Nationwide, a recent Associated Press story informs us, the animals are suffering. The reason for the animals' misery and low morale could make sense only to disciples of suicidefoodism. Or to regular readers of our work, who should, by now, have grown accustomed to the movement's reflexive distortion of reality and perversion of logic.
The problem, the injustice that has wildlife across this great nation bemoaning their fate, is a lack of hunters and fishermen. (Read it again if you like. It won't matter.) Yes, our wildlife is despondent because a shortage of people doing their level best to kill them means less money for wildlife and habitat protection.
Only suicidal animals can think this way. Or… is it possible that the keepers of wildlife are putting these twisted words in the animals' mouths?
Monday, September 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You don't care about rodents and other field animals, you hypocrites, since you promote vegetarian diets. Do you know how many millions of field animals die under your threshers every year?
If you're going to talk about hypocrisy, you vegetarians and vegans are first in line.
Actually, francois, meat-eaters consume far more plants than vegans and vegetarians--you just do it through your meat. It takes 6 to 7 pounds of grain to make a pound of beef, 8 to make a pound of pork, and 2 1/2 to make a pound of chicken. I agree that it is a shame that animals die as a result of harvesting, but if you want to reduce your part in that, you should really stop eating meat.
Um what? You are confused, buddy. *I* am not against killing animals. *You* are. So I'm pointing out how much of a hypocrite *you* are. I personally don't care how many rodents die due to my personal diet.
Oh, Francois. I usually refrain from joining the fray in the comments (as befitting my stature, you understand), but this time I can't help myself.
Your first salvo on this matter was to say that vegetarians are hypocrites because harvesting all their plant foods is responsible for killing small animals.
Now, I don't know the truth of your claim, but regardless, as canaduck pointed out, a meat-based diet necessitates the killing of far more animals than a plant-based diet. (What do you think all the livestock will be eating? Modern "industrial" farming does not rely on grass-fed cows. The vast majority of the U.S.'s grain production goes toward feeding livestock, not feeding people directly.)
Your rejoinder is thin broth indeed. If we vegans are hypocrites because our diets involve the inadvertent killing of small animals (if), but a meat-based diet involves the inadvertent killing of far more small animals, what would you have us do?
(Apart from starve to death.)
You're right, francois. I think killing of animals is wrong, but since I cannot avoid having some part in it because small animals die in the harvest, I should completely forget about making any effort whatsoever to reduce what I consider unnecessary suffering, and eat whatever I want. If I can't save everything, I may as well not save anything. That would make a lot of sense and be completely unhypocritical.
Post a Comment