The lobster was considered to be the poor mans' food, now we put a price tag on it and made it a fad. Like foie gras it comes at a hefty price for these living, breathing beings.
Consider this...
You're taken away from your home and family, well, your family goes with you, (have no choice). You're stuffed in metal crates, one on top of one another, shipped off some where in the same way, for who knows how long. Given no food or water, some of your family die and if you do make it to your destination, you sit and wait, maybe for days, weeks, still with no food until you're boiled to death and eaten... Just doesn't seem right to me.

Posted by: Carla | November 8, 2007 02:31 PM

"People will cling on to the most unlikely notions if it means that they can keep doing something they enjoy but know deep down is wrong. And sad as it is to say, there are going to be people who continue to ignore or deny the fact that crustaceans feel pain despite mountains of evidence that this is the case—including the study published in New Scientist today, which shows that lobsters, crabs, and other crustaceans all share pain sensitivity. Which means (just in case anyone needs this spelled out) that cramming them into pots of boiling water while they’re still alive should be a jailable offense. Literally. We prosecute people for equivalent cruelty to cats or dogs, so a lobster bake shouldn’t be any different."

Um, I fully acknowledge that a lobster feels pain... so does a gazelle, but that doesn't stop an otter.

And while you're trying to equate lobsters to dogs, you oughta consider the reason we domesticated dogs in the first place. Man domesticated wolf so he could help him get the meat. But a lobster is different. Lobsters are animals to be hunted and eaten. They're prey in the sea and there's no reason for us not to jump into the pool.

Otters don't have compassion for live lobsters and neither need you.

Posted by: Ray-O | November 8, 2007 02:40 PM

Well of course organisms feel pain! Just some react differently, some dont really react at all (simple celled). They're like us, and not like us. (?)

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 8, 2007 03:41 PM

Ray-O:
So your evoluted brains are just on the same level with an otter's! poor little guy - 50 millions of years for nothing!!!

Posted by: Amida | November 8, 2007 04:34 PM

I am sure you know this, Crabman on My Name is Earl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiTcIpkLPrQ

I am not sure what the message is - if you respect the "meat" but kill it nevertheless - it suffers less?

Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | November 8, 2007 04:39 PM

Cannibals don't have compassion for humans. And....what a specious argument.

Cows, sheep, goats, chickens, rabbits are herbivores so have compassion for them. Go vegan so that more can live.

Posted by: Ana | November 8, 2007 05:06 PM

"Um, I fully acknowledge that a lobster feels pain... so does a gazelle, but that doesn't stop an otter."

Er, first of all... aren't gazelles eaten by, like, lions?

Anyway, you meant lobsters are eaten by otters. Yeah, they don't care about the fact that lobsters feel pain. But otters are NOT as intelligent as humans are. It doesn't mean they're not worth as much as we are, but they can't grasp the concept that what they do is wrong.

Nor do they have a choice. Animal-product-free otter kibble isn't available in the wild, unfortunately. Or in supermarkets.

"Well of course organisms feel pain! Just some react differently, some dont really react at all (simple celled)."

Think about it. Does not reacting to pain make it okay to inflict it?

Posted by: Laura | November 8, 2007 07:46 PM

That's right, Carla.
And lobsters sit and wait with their claws bound, helplessly lying on ice in grocery stores. And other ones are piled on top of one another, helplessly struggling in aquarium tanks.
I get so sickened when I see them like that in the grocery stores, that I have to turn the other way - otherwise, I'd do something the managers wouldn't like, and get into a LOT of trouble that wouldn't make any progress anyway.

Posted by: Ariel | November 8, 2007 08:36 PM

whilst i am uncomfortable with the thought of boiling something alive, prof Elwood has proven a reaction to stimuli, not necessarily pain. Like a sneeze for instance as a measurable reaction to a low pain level irritant.
As I don't have a subscription to new scientist, perhaps someone who does can tell me if he dropped a non-irritant (like honey) on the antennae and the results. Obviously the antennae are sensitive to something(otherwise are useless appendages) but the question I would pose is it pain, movement or something else?

Posted by: rojo | November 8, 2007 09:15 PM

Ummmm....

Lobsters dont really have families.

