Yeah, I remember that article. Is it that it wasn't a crime, or that the boy wasn't charged because he was a minor? I would have thought that if an adult had done the same thing, the consequences would have been very different. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but that was my impression.CavySpirit said:In law, both Australian and American (as I understand it), there is a distinction between animals intended for pets and for food.
In the US, there is no distinction. Here is an exact case in point, boy kills and cooks guinea pig for class demo. ((broken link removed)). Not a crime.
Of course I'm not advocating the abuse of animals. I am simply suggesting that to use said cruelties as a reason for vegetarianism is a little flimsy, when your own diet is a direct result of equally destructive agricultural methods.CavySpirit said:It is very significantly the lessor of two evils and it is very much ALSO a profoundly moral decision--unless you subscribe to the acceptability of wholesale torture and abuse as being moral.
I thought of another analogy. Yes, there would seem to be a conflict between keeping animals as pets, and then eating a big steak. However, as a vegetarian, do you keep plants in your house or garden? Some people care deeply about their plants, they spend lots of time caring for them, but I'm sure they still enjoy their leafy greens.
Of course, animals have more rights than plants. But humans have more rights than animals. I'm not saying the torture of animals is right, but we as humans do (I believe) have the right to kill and eat them as nourishment if we choose. I respect your decision not to, but ask that you equally respect my decision. Or at the very least, agree to disagree.
I haven't read those posts, but I am aware of a number of protests against Australian methods of keeping meat animals, particularly pigs. The actor, James Cromwell, the farmer from "Babe", spoke here recently about how pig farmers house their sows. I hear it's disgusting, although I've never seen it myself, being a city girl. My understanding is that there is progress in Australia towards more humane practices in pig rearing, and that these "sow pens" are on the way out.CavySpirit said:Oh and also in this forum, you'll find some posts indicating Australia's horrible record on the meat industry. I'm pretty sure it's here, I'll dig that out later, also.
Similarly, I've heard a woman from PETA protesting strongly against the Australian wool industry because of a practice called mulesing. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but it involves cutting away the skin around the backside of a sheep to prevent the sheep from becoming flyblown. It's similar to castration or docking lamb tails. Gross, right?
On the other hand, are you familiar with the disease of fly blow? If a sheep is not kept properly clean by mulesing, the area becomes crusted with faeces and attracts flies. Those flies lay their eggs in the sheep's anus and the maggots eat the sheap alive from the inside.
So which is worse? Of course, neither is desirable, but there is ongoing research into chemical methods of keeping the sheep clean without the necessity of mulesing. PETA efforts towards boycotting the Australian wool industry are only making those research efforts more difficult by decreasing funding.
My point? I'm not going to allow my enjoyment of meat be changed by the one-sided propaganda of organisations like PETA. They are probably well intentioned, and most likely represent a portion of the truth, but I find their beliefs and methods to be over the top and offensive.
If I choose to have a hamburger, I will. If you choose not to, good for you. As I keep saying, I have no problem with the choice to be vegetarian. I just don't understand why some vegetarians believe that it is the ONLY moral choice. There are so many different sides to this argument that I don't see it having a black and white solution.