Oh ... and unfortunately enough this is not at all an uncommon situation! But today i had some good news from an indian website where i was reading that a 83 year old vegetarian film director is still having sex with a 30 year old woman and he wants to make it up to 100!

Posted by: EROS | January 30, 2008 05:37 PM

Most men would consider Viagra an easier option! Besides, there are causes of impotence that a diet change might not have any effect on whatsoever.

Posted by: Ashes | January 30, 2008 05:50 PM

can't he take medication for that? It's actually a pretty common problem. What does that have to do with meat? The girl looks then - maybe a protester from the previous demonstration?

Posted by: Joe | January 30, 2008 08:21 PM

Cute ad!

Posted by: Canaduck | January 30, 2008 08:22 PM

LOL... I think It's true! I have not had ANY trouble with E.D and have been a Veg for many, many years.

Great ad!

Posted by: Thom | January 31, 2008 12:49 AM

has anyone seen the footage from the hallmark meat packing company in chico, ca? very disturbing...having trouble sleeping with those images...

Posted by: ashley | January 31, 2008 01:47 AM

This offends me as a woman!!! Is this what PETA stand for? Belittling women in sad relationships if the man eats meat? sickening.

And the naked women?!? MORE PAINT PLEASE!!!

Posted by: Susan | January 31, 2008 03:10 AM

I believe there are many causes to ED and eating meat may affect a small percentage of the men, but don't suggest if you eat meat you can't get it up. I'm sure if you ate nothing but meat 7 days a week 365 days a year you would probably suffer some side effects. But to say that simply eating meat will make you go limp is propaganda and hugely overstated. Eating in excess in anything can have negative consequences. Drink way to much water can kill a person! I eat plenty of meat and I can asure you I've never had a problem like this!

Posted by: Kurt K | January 31, 2008 09:15 AM

That ought to move a few macho-men!

Posted by: Susannah S | January 31, 2008 09:38 AM

I would like to suggest that the people who denounce the use of Milk for sustenance, first understand the difference between Pasteuruzed milk, and unpasteuruzed milk. The difference is huge. Moreover, their is an enormous amount of research proving that Soy is unhealthy for numerous reasons. The exceptions would be fermented soy. Unfermented soy is terrible for anyone with thyroid issues, for one.

Posted by: Tov | January 31, 2008 09:40 AM

Vascular disease is the main cause of impotence, and the clogging of the relatively small arteries of the penis is usually an indication of a systemic problem.

One could argue to what degree meat plays in this problem, but in an autopsy study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine more than 85% of adults autopsied between the ages of 21 and 39 already had atherosclerotic changes in their coronary arteries (338:1650-56).

"Physicians with the American Heart Association agree that eating meat can cause clogging of the arteries that go to all organs of the body, not just the heart. An October study from the AHA concluded that poor eating habits, especially for those who eat meat, could lead to one's impotence."

Tov said, "Moreover, there is an enormous amount of research proving that Soy is unhealthy for numerous reasons." Can you provide a few references for that statement please?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 31, 2008 11:41 AM

It figures that the meat-eaters above would want to take a pill as a quick solution, instead of considering the many health benefits of a vegetarian diet - that would be too hard for you guys I guess, having to actually think carefully about what you eat and to take the time to make a significant lifestyle change.

Most cancers are a result of lifestyle issues (smoking, diet, exercise, etc). But people would rather keep smoking, eating meat, and being lazy, staying in denial that they have a huge chance of getting cancer, and assuming that all of the current animal testing for cancer cures will help them if they ever did get cancer (guess what - animal research is HARMFUL to humans).

Today's so-called developed countries are living a life of excess - where everyone wants to "Super Size" everything, including their vehicles. Is anyone else not grossed out by the latest offerings of several fast food places, where they glorify burgers, that also have bacon AND cheese??? Or what about those "Hungry Man" microwave dishes? They have something like 1 pound of food in them! No wonder people in countries like the US are getting fatter and sicker!

Posted by: Michele | January 31, 2008 12:14 PM

I know the booze at the bar is a lot more likely to cause impotence. Especially in a country like Thailand where obesity is so much less of a problem than the US, because as we know over-eating leads to ED, not meat.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 31, 2008 12:30 PM

fact is that fruits and vegetables are much more healthy for the human body than any kinds of meat and dairy products! but the problem is that many people get aware of it just after a certain age! me personally i made the experience that specially two fruits are better for health and wellbeing than anything else: oranges and bananas! eat every day an orange and a banana and i can guarantee you that you shall have a very healthy sexy wintertime even if the whole society around you catches a cold! and furthermore you should look at healthy vegetarian men like Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses, John Abraham, Shahid Kapoor, Milind Soman, Alexander Dargatz, Christian Bale, Adriano Celentano, Josh Hartnett, Ian McKellen (who shall be Gandalf again in a short time), Sean Astin, Joaquin Phoenix, Tobey Maguire, just for to name a few!

Posted by: ANACONDA | January 31, 2008 12:37 PM

Why isnt this ad up in the men's bathroom at my bangkok Restaurant?

Posted by: Sarah | January 31, 2008 02:21 PM

Mike Q,

Hey there! I can sort of answer the question you asked, though I know you weren't asking me. Soy is very controversial because it produces a kind of synthetic estrogen, so some people think it may contribute to breast cancer.

To make it much more confusing, some people think it helps prevent breast cancer.

The other wrinkle is that it's produced in a very environmentally destructive way. For me that's the kicker.

That's not to say that vegetarianism is bad, but soy is causing problems for the Earth, along with rice patties which produce obscene amounts of methane.