But its okay to fish if you dont want to buy.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 8, 2007 09:46 PM

Ray-O if you want to compare yourself to an otter go ahead- they HAVE to eat them- we don't it's a very elementary principle...

Posted by: Russell | November 9, 2007 01:03 AM

You're not "jumping in the water." You're scalding to death a living thing. Can't you see the difference?

Posted by: Wil | November 9, 2007 09:51 AM

I used to love lobster but when I heard they scream while being boiled alive I quit eating them. I don't see why they had to do a big study when its obvious if something is screaming its being hurt. Oh yeah I forgot they did it for money. Silly me.

PD

Posted by: PD | November 9, 2007 10:47 AM

Ray-O: I hear what you are saying. But the problem comes when humans intervene in a natural cycle of life. There are preys and predators in the wild and let that cycle of nature take care of itself. We as humans should not intervene in that cycle.

Our leaders give out hunting licenses telling us that the money from those fund state parks and hunters take care of bear and deer population. But why even have a system like this where we have to depend on hunters who practically rape nature. Why can't animals take care oof the natural cycle. What I am trying to say here is that we dont need hunters or be predators just because there are preys out there.

We should not control or intervene in a natural cycle that has taken care of itself for thousands of years.

Remember we are the newest species on this planet, however we think that we have been here forever and know what the fuck we are doing.

Posted by: Vegoconics | November 9, 2007 11:06 AM

Seems only PETA needed this study.Plants may feel pain but I hardly doubt that slows you down any.

Posted by: Mars | November 9, 2007 11:23 AM

every living being feels pain and is afraid from death and it's strange that the human being which should be the most sensitive and feeling of all is still on such an inconscient level to pretend that it's not true! we just saved a little dog from being shot and he has very sad eyes and so i told my son and he answered me: yes mother - but don't think that i'm that stupid for not being aware of it! and i answered: this your statement is a great thing - my son - there are many priests who don't see this! the expression of an animal's eyes are the mirror of the human beast!

Posted by: animalfriend | November 9, 2007 12:17 PM

Really good point, Jack. Thank you!

While I am not completely opposed to eating meat, I can guarantee you that the shoddy condition of our planet today is due to a lack of humility in regards to our place on Earth.

Lobsters, humans and dogs all have the same life value. Lobsters play a vital role in keeping our planet healthy, unlike dogs and humans, who just contribute to ruining the ecosystem.

Eat animals if you like, but don't make a joke out of it. Show some gratitude and humility. Respect the wildlife who are part of the biosphere. The biosphere keeps our water, soils and food healthy for us to use. Without them, the Earth would be toxic.

So go ahead and enjoy that meal, but try to eat sustainable food, and don't boil an animal alive. It's cruel.

Posted by: Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology | November 9, 2007 01:35 PM

Ray-O:

Your statement is a cookie cutter statement that all people use when one wants to disagree with compassion toward animals.

Just because an animal eats an animal, doesn't mean we should.

There are a lot of things animals do that we don't.

Even though we are all connected - all living beings - we do not share the same dietary needs.

Why do we (humans) say that we are above all others and yet when it suits our (selfish) needs we use excuses that place us all at the same level.

The other thing that you need to remember is all other living beings (non-humans) live within nature. They are guided by a system that creates sustainability. We (humans) dismantle the system until all becomes extinct.

We are, in fact, the most dangerous animal on the planet.

Something to ponder.

EAS

Posted by: EAS | November 9, 2007 01:39 PM

Why not put lobster in lukewarm water, and gradually increase the temperature. The lobster wont notice the rising temperature, and wont react.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 9, 2007 03:51 PM

Oh no, plants that feel pain and all without a circulatory system!!!! Do they scream to you as well? Wow, what next, talking rocks?

Posted by: Ana | November 9, 2007 04:33 PM

Caboose, why don't YOU get in the shower, turn the water on lukewarm, and gradually increase the temperature - let's see if YOU notice the rising temperature, and if YOU react when it eventually boils - you a**hole!

Posted by: Michele | November 9, 2007 04:50 PM

NEVER use the word "we" and "human" in the same sentence. "We" means "you and me", and I am not human. I am a bipedal panther. Are we clear?

