Listen close!!  My uncle runs a combine in the corn fields of Iowa and he tells me THOUSANDS of animals are killed every season by harvesters...... thats in one corn field! How many more are killed all over the world! Also there are thousands of animals killed every year by trucks transporting this produce to market.... think about that when you sit down to your next plate of veggies! Don't be so sanctimonious!!

Posted by Eric Tranum on 12/03/2008 @ 04:47PM PST

I'm afraid you wasted a lot of exclamation points ordering that we "listen" to something without much of a point, Mr. Tranum. It's true that animals are inadvertently and unfortunately killed during harvest of vegetables and grains and during transport of all goods. That's unfortunate. But you're ignoring (1) the difference between intentional harm and unintentional harm and (2) the fact that it's still true that more animals die for an omnivorous diet.

A massive amount of corn and soy is raised for feed for the animals whom humans in turn eat. So an omnivorous diet is responsible for the deaths in the fields during the production and transport of animal feed, for the deaths in the fields during the production and transport of the grains and vegetables for humans, and for the deaths in the slaughterhouses and the deaths during the transport to and from the slaughterhouses. The deaths of sentient beings in a vegan diet, however, are limited to the accidental deaths that occur in the harvest and transport of the non-animal foods we eat. Big difference.

Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 12/03/2008 @ 05:09PM PST

I am evil. I am a murderer. I live in the barbaric land of Alaska and am such a stained piece of humanity that I went out and hunted meat. Yes, I acted as humans have done since time immemorial, and I am ashamed that I wasn't progressive enough to treat the lives of deer as being more valuable than human sustenance. If only I had been attacked as I shot the venison I ate for Thanksgiving... That sure would have taught me a lesson.

Posted by Peter Stanton on 12/03/2008 @ 05:51PM PST

Honestly... I don't understand how people can sit on their high horses about gay rights and fair trade and stopping genocide (Peter Stanton)... and then come and very sarcastically and mockingly comment about a post on animal rights. The people committing genocide and denying gay rights and resisting fair trade are out there doing the same thing to you, buddy. If you want to criticize, the sarcasm is really unnecessary... but then again, so is the killing.

Stephanie, your post seems a bit inconsistent to me. You don't celebrate it, but you say "at least..." I don't think this is the kind of consequence we need. For example, factory farm workers are well-known to suffer plenty of injuries in their work, but does anyone cry justice when this happens? No, I don't think it's anything "at least." It's nothing at all unless you use the story to really illuminate some injustice. So it would have been better, I think, to talk about something like the fact that animals resist. This is an animal expressing its pain, expressing its desire to live peacefully. Talk about something peaceful, please, because it's peace and liberation that we're after here, right?

You do have a good point about the omnis, though. I don't think it even occurs to them. One time when I was a meat-eater, someone asked me if I wanted to go fishing with him, and I said I didn't want to kill fish. So his daughter asked if I was vegetarian, and I pointed out I'd just eaten shrimp. She pointed out that I was still *eating* dead animals. I thought about it for a minute, that she had a good point, but I guess I wasn't smart enough to draw any new conclusions based on that alone. It's only when she told me she thought Buddhists were vegetarian (which I had no idea about) that my mind opened a little... I dunno... it makes me said that I couldn't learn anything more from that conversation, but it also tells me that we have to dig deeper, point to deeper things, if we're going to change minds. I think we have to open hearts.

Posted by Luella Garies on 12/03/2008 @ 08:38PM PST

I'm sorry that you were bothered by parts of this post, Luella. My tone in the "at least" part was merely tongue in cheek. Some of my posts indeed are gentler and are "about something peaceful" and "point to deeper things." Some are angry. Some are in between. And I imagine that will continue.

What you say about people just not realizing is certainly true. Most of us who are now vegans were not always vegans; most of us were at one point omnivores who just didn't realize certain things, who just didn't get it, who hadn't yet made certain connections. This is a topic that will certainly feature in later posts.

Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 12/03/2008 @ 09:37PM PST

I wasn't bothered, but I might've been if I were a hunter like Peter Stanton. I don't think either of us got the "tongue in cheek" part, so maybe you should be careful about that. I understand if you are angry, but I'm trying to speak strategically here; anger seems like a violent emotion to me. I know I have a blunt way of writing, but think of my posts more as critique rather than criticism. I generally agree with you on issues, but I think we can always look deeper at what message we're conveying and what the consequences of that message are. You're familiar with The Vegal Ideal blog... that's the kind of depth I'm thinking of.

It would be great to look at the fluidity of veganism and the interconnectedness of vegans to the non-vegan world. Or something like that. Anyway, I look forward to your writing related to this!

Posted by Luella Garies on 12/03/2008 @ 10:01PM PST

I apologize for the immaturity of my post. My fundamental disagreement with extreme positions on animal rights is simply that I feel I cannot equate animal life as being equal or even close to the worth of human life. This site shows many of the problems that face us as a species and as fellow human beings. I believe that solving these problems is infinitely more important than applying enlightened ideals to other life. We just honestly must depend on other life for the continuance our own.