Again, that's not to say all veggies are bad, just rice, soy and palm oil as well. And coffee if it's sun grown.

;) Peace.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | January 31, 2008 04:48 PM

I hear Kurt K and the like saying it's propaganda to say that meat causes impotence, but do I hear anyone saying the same about milk ads claiming that milk and dairy are high in calcium and are actually "health" foods. ::scoff:: Please go harass the advertising execs that come up with their propaganda, at least this ad helps save animals...

Posted by: Vegancakes | January 31, 2008 07:51 PM

I liked your post Maya, I'm glad to see that you are not here just beat up on us "meat-eaters". I appreciate that. I don't like it when people judge me by what I eat and not by what I do and how I act. If you really think about it, depending on where you look, you can find pros and cons on any subject in the world. My grandmother died about two weeks before Christmas this last year, she had just turned 100 two months prior. She smoked until she was 87 and I know she ate red meat all her life. The fact of the matter is 60% of the time statistics are correct 100% of the time.

Posted by: Kurt K | January 31, 2008 08:50 PM

Christopher,
Since most of the U.S. population are meat eaters AND they overeat..... do i need to explain this any further? Maybe you should read the comment Mike Quinoa posted. That should end your confusion.

Posted by: Julia | February 1, 2008 04:19 AM

If You Eat Bread, Your Loaf Won't Rise!!

Julia,
My understanding of the genesis of the atherosclerotic diseases of the penis or any other vascular structure is crystal clear. So which do you think it is, the over eating or the meat? I bet I can guess because I am sure you've read the ultra-scientific, cutting edge Peta web site. I don't think anyone has done a study on fat vegetarians vs. fat omnivores. Cross sectional studies are lousy especially when such a tiny portion of the population is vegetarian. I contend that anyone who goes to the trouble of being vegan or vegetarian and has the financial resources to do so may also do a thing or two otherwise to prevent atherosclerosis (exercise, no smokes) injecting far too many variables to make accurate comparisons. That's conjecture, but that is all you have in your arguments as well. In fact, one of the major causes of ED is DM2 which is exacerbated greatly by simple carbohydrates such as bread. Perhaps bread causes ED. The new campaign should be "If you eat bread, your loaf won't rise." But hey, the masses are asses and you'll probably influence a few people because of the serious nature of ED. Then again the young and liberal crowd that you guys influence are probably semi-erect half the day anyway and to consider that might change would be hard for them to imagine (no pun).

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 1, 2008 10:45 AM

Hey Kurt!

Not at all, and although I'm a vegetarian, I strongly beleive that if everyone simply went vegetarian several times a week it would save way more lives than just a handful of people going completely vegetarian.

Grass-fed, humanely raised beef is a thousand times healthier for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7213348.stm

And the Washington Post just had a great article about the beef industry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012903054.html?referrer%3Demailarticle&sub=AR

I think that meat eaters can make themselves healthier and do the animals a favor by eating humane certified beef. It is MUCH less destructive to the environment.

I don't have a problem with people eating meat! I think we can all agree that raising animals humanely, eating healthier, taking care of the Earth and having more vegetarian meals is a good plan and highly doable.

Blessings, Kurt! ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 1, 2008 11:49 AM

Maya,

Thanks for your response. I really wanted our friend Tov to post a few substantiating links from the "enormous amount of research" and back up his generalization.

The majority of soy is grown to feed cattle, not people. The ecological devastation in South America is occurring to raise soy crops, that once again go in the mouths of animals.

I agree the safety of soy is a somewhat contentious issue—you have scientists and epidemiologists on both sides. This is partly because soy can go from minimal to excessive processing.

I personally have no qualms about soy, but it is certainly only one part of my diet. I eat cello-packed or canned soy beans, tofu, and organic unsweetened soy milk (in Canada, Natura brand). I usually stay away from fake meats and TVP.

The anti-veg, pro-meat lobby really tries to use soy as the lynchpin of their argument that vegetarianism is unhealthy. In other words if you eat soy, you'll be unhealthy. If you don't eat soy, where do you get your protein? This strategy effectively scares some people away from vegetarianism and back into the meat fold.

Of course, there are many good sources of vegan protein with complete (not that they have to be) essential amino acid profiles (quinoa :) and hemp seed, for example). There is a in-depth article on protein on Dr John McDougall's website:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/dairy.htm

Christopher,

You don't need a lot of financial resources to pursue a vegan diet. There all all kinds of beans that are extremely inexpensive. I can buy 2 pounds of steel-cut oat groats for $1.70—other coarse whole grains are equally inexpensive, except quinoa. Veggies and fruits in season are usually cheap. Nuts and seeds are a bit more depending on your selection. With all the money I save on meat, I can treat myself to some of my favourite out-of-season fruits.

Also, DM2 is not exacerbated or caused by healthy, whole plant-based complex carbs. While I don't eat tons of bread, I go to a bakery outlet that has organic, whole-grain bread made of mashed wheat berry sprouts. Hopefully, all the vegetarians and vegans out there are focusing on these good complex carbs.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 1, 2008 12:35 PM

There is again much bla bla bla on here, that bread may cause ED.....Anyhow i think that the hollywood stars are well-informed about their healthcare, hence most of them go veg - and for the rest since a long time already red meat doesn't exist anymore in Hollywood - but there are always people who don't want understand facts - and here the truth is that the handsome sexy hollywoodmen and women look far better than any meat-consuming nobodys out there! and it's not just a question of health: meat consumption steels away the famous 'mysterious patina' from above all young people! stop to blindfold yourselves and have a glance also at 'Bollywood' where 80 pct of the stars are completely veg - it's just beautiful - it's a pleasure to look at them; one feels also more healthy just in looking at them!