Posted by: Ray-O | November 9, 2007 07:07 PM

Michele

Whoah, lets not get of our rocker now. This experiment was proven with a frog. If a frog was dumped in boiling water, it would jump out right away. But if dumped in lukewarm water and it was gradually heating up, the frog wont react by jumping out(You can see it in Inconvenient Truth).Weird huh? True that it may suffer, but hey, I tried listing an alternative, and you act immature(asshole. At least I dont believe in censorship)

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 9, 2007 09:09 PM

" used to love lobster but when I heard they scream while being boiled alive I quit eating them."

Another that thinks hot air escaping the shell is screaming from a creature without vocal cords.

"Oh no, plants that feel pain and all without a circulatory system!!!! Do they scream to you as well? Wow, what next, talking rocks?"

Interesting that Ana would use the same reasoning we meat eaters use.

So plants(animals) don't "feel" like we do.So plants(animals) can't speak so we must speak for them.

FYI, plants do have a circulatory system that includes viens and blood.They also breath and reproduce.

They are correct that in todays world we don't have to eat meat to live. We also don't have to eat vegetables to live as well.

Posted by: Mars | November 9, 2007 10:16 PM

laura, "but they[otters] can't grasp the concept that what they do is wrong."

How can you say it is wrong? It is nature at work, the natural order of things, so to speak. That's why it's called a food CHAIN.

Posted by: rojo | November 10, 2007 08:03 AM

Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology,

Yes, it's cruel to boil an animal alive. However- according to what you implied- it's not particularly cruel, and it's acceptable to "enjoy" eating animals, who were caged or penned and treated beyond atrocious cruelties from their births until their merciless slaughters?

Posted by: Ariel | November 10, 2007 12:14 PM

your last remark is correct: for this reason i'm a fructarian!

Posted by: ray of light | November 10, 2007 02:07 PM

"How can you say it is wrong? It is nature at work, the natural order of things, so to speak. That's why it's called a food CHAIN."

Things don't have to be natural to be ethically right. A nutritionally complete, vegan food for otters would be ideal, but unfortunately, there is no such food available, so otters must eat conscious beings.

I am sure that, if otters were granted the intelligence, compassion, and sense of morals that humans have, and the vegan food WERE available, some might choose it.

But let's not get away from reality, anyway. Fact is, otters have no choice. Humans do. And we can make the compassionate choice of not boiling lobsters alive, or we can make the primitive choice of cruelty.

Posted by: Laura | November 10, 2007 03:19 PM

so i just wanna know one thing, how does something with no vocal chords scream?

Posted by: valli | November 10, 2007 08:37 PM

Hi Ariel!

Nice job twisting my words, my dear. I certainly never said that people should buy animals who have been tortured.

Indeed, I specifically stated that inhumane methods of killing animals should be avoided.

What you refuse to accept, Ariel, is that there will continue to be people who eat meat, long after you and I are dead. In the meantime, we should GENTLY try to convince them to go vegetarian. Harsh words will have the opposite effect.

For the people who will never go vegetarian, even PETA agrees that some methods of killing animals are more humane than others.

If the only meat/seafood were organic, pesticide-free, free range, local etc etc, it would be a huge improvement over boiling lobsters, debeaking chickens etc etc.

Goats, by the way, take up 87 percent less land than cattle, and can be raised for their goat's milk without killing them.

Face it, Ariel. Your rants will not change the world. Neither will mine. But the spirit of cooperation might.

Posted by: Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology | November 10, 2007 09:20 PM

Caboose, you are welcome to "prove" your theory with yourself as the test subject... In the meantime, the true animal lovers will continue to eat non-animal foods, including veggies and fruits that DO NOT HAVE NERVES, and therefore do not have any capacity to "feel" anything.

Posted by: Michele | November 10, 2007 10:31 PM

"Yes, it's cruel to boil an animal alive. "

To bad that is only an opinion and not fact.

Posted by: Mars | November 11, 2007 02:29 AM

Mars

You're too stupid to recognize sarcasm. Not the same circulatory system, and it is not called that. Vegetables are organic but they are not sentient. When your carrots start bleeding put your head in the toilet bowl and flush yourself away.

Caboose

There is nothing immature about Michele. Now you, well...not worth wasting time on.