Posted by Peter Stanton on 12/04/2008 @ 02:34AM PST

"We just honestly must depend on other life for the continuance our own."
Correction: dishonestly must depend on other animal life.
What extreme positions on animal rights? The only position on animal rights that makes sense is FULL ANIMAL RIGHTS. That means they are treated with the same dignity and respect that humans are. Half animal rights, half respect is not respect that any animal will recognize. And animal rights *is* a problem that faces us as humans; otherwise, we wouldn't be here facing it. Your entire argument goes back to this dishonest dependence on other animal life. The rest is a red herring since solving human problems and solving animal problems are anything but mutually exclusive.

I apologize that this has nothing to do with the article... Peter Stanton seems to think that our cause is going to hurt him the same way that gay marriage is going to hurt heterosexual marriage.

Posted by Luella Garies on 12/04/2008 @ 04:04AM PST

Thank you for your perspective, Luella. I'm not going to use this space to go into a lengthy conversation about my strategies for this blog, but I will say that I don't believe that anger is always bad. I believe it has a place. And because I post daily here, anger is going to be one of the emotions that arises sometimes. I also disagree with the idea that I should be careful not to bother hunters or other readers, whether supporters of AR or not, with every post. People with a very wide range of perspectives read this blog, and no matter what tone or direction I take from day to day, there will always be a way for someone to be bothered by what I'm saying or how I'm saying it. On some days, omnivores and hunters may be bothered by what they feel is a harsh tone; on other days, some AR advocates may be bothered by posts that they feel went too far, didn't go far enough, were too soft or too harsh, or didn't take the direction they would have taken themselves. I'm afraid that bothering someone somewhere is unavoidable.

You're right that I'm familiar with Vegan Ideal, and it's a smart, fantastic blog, but although I certainly appreciate the depth, style, intentions, and focus of Vegan Ideal, I don't feel that I need to replicate the same focus and style on this blog, or with every post on this blog. I hope you can appreciate that my style is often different and that although "deeper" and gentler pieces do and will have a place on this blog, I can't (and don't desire) to go in that direction with every post or on every day.

Peter, you "feel [you] cannot equate animal life as being equal or even close to the worth of human life"; that's your opinion. You don't think the worth of nonhuman animals' lives come close to the worth of humans' lives. But thinking it doesn't make it true. It's an opinion that helps you internally justify harm to them for your benefit, but it's not an opinion based in fact. And we certainly do not need to eat and exploit animals to sustain our own lives; it's a choice.

I can't help but wonder if your new profile photo, which shows you making a silly face while holding up the head of a dead animal you've just killed, is for our benefit. If so, it pretty well negates your apology for "immaturity" in your previous comment. And the photo sums up one of my (and others') greatest problems with hunting--the celebration during and after the kill; the mocking, celebratory photos with dead animals as if they're inanimate trophies; the macho, self-congratulatory poses showing how proud you are to have killed and how little, in reality, you "respect" that animal.

Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 12/04/2008 @ 06:43AM PST

Peter, I looked at your profile. The whole thing (with the obvious exception of the photo) makes you seem very intelligent and caring. If that is so, the following should make perfect sense to you:

Humans do not need to eat animals to survive. That has been proven over and over again by scientific data, not to mention by every living, breathing, healthy vegan in our world. Animals do not have any magical nutrients that we need. Every nutrient, vitamin, mineral, etc, etc in animals can also be found in other foods (foods that are almost always healthier than animal products).

The opinion you hold about the difference in worth of animals' and humans' lives is not an issue. The question is not "should we kill an animal or a human?" The question is "should we kill an animal to satisfy human selfishness (taste, convenience, whatever)?" No matter the species, I think we can all agree that LIFE is always more precious than SELFISHNESS.

Posted by Lisa R on 12/04/2008 @ 06:58AM PST

Quote:
"Yes, I acted as humans have done since time immemorial..."
That's why I rape women, wage war against my neighbors for their land, and enslave those I capture Peter.  

Posted by Alex Melonas on 12/04/2008 @ 07:19AM PST

I think some people might be insulted to have their lives and rights equated with those of animals. All life does indeed deserve respect, and I believe all life does have "rights" in that sense. But when you place all life as equal you negate the importance of human beings. Do animals really have souls and selves and cognition and religion and problems that should be considered equal to the ills that plague the human world? Maybe plants need to be protected too. That's life - just not as cute.

It might be nice to live in a reality where we can say all life is holy. In this reality, however, where more than 6 billion beings including ourselves already experience so much suffering and so much that is unholy, maybe we should consider our priorities here. Animal rights are not human rights; it seems quite a stretch to try to place yourself in the minds of animals when we all should be striving to better understand what it is to be human.

Again, I apologize for my disrespectful actions and hope that my opinion will not be attacked through comparing it to hatred, rape, or through any other ad hominem or non sequitur methods.