Posted by: Christophorus | February 1, 2008 03:31 PM

Bread might contribute to ED? Good to know, as I think it is cruel to use yeast for human enjoyment. Stop the yeast abuse!

Posted by: Mabel | February 1, 2008 03:42 PM

Ewwww. That won't change their mind. They can always take viagra or other procedures/treatments ...

Posted by: That's dumb and ugly | February 1, 2008 05:24 PM

Maya: I am SO glad that you are okay with people eating meat. I used to think I should be concerned about the animals' feelings on the subject, but now I realize it is really only your opinion that matters. Oh, and please don't re-post your list of animal-friendly occupations/activities. I've seen it already.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 1, 2008 05:40 PM

Maya, what do you mean "humanely raised beef"?

First, they are cows (living, feeling beings) not "beef".

Second, there is no such thing as "humane" flesh, dairy, and eggs.

All practices, whether factory farmed or free-range involve mass suffering, from family separations, reproductive manipulation, captivity (intense or less-intense), and early death in the slaughterhouse.

Whenever humans turn other animals into slaves, living commodities, we reinforce the speciesist falsehood of human superiority.

Stop the cycle of oppression - live vegan!

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 1, 2008 06:25 PM

Maya,

Since I eat brown rice (grown in the USA), I'll have to come to its defense :).

When the EPA calculated methane production in teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents of US rice paddies versus "manure management" for the consecutive years 1997 to 2003, they found rice cultivation averaged 7.5 teragrams—manure management averaged 38.5 teragrams (I don't believe this factors in cow belching). A pound of meat also requires much more water than a pound of rice.

So yes, rice is still an issue, but I can use 4 oz of rice as part of a meal, but most people would not be happy with a 4 oz piece of meat.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 1, 2008 07:29 PM

Mike Q, i'm not sure that "most soy goes to feed cattle", from memory about 3% of whole soy beans are fed to animals(presumably not fit for other purposes). Cattle do consume a large percentage of soybean meal, which is the solids left after the oil is extracted. I don't know what else they would do the by-product, not much if they are only feeding it to cattle. Soybeans are about 3 times the cost of corn at present, and corn is too dear at current levels to feed to cattle(profitably).

Posted by: rojo | February 1, 2008 11:24 PM

Slowly and secretly some not at all Peta-loving folks are getting ground here again - not before having peacefully put asleep the most faithfull Peta bloggers! Discussions on health results are always depending on percentage - and there are no rules without exceptions! Facit: The meat indulging part shall always pretend that meat-eating doesn't matter at all concerning healthproblems - ignoring voluntarily their hanging bellies, arteriosclerosis, high tension, feeling to vomit, hemerrhoids, heart problems, high cancer risks and their sissy tails. So the Peta hater/or meat-addicted (as you like) can put again his foot in the open door! Hence a good advice from a true friend: After 40 years in the animal-rights scene i made the experience that one should not focus too much on the health factor concerning vegetarianism - but rather on the ethical/moral fact. As a human being, living in an average western town or village everyone with a clean heart and mind has to admit that animal-abuse caused by different slaughter-methods due to meat-addiction is an ugly thing. And there they can show us their true face: are they willing to fight together with Peta for humane slaughter methods and reduce their meat consumption or are they just on this blog for disturbing the sincere animal advocate! Many blogs ago I proposed to Christopher Cochran to help in finding humane slaughter methods - when he asked me to welcome him nicely! Did he do so? I think he didn't - because his intention is not honest! He is just a 'twolegged wolf' in a sheep's pelt, trying - now a little bit nicer, to mislead honest animal advocates on these blogs! And there may be others with the same intention?!

'Peace'!?????????????

Posted by: Eyes wide shut | February 2, 2008 10:08 AM

Antigone, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are really quite naive if you think that all humans on Earth are going to magically become vegetarians just because you say so. I am a vegetarian, but what about those poor animals who are GOING to be eaten for meat?

Putting a blindfold over your eyes will not relieve animal suffering. You have to accept that those who won't change their diets will keep eating animals, and we must focus on making conditions humane for them RIGHT NOW. Not "someday".

Hi Brandon! Same thing, you must seperate those who are willing to give up meat altogether and those who are not. If you think my saying that just because I tell someone to be vegetarian they will, you're wrong and doing the animals a big disservice.

Animals are suffering RIGHT NOW and we need to demand humane conditions for them. If you're sitting around waiting for America to be all vegetarian, then animals will indeed suffer terribly.

Hey Mike!! Yes I agree - methane from cows is a much larger problem - I just wanted to point out that there are just a few non-meat products that do contribute to global warming. Not to villinize rice, of course, but with the crisis we're in I just think we're going to need to know all our options.

Peace! ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 2, 2008 01:38 PM

Brandon, hey there LOL I forgot to answer part of your question.

What is humanely raised beef? Animal care is a science. It's not an emotional therapy session. One has to understand the said family bonds, nutrition, environmental conditions in order to raise happy cows.

Horses are kept as companions - and they can be kept on a farm, with good guardians, and be kept happy. The same goes for cows. They can be treated to nice pastures, good nutrition and loving care by farmers.

Again, until everyone goes vegetarian, which won't happen, (call me when it does, in case I miss it) then we can only educate meat eaters. I've convinced many family members and coworkers to buy locally raised food, where they can actually see the conditions the animals live in.