Posted by: Ana | November 11, 2007 03:35 PM

Until we can treat one another with kindness and respect, it's sorta hard to tell others how to treat animals.
we are all valuable beings on this rock. i choose not to eat lobster because i don't like it, having grown up in new england.
i don't particularly like meat, but i eat it occasionally. my grandfather was a farmer. he had to slaughter animals. he had to put down his horses when they got too old and were in too much pain.
i don't understand how some folks think they're taking the moral high ground and turn around and call someone names.
let's all try to work together to make this place better.
name calling is really clever and a wonderful way of convincing people that you're superior.
live your life in an honorable manner and you'll get your point across.
walk your talk.
meat eaters aren't evil any more than vegetarians are.
evil people are evil.

according to my family's belief system, we must honor all living things and thank them for their contribution.
be responsible.

Posted by: a person on this planet | November 11, 2007 05:15 PM

Rather than look for proof about which animals feel pain and which don't, why not boycott eating ANY of them? That way, the ethical dilemma takes care of itself.

Posted by: Susannah S | November 11, 2007 05:52 PM

Rojo

Not a food chain, but a web

Posted by: Caboose (anti Combine) | November 11, 2007 06:11 PM

Rojo

Not a food chain, but a web

Posted by: Caboose (anti Combine) | November 11, 2007 06:11 PM

Haven't we always known that sea life has pain, after all they all have hearts and they bleed.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | November 11, 2007 08:34 PM

Humane slaughter is an oxymoron. There exists no "nice" way to kill any sentient being. Killing is a violent act; there is no way to paint it humane. The lethal injection used for murderers in death penalties is considered inhumane by many and is being debated. Taking a life is in no way humane simply because you have a taste for flesh. Even though others continue to eat animals that does not make it moral because of their insensibilities and the because the government condones such bloodfests. Animal welfarists speak of humane methods to kill animals in order to appease those that still eat them. For the animals being slaughtered none of it is humane as they fight for their lives. I will never support nor condone "nicer" ways of killing animals. I am an abolitionist and that stance is too soft and detrimental for all animals. Those that fought to end slavery did not ask for nicer behavior from owners their only goal was an end of slavery. Animal welfarists are delaying any major changes for animals, most especially those being slaughtered to fulfill the desire of eating cadavers. "Happy meals" are the new pc meals promoted by animal welfarists. None of those poor animals had happy deaths. Promote veganism; it is healthy as well as tasty! Cannibals honoring people before they eat them does not make it any more agreeable to those being slaughtered. Those people would prefer not becoming a meal for any of them.

Posted by: Ana | November 12, 2007 03:07 PM

If eating lobsters is a fad, then last week I ate them like they were going out of style. I appreciate the fact that the lobsters were alive immediately prior to my eating them. I don't know if the same applies to lobsters, but during a crawfish boil, you never eat the ones that were dead prior to boiling as they are often spoiled. I imagine their deaths are quick, however. You guys should stick to kitties and puppies.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 12, 2007 03:29 PM

Ana

So calling someone an asshole for listing an alternative isnt being immature? Doublespeak!

Michele

You know what? Just drop it okay? How about a quick and painless aluminum(not lead) airgun BB as an alternative?

Susannah

But thats taking the easy way out!

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 12, 2007 05:02 PM

Laura, thats the problem, people think if animals like [insert favorite predator here] had human intelligence they wouldn't kill. I don't know whether you've noticed but over 90% of the human population aren't vegetarian. And they apparently don't even need meat to survive.

Posted by: rojo | November 12, 2007 05:14 PM

Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology,

Nice job of YOU trying to get out of it by saying I twisted your words. I didn't quote you. I asked you a question for the sake of clarification. So no need for you to have started with the "I never saids..." But now I will quote you. Basically, Maya, you are an animal welfare activist at best. The majority of your first post was condescending to meat-eaters, and not in any way implied about going veg.: "While I'm not opposed to eating meat..." "Eat animals if you like, but don't make a joke out of it." "So go ahead and enjoy that meal..." You made no mention of "humane" or inhumane killing one way or the other, except for writing "don't boil an animal alive." Well how many species of those caged and penned animals are boiled alive compared to the animals that are slaughtered? How does showing "respect and gratitude" for eating meat change the horrendous conditions of the animals pre-slaughter?
Second post, same type of animal welfare/condescending comments about meat/seafood being organic, range free, etc.

