Bea. Only Christ can do that. Maybe you should cruise by Billy Grahams website and humble your over intellectualized self long enough to listen with an open heart and open mind. Key word here is "humble" Bea. Not basic Yankee arrogance."

Wrong again... I'm not a "Yankee" --- But I don't hold anything against anyone based on where they live either...

And as far as "Christ" goes... isn't it you who is arrogant here?  You are assuming "your God" is "my God"... You're outlook advocates the taking of innocent beings, "needlessly" - Yet, you see yourself as "humble".  Wonders never cease!

An "open heart and open mind" embraces all life and respects that each has a purpose unto itself... Your view excludes an entire species because you see them as "Others"... I'd like to think my world view is "inclusive" - And for this reason... I know I am "saved".

I wish I could click the "like" button 10 times, Bea. Or maybe 100! But once, which is all the computer allows me to do, will have to suffice. (Too bad there's not a "love" button!)

Reading your rational and fact-based, yet humble and heart-felt response, I am impressed by how "unoffended" you sound. Truly, I hope Jeff is as touched by your Christly meekness (as far from weakness as east is from west) as I am.

Yes, Bea, you're "saved" -- from the foes of spite and small-mindedness, of greed and gluttony, and  all the other woes of material sense and evil, over which the real, spiritual man and woman have dominion.

In my opinion, someone that hunts for their food is better than someone who buys meat at a grocery store. They are not supporting factory farms as much if they eat what they kill. They also are not ignorant to what goes on to get the meat on their plate.
(It makes no sense to me people that are not vegetarian/vegan but against hunting for food.  It doesn't logically make sense to me why they think meat at the grocery store is fine but hunted meat is wrong, it's eating an animal either way; and I would say the hunted animal has probably lived a better life than the animal people buy at the grocery store. (I know you don't fall into that category, but I know some people who do.))

How I grew up, we were responsible for a good amount of our food. We rarely bought meat at the store, it came either from what my family hunted or animals we raised on our farm. During the summer we also had a whole lot that we used for growing a vegetable garden. I know this falls more under "sustainable food",  but for a many people hunting is how they get a good amount of the meat they eat in a year.
(Yes, I know you'd rather they not eat meat at all, but statistically most people are not vegetarian/vegan. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that is the status quo that most people in America eat meat.)

An animal can be "murdered" by euthanasia, too. Do you distrust shelter workers that have to put healthy friendly animals down because of lack of space in the shelter? Sorry little puppy, but we don't have room for you so you die. Different tools, but still killing an animal before it's natural time.

In your quote: "They also are not ignorant to what goes on to get the meat on their plate." - which means they intentionally and consciously choose to kill an animal because they like the taste of meat, and unless you live in boonyville Alaska, the last time I checked a bag of soybeans is easy to obtain at any grocery store - there is no excuse for eating meat at all, it is in modern day America, purely for selfish reasons, so yes I believe that those who intentionally pull the trigger, are more guilty than those who are ignorant to where their hamburger meat comes from. In a sense because hunters know better they should be more accountable. I’m sure your house wasn’t adorned with dead animal heads because your family only hunted for survival purposes, there was no “joy” in killing the animal, correct? (I’m assuming not).

And yes I wouldn't trust a shelter or vet technician either who killed an animal because there was no more room for them...would you do that to a person? Hopefully not, so why would you do it to an animal? and trust me if there is one population on this planet that needs "culling" because of a lack of room and resources it is us humans, but I'm not advocating that we go and start euthanizing people.

Not all people beleive a vegetarian/vegan diet is best. You can find sources (written by experts such as doctors and dietitians) that say it is good for you, you can find sources that say it is bad for you. (By the way, eating too much soy is bad for you, too.)

It's up to the individual person to research decide what diet they want to eat. I've done the research, I've chosen to eat a well-balanced diet that includes meat. I guess that makes me a bad evil horrible person along with the other 98% of the population (or 99.5% of the population if you think vegetarians are 'wrong' too).

No, my house growing up wasn't "adorned with dead animal heads". We lived out in the country, the nearest grocery store, which stocked the necessities (at twice the price of going to a store 60 miles away) was quite small, only about 3 aisles. My mom was a teacher, my dad farmed and owned a propane business; if you know anything about the salaries of those jobs and the average salaries in rural areas, you'll know that's not much. It was financially cheaper to get a hunting license than it was to buy meat at the grocery store. Buy fruits and vegetables you say? The produce department at the local grocery store was smaller than my kitchen countertop! If you want anything even semi-different, even something like cilantro which most people think is common, they didn't have it!

And again, most people do not believe eating meat is morally wrong. You beleive that, and that's your prerogative, but it doesn't mean you are right or wrong. Morality is more of a personal opinion than a fact, just like religion. You cannot "prove" morality because it is based on personal ideals.

Can you imagine what it would be like if anything that someone thought was "wrong" was banned? We wouldn't be able to do anything besides hide out in caves because chances are almost everything you do offends some group! We wouldn't be able to say certain words (even "darn" or "shucks" are offensive to some people), drive cars, show any part of the body other than hands, use electronics, dance, listen to music, gamble, watch movies/TV, play cards, have medical procedures (vaccinations, blood transfusions, and even taking medicine orally), get piercings or tattoos, use birth control, have sex out of wedlock, have women in the workplace, the list goes on!
You simply cannot force your idea of "morality" onto people because different people consider different things "moral" and "immoral".