Until you get every person on the planet to go vegetarian, you're forcing cows to suffer if you refuse to demand humane standards. Cows should be treated as nicely as any large pet, like horses.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 2, 2008 01:53 PM

Eyes wide shut,
I appreciate you are a polyglot, and perhaps I misunderstood your request (I can't imagine how, your messages are so clear), but I will tell you that the animals that are slaughtered for my consumption (at least the ones that I can control) are done in the most humane way possible, but you just wanted to give me crap didn't you?

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 2, 2008 03:41 PM

Brandon Becker: I fully agree with your statement which is loud and clear! You are completely right: there is nothing 'humane' in the meat-industry but unfortunately we vegetarian and vegan people are a small minority, always being silenced by laws, governments and even on this blog here are always meat-friendly people etc. and the suffering of animals goes on every day, every hour, every minute, every second! So we have to fight in the same time as we are promoting a veg lifestyle - we have also to focus on 'humane' slaughter-methods! This can be understood in different ways, for example in surveying the animal-transportations by influencing the laws and surveying the actual slaughter process and so on! It's so horrible but what else can we do - we are just a minority! From the last news i heard that even India has just arrived to a percentage of 30pct veg all over the country and this is a catastrophe - seen that this country once was almost completely meat-free! In Poland for example they have just 60'000 vegetarians and in Sweden 40'000! France has after the US the highest meat consumption in the western part of the world! Me i'm also for a radical animal liberation worldwide - so we have never to give up and continue our fight without becoming tired! Please remain on this blog here - there are enough bad spirits trying to put their daily poison! but encouraging one another makes us strong - welcome!

Posted by: animalfriend | February 2, 2008 05:21 PM

Humans ate meat for many many years and still you exist today. Proof that this is not true.

Posted by: humans ate meat. | February 2, 2008 08:05 PM

Christopher,
I love that you responded back to my comment... Thank you for that. Your vocabulary is extensive which is something you dont see quite a lot of these days... Any way, I read the whole thing and like I said before. If overeating leads to erectile dysfunction and since most Americans overeat and eat meat.... There is an obvious connection between the two. Especially when the meat takes so much longer to digest, and all the energy it takes our body to digest it. Energy used to digest meat in our intestines takes away from the energy we have to do other things like: exercise, sex. You see, it takes energy to do those things. So in conclusion however long your comment may be it still goes back to what I said in the first place.

Posted by: Julia | February 3, 2008 12:49 AM

Rojo,

According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain.

The above, of course, refers specifically to USA figures.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 3, 2008 10:48 AM

Cochran: you're again barking up the wrong tree - anyhow, i think i wouldn't like to see you sporting a banana hammock!

Posted by: Argus | February 3, 2008 03:04 PM

Christopher Cochran: no i didn't want to give you crap but i don't want to be put asleep - it's my duty towards the animal kingdom to defend their rights at any moment and any time! and please go to have a look at the newest undercover investigation on the hsus website concerning the horrific abuse of downed cows - maybe then you shall understand my bad words and my concern! thanks!
animalfriend

Posted by: Eyes wide shut | February 4, 2008 12:01 PM

Julia,
One of the reasons processed grain products make you fat is because they are so easy to digest. Foods that are more involved in digestion are usually better options. Whole grains are harder to digest vs. processed wheat flour. If you eat a box of donuts you are likely to be less sexual than if you eat a salmon filet with brussel sprouts. Your understanding of human physiology lacks a bit; no insult intended.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 4, 2008 12:05 PM

Maya,

Just because speciesism is built into our culture and indoctrinates our lives doesn't mean that we have to settle for accepting so-called "humane" standards and spend energy pushing for them.

Every moment spent advocating so-called "humane" slaughter is a moment not spent advocating veganism.

By asking someone to eat "cage-free" eggs or some other product of violence, you are endorsing this practice. If someone is unwilling to opt-out of injustice, so be it, let the guilt be on them. Let us set veganism as the moral baseline that should be aspired to. Again, if somone is unwilling to move, at least we've planted the seed that may eventually grow.

The animal welfarist groups and the animal-exploiting corporations both speak the language of "humane" exploitation. This only serves to make people feel better about using animals for food and other purposes and further entrenches the property status of animals.

Animal rightists demand true respect for animals - the right not to be treated as a means to an end - total opposition to breeding, confining, and slaughtering sentient beings for human pleasures. Considering the fact that humans can be healthy on a 100% plant-based diet, there is no excuse for these practices to continue.

Animal rights is an abolitionist struggle. Let us not lose focus by getting lost in debates over whether some practices are less inhumane than others. Whether factory-farmed or "free-range" it is still unnecessary and unjust.

Let us move forward and work to end animal oppression in all its forms and everywhere it happens.

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 4, 2008 05:57 PM

Mike Q, i find that interesting since the USDA says less than half the corn, sorghum, barley etc is used for feedgrains and only a few % of soybeans are fed to cattle. The soybean meal certainly is, but may otherwise be wasted if not fed to animals.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Feedgrains/StandardReports/YBtable3.htm

If you look across the table the different headings show use and amounts. This one is a combination of grains, and you will find specific corn table on the site too.

Soybean tables aren't quite as clear, but from an 2006 harvest of 3188 million bushels, 1765 m are crushed and 1080 m are exported, with 182m used under "seed,feed,residual".

All I can say is that the USDA don't know how to read their own figures if they say 90% of beans and 80% of corn are used in the US for feed.

I'm not familiar with the US midwest, and assume it is suitable for grazing only, if irrigation is unavailable. To that effect a large percentage of the US land will be attributed to animal production, it suits little else. 80% of agricultural land may well be used for animals, I doubt the cropping part.