What you refuse to accept, dear Maya, since you are an animal welfare activist at best, is that advertising your titles and potential candidacy doesn't make you an authority on the animal rights' movement, is not impressive for animal rights, and doesn't mean a hill of beans while you are trying to play on both sides of the fence. You lack convictions and determination. And what you also refuse to accept is that the animals are living in horrendous conditions, suffering every moment of their lives and that killing is killing, whether it be so-called "humane" or inhumane.

PeTA views their "victories" for the animals to have "humane" living conditions (pre-slaughter) as small steps towards the end, and therefore, remains unacceptable until that end is reached. So I assure you that I am well aware that everyone in the whole world is not going to go vegan or vegetarian in the near future. And since you have condescending attitudes, as well as not being educated about animal rights'/liberation, it is because of people like you that are hindering the animal rights'/liberation progress.
My "rants"? Hardly. How about more like "enlightening" and "educating" people about the FACTS. How about more like sticking to my deep convictions, being honest with people and honest with myself?
So you can knock yourself out with your "gentle" flip-flop words expecting people to go veg. Meantime, I will speak as I choose about the REALTIES: the excruciating atrocities that the enslaved animals endure.

Posted by: Ariel, A.R.A, F.F.,OCCCSHA, A.L. | November 12, 2007 06:31 PM

Oh, and by the way Michele, the temperature of the water in the shower only goes up so high! It wont boil, but I do notice the rising temp, but I dont jump out knowing that it wont harm me.

Posted by: Caboose (neutral, blue army. Blood Gulch Outpost Alpha) | November 12, 2007 09:15 PM

ya know what i never knew waht they do to those lobsters but it tastes delicious

Posted by: i love to eat animals | November 12, 2007 10:43 PM

Oh, this article is so heartbreaking. Poor lobsters. I really feel for them. I see them very much as living, feeling beings who absolutely do experience pain, just like us. We have no right to trap them, bind their claws, throw them in overcrowded small tanks and then, after all that, boil them alive. There is something so wicked in that entire scenario.

The taste of lobster -- a taste I never fancied, in the very few times I've tried it in my past -- does not in any capacity justify the heartwrenching process that a lobster goes through.

And then to create a whole happy festival around this gruesome process? It's almost mideval, barbaric, a circus of pain.

I hope that it's popularity will wane.

Posted by: tinkerbellslayer | November 13, 2007 02:40 AM

" Vegetables are organic but they are not sentient. "

Prove it.Being sentient is your concern not mine.Death of an animal or death of a plant is still death.

" including veggies and fruits that DO NOT HAVE NERVES, and therefore do not have any capacity to "feel" anything."

So, since they don't feel what we associate as pain and/or cannot tell us yes or no in that regards then it's OK to kill and eat them? Wonder where I've read that before...HHHMMM...

Posted by: Mars | November 13, 2007 07:39 AM

Ingrid, Lobsters, and giving birth to PETA,
I remember reading one of the newsletters I recieve from PETA monthly.
When Ingrid was in her early 20's a group of friends took her out to dinner for, I believe her birthday and ordered a Lobster for her.
The moment the server put it down in front of her, Ingrid completely fell apart.
I believe at that very moment in Ingrid's mind, that PETA was born.
Ingrid, I may not always agree with you, but I shall always respect you and thank you, and support you and PETA.

Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | November 13, 2007 01:21 PM

"Otters can eat lobsters so why can't we?"

Ethics. If an otter could understand ethics then I would criticize an otter for eating the lobster. But, the only species that we know of that can understand ethics is homo sapien. We shouldn't unnecessarily eat things and definitely shouldn't inflict unnecessary pain. That's the principle of ethics that we are debating and it can only apply to beings that understand ethics.

Posted by: Tetris | November 13, 2007 02:36 PM

(2)
Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology,
Nice of YOU to try to say I twisted your words. I did not quote you. I asked a question for the sake of clarification. So there was no need for you to go into the "I never saids..." BUT now I will quote you: "While I'm not completely opposed to eating meat..." "Enjoy animals, but don't make a joke out of it." "So go ahead and enjoy that meal..." You made no mention of "humane" or inhumane killing other than "...don't boil an animal alive. It's cruel."
Well, dear Maya, how many species of animals are actually boiled alive compared to the millions and millions that are atrociously caged and penned for a lifetime before they are mercilessly slaughtered? How does having "respect and gratitude" to eat them change the FACT those millions of animals that are tortured and suffer, from birth to death before they are slaughtered?
What you refuse to accept, Maya, is that you are a condescending animal welfare activist at best, and that advertising your title and potential candidacy doesn't amount to a hill of beans for animal rights, and is not impressive towards a/r's progress, nor does your comments strengthen a/r's.