Posted by Peter Stanton on 12/04/2008 @ 05:01PM PST

  All I see here is extreme emotionalism. You guys will never be persuaded to a differing point of view, so there is no reason for anyone to waste their time trying. You all speak of intolerance, but it is actually you who are intolerant. You can
"Graze" all you want too that's fine with me just don't tell me what I can eat....... How that?..... Oh by the way, no exclamation points......Miss Ernst

Posted by Eric Tranum on 12/04/2008 @ 06:41PM PST

With the average typing speed of 60 words per minute, Eric, you (by your own account) just wasted over a minute of your time here.

When you actually define animal rights, it sounds pretty normal. According to Wikipedia, animal rights is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.

This is not to say that animals are equal to humans. Clearly we are intellectually superior and need different types of considerations. It merely says that the animals' interests (being able to graze, splash, see sunlight, eat food that's natural for them, etc) should be given the same consideration as our interests. To me, that simply means that we should weigh the interests, not the species.

So, here's a little quiz:
Which should be regarded more highly?
1. Taste or life?
2. Tradition or life?
3. Enjoyment of life?

When really looked at (instead of just stereotyping animal rights advocates as violent nut-jobs, animal rights doesn't sound crazy at all. It just sounds like 'doing what's right,' doesn't it?

So, the final question in this quiz:
4. Which is more extreme (definition of extreme: existing in a very high degree, going to great or exaggerated lengths, maximum of)?
A. thinking that sentient beings should be spared any unnecessary suffering, or
B. waking up really early, going into the cold, waiting on a stand for hours, killing an animal, hootin' and hollerin' and celebratin' about it, and taking a photo of the death you've just intentionally caused (and then, pretending it's somehow necessary or that you respect life or that god is proud of you)

Answers to quizzes:
1. Life
2. Life
3. Life
4. B. Hunting is insane.

Posted by Lisa R on 12/05/2008 @ 06:05AM PST

Unless you are lucky enough to be raised by parents who are veg*n, you have to come to this choice by your own power & education.  Once you start learning about the horrors of factory farms, you don't stop: feed lots, transport to slaughter, slaughter practices, treatment of the workers at the facilities, global warming, human malnutrition & starvation.... It's all connected.  You cannot point a finger at a single veg*n and expect them to be surprised when you bring up animals killed during harvest of corn or slaughterhouse workers' rights.  It's more than just "not eating meat" or "being sanctimonious", it's seeing beyond the face of things & understanding what's really going on.

I'm always confused & a little insulted when people talk about animal rights activists (in particular comments aimed at commenters here) saying we "equate" animal life with human life.  I'm not sure that that was said anywhere.  Respect for all life, compassion for all life, is of the utmost importance.  I have a certain code of ethics that I live by, and my actions & decisions reflect my beliefs.  I don't eat meat because I dont want to be a part of the cycle of suffering.  I have removed myself from it.  Does that mean I think cows are "equal" to humans?  No. It means that I don't want to eat dead flesh or see animals suffer needlessly for me.

I'm not a religious person, but I don't think that "humans" have any right to categorize or prioritize the rights inherent to all life on this planet.  There's only on "person" who knows the true order of things, and I'm sure He's laughing at our arrogance in thinking we know better.

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 12/05/2008 @ 01:34PM PST

Why don't we take a realistic, scientific look at humans vs. other life forms?  If the human race were to disappear from the planet tomorrow – the planet and most other forms of life on it would be better off.  If the ants were to disappear next week – we’d all be in real deep doo-doo.What have people done to benefit the planet and all life on it? Well uh  er-we did bring radioactive material to the surface of the planet and spread it all over the place – but other than that nothing really that I can think of.  Peter

Posted by Peter Muller on 12/13/2008 @ 08:17PM PST

lol, Peter. So true. That's why we need to get off our arses and off the backs of our chosen slaves and give back to this world. I think we have the potential to bring an unfathomable harmony to this world if we put our minds to it. But if instead we stick our minds up the rears of poor animals... well, that already happened. Horrors beyond our worst nightmares.

Posted by Luella Garies on 12/13/2008 @ 08:59PM PST

Quote:

"But when you place all life as equal you negate the importance of human beings."

Why must we "negate the importance of human life" Peter? Why can't we re-frame the issue. We don't "negate" any importance. Logically, we increase, to a consistent ethical level as it relates to premises we all accept about the badness of suffering, the "importance" of all sentient life. It is in this qualitative shift in moral reasoning that we, the human species, realize our unique "importance": we reason impartially about things moral, and therefore, perhaps, elevate our "importance" even more -- to a more valid (and optimistic?) level. 

I might ask further Peter: Why do we need to place so much importance on human life, at the expense of all other sentient life? That sounds like the "emotionalism" so derided by the brilliant arguments of Eric. 

It isn't sound reasoning that denies our qualitative similarities to nonhuman animals; it is a denial of Darwinian evolution and sound science that would suggest this conclusion. That doesn't prove our "importance" Peter, it defines our unimportant, egoistical, existence.  

Posted by Alex Melonas on 01/05/2009 @ 03:27PM PST