Posted by: rojo | February 4, 2008 06:51 PM

Maya: My post was in response to your comment about not having a problem with people eating meat. Recognizing that people eat meat is a far cry from sanctioning the practice, especially as you claim to be an animal-lover. I understand people eat meat, but I will never tell them it is okay or that I do not have a problem with it and I will continue working to increase the number of vegans on the planet. It is not up to any being to determine the value of another. Each being has an inherent value whether or not that value is recognized or acknowledged by another.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 4, 2008 09:17 PM

Christopher,
Its ok that you ignore the obvious. Ill go ahead and ignore any future posts that you put up. I like your responses though.. It gives people chance to see what kind of people animal lovers and vegetarians have to put up with, and how to deal with them. Hopefully someday you will come to terms with the truth that you are ignoring. Until than I hope you find another blog to be interested in. Its weird that you are commenting on most of these blogs yet you disagree with almost everything Peta does. Its really hard to understand why you spend so much time on the Peta website when you are not a supporter of Peta..... Hopefully you find better things to do with your time. As I have I will be no longer responding to your comments. Good day.
PS I hope you dont really believe all the BS you tried to spew out at me, if you do Im really concerned for your health.

Posted by: Julia | February 5, 2008 12:54 AM

Hi Brandon,

I think I see your point a bit more clearly now. It sounds as though you beleive that pushing for humane standards pushes out the option for veganism - of course I apologize if I am misunderstanding your position.

I have 2 opinions on that:

1. Some people will never switch to veganism, and animals are suffering right now. Living a cow who is treated as kindly as a pet horse, and having the cow be slaughtered is extremely different than having the cow be tortured and live a miserable existance for years and years and years.

2. Having every person on the planet eat vegetarian or vegan 2 or 3 times a week will save millions more lives than just a few folks being diehard vegans.

Of course this is all just my opinion. I think we may need to agree to disagree.

Also, you should know (and it won't come as a surprise to you) that the term "cage free" is bogus. The animals are still treated inhumanely. Supposedly "certified humane" is the real deal but I still have some investigating to do.

No disrespect intended, I do like hearing other opinions! ;) Peace.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 5, 2008 12:09 PM

Hi Antigone -

I probably should have been more specific. My belief is consistent with PETA's position: that humans such as those who live in tribal groups, out in the wild, have the right to kill animals for food because they would die otherwise, and it is done with as much risk to them as for the animal.

Look under Peta's positon on "wildlife" if you want more details.

So I do not beleive that it is wrong for a human to kill an animal for survival if they have no other choice.

I can't picture myself convincing a meat eater to go vegetarian, especially by telling them that I disapprove of what they do. That is the worst position I can take if I want to change their behavior.

I beleive in easing people into things, and if a person takes the first step, and eats humane certified meat, psychology says they are more likely to take the next step into vegetarianism.

Of course that's just the way I understand it.

Peace! ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 5, 2008 12:16 PM

Rojo,

Your information is more up-to-date. The info I quoted is here: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf

I think I lost sight of my original point, which was to counter the assertion by some, that since (some) vegetarians eat soy, and soy production has been implicated in deforestation, et cetera, that veggies are hypocritical to deplore land devastation for meat production.

While it's hard to nail down exactly how many Americans are veg, estimates run roughly from 5-7%. Not all of these people consume soy.

Soy is used in some processed foods, but as such could be consumed by vegetarians or omnivores. The soy consumption of true vegetarians is, at worst, only responsible for minimal environmental impact related to its production.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 5, 2008 02:43 PM

Maya,

Why are you so quick to write off people by saying they will never go vegetarian?

This poverty of ambition is killing the animals rights movement. We must hold our ground as abolitionists, not regress to become advocates of exploitation.

Think about people like former cattle-rancher Howard Lyman and former dairy farmer Harold Brown, now both dedicated vegan animal rights activists.

All of us are capable of changing. When we advocate so-called "humane" flesh, dairy, and eggs, we lose the moral high ground and endorse violence against nonhuman animals.

Considering that humans can be healthy on a 100% plant-based diet, it is unnecessary for these practices to continue. This is not about primitive peoples eating animals to survive. This is about us choosing to consume plants rather than animal flesh and secretions, it's about choosing to end suffering or cause suffering, it's about choosing compassion over killing. All of us in civilization can make that choice.

We must stand for justice - not to reform tyranny, no, to abolish tyranny.

Let us stand with the animals - a united front for the abolition of animal exploitation everywhere and in all its forms.

Never lose hope, together it can be done.

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 5, 2008 03:40 PM

Brandon, I am with you 100 percent!

The main reason I feel the way I feel is because I constantly think about motivation.

I have never met anyone who went vegetarian because of ultimate views. The reason I went vegetarian at 14 is because I loved animals, I loved a cute singer who was a vegetarian (LOL) and because I had a supportive family.

I agree with you that we should promote vegetarianism, but the magic question is, how? How did you decide? I really think that it has to do with good role models, the love of animals, blah blah blah.

I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm just trying to explain my line of thinking. Personally I would looooove if PETA or someone would collect thousands of stories about people going vegetarian.

I think that would give us a great snapshot of what changes people's behavior, and we could act accordingly. After all, only real results count.

Let me know what you think!

;) Namaste, my friend!

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 5, 2008 04:47 PM

Do you really think that people will stop eating meat? Honestly, what world do you live in?

Someone in this thread said that almost everyone in Hollywood is vegetarian/vegan and that red meat doesn't exist there. Maybe you should drive through that area sometime and see the number of hamburger places, or see all of the stars lining up at In N Out Burger after the Oscars!