Second blog, same condescending a/w acitivist type of comments.
PeTA's views of their animal welfare type of "victories" are considered small steps towards the end. And it's because of condescending a/w activists like you who try to play both sides of the fence, that are actually a hindrance to a/r's progress, which gives approval to the drawn-out effect that it's ok to kill animals just as long as it's done "humanely." So as an a/r's activist, I am very well aware that the whole world is not going to go veg. in the near future.
Knock yourself out with your "gentle" flip-flop words, while millions of animals are suffering every moment of every day.
Fact is, Maya, this is an ANIMAL RIGHTS' blog site, and I will speak as I choose as an a/r's activist FOR the animals. My "rants"? How about more like I "enlighten," and "educate" people to the TRUTH. I am truthful to them and to myself. And you are NOT going to undermine the spirit of the a/r's activism movement with your lack of thorough education about it, and while you also lack deep convictions and dedication.

Posted by: Ariel, A.R.A, F.F., A.L. | November 13, 2007 08:10 PM

Ya know whats worse than meat (Even though meat isnt unhealthy in moderation, and cutting the white fatty part off)? CANDY and SWEETS. So dont ever blame meat for obesity.

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 14, 2007 05:22 PM

Hi Ariel.

I don't think I should waste any more space responding to you, but I leave you with one thought:

The reason I put my credentials as a vet nurse and master's student of conservation on there is because, if I were reading a health blog's comments, for example, for advice, I sure would like to know if the commentor was a doctor or not. Of course people can lie, but I really am a vet nurse and master's student.

I don't know how old you are Ariel, I'm guessing you're still a teen with time to learn.

But in my 38 years I have dedicated my work to saving animals lives and I know one thing for sure: your nasty tone is responsible for more animal deaths than any meat eater out there.

Maybe when you reach adulthood, you'll understand my words.

Posted by: Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology | November 14, 2007 07:29 PM

BTW Jack, I did forget one thing, THANK YOU for pointing out that article. I was really surprised to see it published in Gourmet magazine. Although I never read it, I'd think they would have seriously censored that piece. Good for them for leaving it whole.

I like his point that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a panicked animal clinging to the sides of the pot and banging on the lid to escape to realize that the whole process is barbaric and cruel. So simply put, so sadly the truth.

Nice find.

Posted by: Maya: Master's candidate, wildlife biology | November 14, 2007 08:23 PM

Tetris, thank you for your simple, yet important comments. Ariel, Ana, EAS, Judith, etc, thanks to all of you for the various perspectives related to animal rights. As usual, the logical, factual information that all of you and I continue to provide seems to be completely ignored by the anti's. They think that we are going to be discouraged by their "I love meat" comments, or that we are suddenly going to say that it's okay to kill animals as long as one uses a "humane" alternative like a gun.

You anti's really need to channel your energies elsewhere, possibly where you might actually be useful. The animal rights movement is not going away, we will not be swayed by your specious, twisted comments, and there continue to be victories for the animals every single day, in spite of people like you.

Posted by: Michele | November 14, 2007 09:27 PM

Ana

Tell predators that. They kill too.

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 14, 2007 10:44 PM

a person on this planet,

Take a look at the broader picture.
"name-calling" - as you refer to it - is NOT taking the "moral high ground" and is NOT trying to "convince people that you're superior."
People have a right to HONESTLY express themselves as they feel according to the appropriate situation at hand.
However, when one doesn't know the "continuing drama" - (as obviously you do not know) as to why people must eventually express themselves justifiably as they do - and that same person criticizes others for how they express themselves, then THAT is taking the "moral high ground" and trying to show a better-than-thou superiority.
Surely you are trying to indicate that you are perfect at all times, under every circumstance, with every encounter.