Again, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong to eat meat, I know what both our opinions are and it's pointless to belabor about something neither one of us will change our minds on. I'm just saying that just because you think something is immoral doesn't mean it is straight-up. It is immoral *to you*, and may or may not be immoral to the next person.

Abby, "most people do not believe eating meat is morally wrong," and it must not be unethical because 98% of people do it, are not arguments that are going to get you far on this blog. And I think you already know that given how frequently (and in length) you've been commenting lately.

This isn't about what most people "believe." This is an animal rights blog, where animals' interests, well-being, and lives are the primary concern, not people's "beliefs." Most people at one time didn't think incredibly sexist and racist behaviors--including violent sexist and racist behaviors--were "morally wrong" either.

And this isn't about "offending" anyone. It's about unnecessary killing. Please stop comparing the suffering and killing of sentient animals to things like premarital sex or tattoos or other matters where the comparison is completely nonsensical. You've done it in previous threads, and it makes no more sense here than it did there. As I've said before, the next time someone's "personal opinion" and choice about premarital sex or getting a tattoo or using a so-called curse word inherently requires killing another living being, let me know. Until then, these comparisons are absurd.

And with that, I ask that you not try to continue this argument. It's gone way off-topic again, as usual.

"Abby, "most people do not believe eating meat is morally wrong," and it must not be unethical because 98% of people do it,"

> You are "strawmanning". I never said it must be right or wrong, I said that 98% of people don't think it's wrong.

> What I *am* saying that ethics and morality are personal beleifs. Morality is not something you can prove or disprove. You are comparing "I like the number 4" with "2+2=4". Fact versus opinion. Just because an opinion is shared by a group of people doesn't make it correct (and that goes for both sides of any argument on any moral/ethical topic).

> I am simply saying that you can't use "it's morally wrong" as an argument to people who don't share the same opinion of morality on that topic.

I never said anything about what is morally correct vs. incorrect. This is about killing vs not killing innocent beings. I never said eating meat was morally wrong, as stated, those who are starving and need to eat whatever they can to stay alive is a trait found in every living creature on this planet, it is not a moral issue. The issue I have is people who continue to eat meat with a careless attitude, especially when they have other means available to them to abstain from taking another life. People have lost their regard for life, for ourselves and for other creatures...we have broken our symbiotic relationship with nature - eating meat nowadays is purely for pleasure (in most cases) not for life-sustaining sustenance.

And if you want to talk about which diet is more healthy we can do that in another thread because I don't want to get Steph upset by going further off-topic.

Well said Kristen, I agree with you when you say that you would never befriend a hunter. I couldn't agree with you more! Anyone that can kill that innocent, beautiful animal is cruel. And I am so tired of hearing people say to me that the reason they hunt is because "the deer population is so overwhelming, we are actually doing the world a favor by killing them."  UUGHH!!   All I have to say to that is... IGNORANT!

There is a huge difference in killing someone for war vs killing an animal for pleasure. Although I do not advocate war - it is a life and death situation, I am sure that most soldiers use killing as the last option available to them, and they usually do so to protect themselves because they are being shot at. Unless you live in an extreme remote region of the world where a grocery store is not within reach and vegetation is scarce, such as the arctic, killing animals for food is purely for pleasure. Most hunters don't only kill for food, for some reason they need to feed some sort of ego that they are lacking - and anyone who kills to feed an ego is not someone I would trust.

Kristen, I have to agree with you that we have a choice about whether or not we eat meat.

I have to disagree with your statement that "there is a huge difference in killing someone for war vs killing an animal for pleasure."

You really cannot compare the two at all. The choice to kill someone in war is just as bad, if not worse than killing an animal for food.

People who join the military, have a choice. Excluding drafting people and making them join the cause, people in our country can now make the choice to join (and possibly kill). It is a choice. The consequences of having to choose to kill once they join is up to them, personally. It has nothing to do with killing to feed themselves.

My heroes are people who choose peace over military "support". Some peace supporters call it "people management" and that war is the only way to cut the population down. Instead of eating their "kill", they put them in shiny caskets and would never consider using the meat of humans in the same way as hunters. You really cannot compare the two. Killing is killing. In case you're wondering, no, I don't support our troops for our freedom. Taking away someone else's freedom to support ours is no better. (I live near Native American Reservations and have friends who are Native to this country, before we took it from their tribes.) Totally off the subject, yes, but my point is that you cannot compare the two at all, and to say that "most soldiers use killing as the last option available to them" is ignorant as well. They made the choice to join. No one can make them choose to kill, whether they are there or not, even if it is to defend themselves.

The Dalai Lama and the people of Tibet chose peace over fighting back. They did not defend themselves, but died to show what peace really means. And...they don't eat meat, dairy, or kill insects. They are the true heroes. They lead by example of compassion and kindness. The military does not. They also lead by ego. Why else would someone join?

Same reason people quarrel with spouses but stay together, or join a political party or a church, or remain citizens of a country, while disagreeeing strongly with some of its policies.  You more or less like the package as a whole but then try to change the parts you don't like.