For everyone I know who has gone vegetarian, I know at least one person who has stopped being vegetarian!

Posted by: Mabel | February 5, 2008 05:25 PM

Maya: You were pretty specific in simply saying that you have no problem with people eating meat. You never mentioned anything about wildlife, etc. And, the thing is, while you are concerned about "easing" people into caring about animals, thousands of animals are dying. They do not have time for you (or anyone else) to convince every human that they deserve the right to live in peace.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 5, 2008 08:44 PM

Mabel said "For everyone I know who has gone vegetarian, I know at least one person who has stopped being vegetarian!"

How many vegetarians have you actually known?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | February 6, 2008 12:06 PM

Brandon Becker

I agree with every word in your posts. Please keep coming back. The animals need people like you and I to continue with the abolition of their oppression.

Maya, I cannot agree with your stance about vegetarianism or "humanely" raised meat. All nonsense that term. If people couldn't change you and I would still be chattel. A MP once stated in the late 19th century while debating in parliament that women don't even have souls, he thought the idea was preposterous. I am an abolitionist. I think you and I think diffently when it comes to fighting for the end of the animals' oppression. People feel great comfort in their "happy meals" and are even less prone to change to vegetarianism. The sales of crate-free veal went up in Europe, not down. Research this and find out. Peace!!

Posted by: Ana | February 6, 2008 01:40 PM

Antigone, hi again.

Okay, let's do it your way. You think people should NOT be eased into going vegetarian.

I'm on pins and needles waiting to hear how YOU plan to make everyone vegetarian.

Can't wait to hear your suggestion, Antigone, because right now there are **ahem** just a few people left on Earth who still eat meat.

Let's hear it.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 6, 2008 01:59 PM

Ana,

Okay you've got me, what's chattel? I apologize, I should probably know. ;)

I'm also lacking in history; but if there's a quick way to getting everyone to go vegan or vegetarian, maybe we should start now. Somehow I can't picture you throwing bricks through windows.

So I'd like to know what the plan should be, if not my plan.

Peace, and lots of respect for your cool knowledge of women's and civil rights history!! I love reading your comments! ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 6, 2008 02:03 PM

Hello Maya!

Chattel means property just as humans continue to treat the other animals as property. If you read a lot of the social/abolitionist movements you will see that their sucesses stemmed from not softening their positions. By giving credence or supporting all of this "humane" flesh bunk we simply agree to eat meat/animals as long as their incarceration was "nice". To be abolitionist is to mean that you view that killing animals for their flesh is inherently indefensible. I don't care that chickens walked on grass for a few weeks, their deaths are still violent and cruel. It is very smug of humans to think that it is their right to determine which creature lives and for how long. The other animals are abused, mutilated and murdered because we can, not be because it is right. Might does not equal right. Children are put into pornography because their parents can not because it is right (read the stats on this, it is horrible). I will never accept sleeping with the enemy (corporate America in the meat/dairy industry) in order to assuage the consciences of those that want to feel better about biting into lambs, piglets and chicks. Yes, we eat baby animals. Abolitionists did not want less beatings for slaves or children or women they wanted the oppression to end. Less hours for child laborers...uh, no! NO CHILD LABOR!
Educate and you can change minds. There are many vegans whose lifestyles in their past included even killing animals, and they have changed.
More people eat animals when it is certified as "humane", not less. Veganism is the answer not bigger cages or walks in the grass. Also, please don't romanticize the noble savage, it is an exaggeration by not very good historians. I am quite sure you would agree that a woman wants her partner to STOP the abuse completely and permanently not occasionally and maybe less punches to sweeten the pot. Again, put yoursef in the place of a piglet, chick, calf, goat sheep, and ask yourself whether you want someone to fight for your life or for a little bit of grass before you are violently slaughtered. The trip to the slaughterhouse isn't pretty either. I would rather an abolitionist fight for my freedom and not for some grass and a gruesome violent death. Peace!

Posted by: Ana | February 6, 2008 04:04 PM

If we want people to go vegetarian and transition to veganism, then let's advocate it.

Pushing "humane" flesh, dairy, and eggs, inherent products of violence, will only make people feel better about raising and killing animals for food while not at all shifting the paradigm from animal use to animal rights. In fact, I would argue you further entrench the speciesist idea that animals are ours to use, so long as you treat them "humanely" (whatever that means!).

I am an animal rightist - I believe animals are not ours to use for any purpose. Our voices for radical change are countinually suppressed by animal welfarists like HSUS who push weak and reformist methods of "humane" use.

If we want a world were all animals are free of human control and domination, our advocacy must be consistent with that goal. Therefore, rather than encouraging people to consume so-called "humane" flesh, dairy, and eggs, we should advocate they opt-out of this injustice.

As more and more people become vegetarian and subsequently vegan, industry will reform itself to stay profitable. We do not need to become its spokespersons.

Why do you think industry speaks the language of animal "welfare" and set up "humane" advisory boards? It is because they want to assure the consumer that it is OK to use animals for our purposes!

To win justice for animals, reject this welfarist thinking that continually denies nonhuman animals the basic rights to life and liberty to satisfy petty human pleasures. Let us stand firm and uncompromising in our defense of the oppressed.

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 6, 2008 04:51 PM

Hi all, the problem isn't that abolitionists want people to be just vegetarians, but to become vegans. Cold turkey so to speak.

Ana, thats an interesting statistic about crate-free veal, but what happened to the total amount of veal? Isn't it better that it be crate-free (until liberation)?

Posted by: rojo | February 6, 2008 05:06 PM

Rojo,

You're distorting the abolitionist position.