Posted by: Ariel | November 15, 2007 08:34 AM

C'mon Caboose. I agree candy and sweets can contribute to obesity, but meat can play a role too. A Big Mac (complete) has 29 grams of fat, 10 of which are saturated. And Americans are now spending more than 46% of their food dollar eating out, and I'm sure not always making healthy choices.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | November 15, 2007 01:24 PM

Looks like NO-COCKMAN has invited one of his inbred children, it's name is, I love to eat animals M.D.
Lots of inbreeding in your neck of the woods...
OZARKS? YUK

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | November 15, 2007 03:47 PM

Mike

Yes (only for the lazy, dumb American), but some people practice modertation, and stay healthy (Like me, though candy rocks, and I'm healthy thx to excercise. I know you too are healthy).

Michele

You forget(AGAIN), I am merely a half anti.

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 15, 2007 04:19 PM

"Laura, thats the problem, people think if animals like [insert favorite predator here] had human intelligence they wouldn't kill. I don't know whether you've noticed but over 90% of the human population aren't vegetarian. And they apparently don't even need meat to survive."

It's not just human intelligence I'm asking for. It's the ability to realize that eating meat is wrong. Over 90% of the human population... don't realize that.

"Ya know whats worse than meat (Even though meat isnt unhealthy in moderation, and cutting the white fatty part off)? CANDY and SWEETS. So dont ever blame meat for obesity."

There's no such thing as healthy meat. A typical omnivore gets far too much protein- because of the meat. And their chosen protein source, meat, also contains cholesterol, fats, and toxins not present in vegetarian protein.

Also, the myth of plants not containing a "complete protein" is just that- a myth. The research done to support that was later proven false, and was declared to be so even by the person who originally claimed it was true. Unfortunately, when it was taken back, it didn't get enough publicity.

The healthy choice is clear.

Posted by: Laura | November 15, 2007 06:10 PM

Maya,
Sorry, but I'm a LOT older than you would like to think, have medical credentials (which I don't feel a need to advertise), am retired, and have had more experiences with people and life than I care to remember.
And since I've had all those vast experiences, I can easily tell when someone has a need to be held in esteem out of ego, rather than the desire to directly focus on, admit to, and address the factual issues of the pertinent subject. In order to fill that need, he/she prefers to flaunt an authoritative attitude - even when wrong - and also presents condescending comments to seek support. When such a person is confronted with the truth, he/she is cornered and becomes hostile. Consequently, he/she lashes out with unsubstantiated outbursts and illogical reasoning to TRY to undermine the person who speaks the truth. And you have proven all of this to be true about yourself. And again, the issues here are ANIMAL RIGHTS' - not animal welfare.
There are no "maybes" about it: WHEN/IF you get off your pedestal, you will understand MY words.
BTW, there are a number of a/r's activists who have tremendous credentials on here, but they don't have a need to advertise their titles or have authoritative attitudes, and they are very respected for that. Their highly educated positions allows for them to present VERY worthy and focused contributions to this forum for the sake of the a/r's movement.
I THANK YOU for not wasting any more of your time responding to me. I'd prefer not to read any more of your juvenile rants.

Posted by: Ariel | November 16, 2007 10:03 AM

Judy,

How original, an inbreeding joke and a penis-play-on-words regarding my last name. I guess I'll never be as smart as you, thank goodness. I guess the Ozarks are getting yucky, mostly because we can't stop all the idiots from California from moving here in droves because they continually shit where they eat. Even stupid animals don't do that.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 16, 2007 01:31 PM

Laura

What part of MODERATION dont u get?

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 16, 2007 05:01 PM

Dont we have an overpopulation problem, and you want to spare more lives?

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 17, 2007 02:16 AM

laura, our opinions differ on the belief that it is wrong to eat meat. Particularly for otters. Perhaps the rest of the human population don't realise it for the simple reason that they don't believe it's wrong to eat meat.

caboose re: web, yes a much better description of the overall depedence of species on each other. Food chain is however more appropriate when dealing with specific animals like say the otter.

Posted by: rojo | November 17, 2007 09:53 AM

I suppose so rojo, but everything is interconnected somehow. Can u believe that they call me/us antis even though were half antis?

Posted by: Caboose (Combine Slayer) | November 26, 2007 07:45 PM

....it was a rock LOBSTER!!!!

rock lobster

ROCK LOBSTA!

Posted by: Caboose | December 10, 2007 11:13 PM