The animal rights philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the continued use of animals for our purposes - for food, clothing, experimenation, entertainment or any other purpose. As Tom Regan said, "It is not the details of unjust exploitation that must be changed. It is the unjust exploitation itself that must be ended, whether on the farm, in the lab, or among the wild, for example." (see: http://www.cultureandanimals.org/animalrights.htm)

Veganism must be the moral baseline of the movement. When I advocate veganism, I give the person literature describing the why's and how's and let them work out how quickly they want to get there. They may take a while to get there, but as long as they are still striving towards the goal of vegan living, they are moving forward.

What I never do is suggest they eat "cage-free" eggs or any other products of violence. To do this would be to endorse this unjust practice and would be a betrayal of the animals.

The animals want freedom. They will be emancipated when humans make the choice to move away from this oppressive system of institutionalized exploitation. We all have the power to change, let us never forget that.

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 6, 2008 05:44 PM

Maya: Well, for starters, I never say things like "I have no problem with people eating meat." You may not change everyone's lifestyle, but that doesn't mean you have to condone it. If you give people the impression that humane slaughter is possible, they will claim to support that over changing their habits. If, however, you tell them that eating meat is unacceptably cruel no matter what, compassionate people WILL change. When I realized what was happening, I changed.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 6, 2008 06:16 PM

Ana, thank you for explaining that to me! Very interesting and good to be aware of it.

I'm going to have to see real numbers to believe that people who eat humane raised wind up eating more meat. I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying that. I just mean, let me see the numbers. Real numbers. It may be completely correct, but who's studying such things?

From my understanding there is a concept in psychology where if YOU do ME a favor, I will like you better because I will subconsciously think, "I did Ana a favor - I must really like her".

So if a meat eater does something that they beleive is kind for animals, they will think, "I must really care about animals" and they may then go vegetarian.

The people who eat meat now - they most likely know all of PETA's issues, and they still eat meat. What do you propose we do to change that if not what I proposed?

I would like to know what the better plan is, because as far as I know, the current plan is not working too well.

;) Merci.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 6, 2008 07:46 PM

And just to clarify, I am a vegetarian who is very very active in speaking to friends, family and coworkers about going vegetarian. Many of them join me in vegetarian meals. So I do engage in those activities you mentioned. However, I don't know that I can influence those outside of my closest circle.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 6, 2008 07:50 PM

Mike Q, jeez, you don't read small articles! Didn't get through it all, so I'll take your word for it.
My take on soybeans is that meat eaters aren't the reason for their production, but that their value is higher because the by-products can be sold at a higher price to animal producers than say energy producers. I know we are a long way from your posts original intention :)

anti, thousands of animals die every day, regardless of whether it is for human use or not. No exploitation does not mean life happily ever after. Sorry.

Ana and Brandon, I accept your argument for not supporting "welfare". Unfortunately abolition is not a certainty, and the animals don't deserve to suffer longer because it suits your cause that they do so in the interim. A long interim.
In my view it would be best to work toward acheivable goals, for the animals.

In effect you are ostracising the support base you need to make any meaningful change to rights, and relegating yourselves to being an ineffectual fringe group within a minority group. If you haven't noticed petas "successes" are welfare related, a foot in the door. Ingrid herself isn't sure that factory farming will end, let alone free range production.

part of your arguments are that animals be granted rights, but by and large they already do have rights. There are a numerous laws regarding cruelty to animals, even in texas.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/qvustxcruelty.htm

I wonder did such laws exist for the slaves during that period of history, which are afforded to animals now. Would we feel any differently about slavery if they had?

Posted by: rojo | February 6, 2008 08:43 PM

For anyone on here who is thinking about going veg, who is just not sure they can give up meat, and who lives in an area of Canada where you can buy "President's Choice" brand foods (or, for veg*ns who are just looking for something new), you have GOT to try their newest Blue Menu Meatless "Chicken". It's something you cook like a chicken breast, on the barbecue, in the oven, in a skillet or in the microwave (though I think the first 2 options would give it the best taste and texture). I had one today with a mango curry sauce ("Memories of Bengal", also by President's Choice), done in the oven. It was delicious! The only downside is that it has a relatively high amount of sodium, but it is very low in fat and has plenty of iron and protein, and all the B12 you need.

Posted by: Michele | February 6, 2008 10:32 PM

I suppose it depends on where you draw the line. By some good, well thought out arguments presented here humans are "smug" in deciding when a domesticated animal dies, and we are asked to put ourselves in their place when we decide how to treat animals. Well, lets pretend for a moment that non-human animals are sapient (not sentient which they already are) and that they are pondering their fate. I, the cat, wander this planet in hopes of few things. I like to eat, I like to practice hunting so I can eat, and I like to screw whenever I can. I, unfortunately live in LA and the big, tall, biped has decided to put me in a wee cage and I am outside the vets office awaiting my fate. I have decided that since you will be taking away one of my few hobbies, just go ahead and kill me.
The symbiosis that domestic animals exist in can be tricky for you folks. Keep in mind if the domesticated are emancipated they will die eventually (remember, it's a symbiosis of sorts). But you do love you some animals around so you are compelled to force your will upon them. In the animal world a eunuch is a waste of carbon unless it's eaten by another animal. In the pet world it's human entertainment. Don't poke that elephant with a stick, oh, wait I have to take my dog to be mutilated (I'm sure that is what the sapient dog would call it, CGM: canine genital mutilation!)
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against cutting the balls off a dog against his will thereby denying said dog his right to make a puppy family that he can love forever. You know me I actually eat some animals, so what's a few dog balls.
So, like I said, I guess it's where you draw the line of control. Nonetheless the end result is the same. Domestic animals aren't emancipated, nor will they ever be. They have been bred so far away from the natural evolutionary processes they can not live (as species)without human intervention. We completely control their lives in every way. When to eat, poop, screw (god forbid), and we also decide if they live or die (euthanasia). I know many will say that this is a short term outlook and that this is a transition plan for "total animal liberation." Short term transition plans tend to favor the pigs in the farmer's house, don't they?

Keep on truckin'

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 7, 2008 12:37 AM

Christopher Cochran: Hmmmm....let's see. All we need to do is to stop breeding domestic animals, care for the ones in existent, and they will all die out eventually. The undomesticated versions (wolves, coyotes, feral cats) will continue to live their lives free of man's influence. Nobody with any intelligence would advocate "emancipating" domestic animals and most would consider that to be abandonment.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 7, 2008 11:07 AM

it's about choosing to end suffering or cause suffering, it's about choosing compassion over killing. All of us in civilization can make that choice.

You talk alot about choosing but what if a person choose to carry on meat? I suspect that you suggest a choice so long as the answer it was what one side of the argument considers right. This will never happen. It will never wash to suggest someone has a choice followed by a declaration tyhat one should stand for unity.

I love animals and I care about their treatment but I am not a vegetarian. I do however, care about the treatment of those animals I eat and ensure that I do not buy from a mistreater of animals (so far as I know and can).

But what PETA members seem to not understand is unfortunately, you are up against those who ENJOY eating meat. To say that 'it is not neccessary' does not make it pointless. Years from now should humans be able to clone humans, it may not be neccesary to have sex, but people will. Because they like it.

I mean you are not going to win a battle by declaring vegetarianism is healthier and better for the environment than eating meat (which I do not subscribe to for one minute but that is a different arguement) because you still have people who care little for health, and smoke and become obese regardless and more for the things they like unfortunately in this world.

Anyway, I am pleased PETA exists though I think they're advertising and hypocritical comments beggars belief on occasion, and I would say keep up the good work in looking out for animal interests.

Posted by: Paul | February 7, 2008 11:10 AM

Well said Christopher, well said!

Posted by: Kurt K | February 7, 2008 12:27 PM

Rojo
The only thing that is certain is death. But again, I will state that the abolitionists fghting against slavery didn't care what their detractors said about their movement they simply continued forward and did not digress from their vision of freeing the slaves. Many said the same as you, it will never happen, but it did. The abolitionists broke federal laws but were steadfast in their convictions.
As abolitionists, Brandon and I do not prolong the other animals' misery; quite the contrary. By appeasing the masses with these "happy meals" there exists no incentives to change diets or attitudes. Supposedly the animals are "happy" so what's the problem. Brandon and I explained it well, we are not concerned with a few moments reprieve from ultimate slaughter we are opposed to their oppression and the injustices committed against them. The imprisonemnt of animals has gone on far too long. If you were a bull I think you would rather I fight for your freedom than that you have a grass meal before your very violent death. It is abolitionists that made changes for human society not those that capitulated to the demands of the oppressors. BTW, 2012 is the supposed date for crate-free conditions for pigs. Who is prolonging what? Who is to say industries won't change again. This a PR ploy from these animal abusing/killing enteprises. The HSUS and others of their ilk are sleeping with the enemy and everyone is giddy and smiling while animals continue to suffer and be subject to unspeakably violent deaths.
The slaves were property and thus an investment in their businesses (cotton, tobacco, rice). There were also blacks that had black slaves and there were whites that worked side by side with their slaves in the fields. There were also "owners" that taught them to read and write. In the North, blacks were attending schools and there certainly were those that had attended colleges.
These welfare laws for animals are both soft and very rarely enforced. If a judge sees fit he might fine someone a few dollars for having brutally slaughtered someones' cat or dog. As long as animals are treated like property what chance have they in a society that brutalizes them and feels it is their right. Rights does not mean weak laws, it means being givien the right to go on living without fear of being made into a coat or a meal. The welfarists have accomplished what??? There are still homeless cats and dogs slaughtered in kill shelters, rodeos continue to terrorize and break the bones of calves, horses, bulls.
During the Medieval Age (1066-1500), animals were put on trial. Absurd, sure, but just another way to abuse animals. They are property but they can still be put on trial and sentenced?? Yes, it happened. Human stupidity and cruelty at best. By describing us as being "an ineffectual fringe group" you have already judged us by your standards not ours. I believe I am effective and many social movements were commenced by the very few who saw a different vision.

Maya, you have displayed a give up attitude and that does not benfit the animals one bit. Always remember it is the animals that are suffering and being killed. Your generalizations about people knowing PETA's issues is your conjecture not a fact. Most people I have met don't know. I have introduced others to veganism but with lots of encouragement. But I also am very tenacious and have great faith in what I do. Take a look at Vegan Outreach and read about their efforts and successes. Peace :)

Posted by: Ana | February 7, 2008 04:03 PM

Great post Ana!

When we speak of animal rights, we speak of fundamental rights like the right to life and liberty.

If we're debating the details of animal exploitation (i.e. which forms are more or less inhumane), we are speaking on the exploiters' terms. Due to their legal advantage of property rights laws (animals are considered property by the legal system), economic and political power, and PR ability, they will always win the welfare game.

To shift the paradigm from animal use to animal rights, we must be steadfast in our opposition to animal exploiation. This does not mean pushing "Certified Humane" flesh, dairy, or eggs; it means advocating veganism - choosing plant foods like grains, nuts, legumes, fruits, and vegetables.

Finally, we must remember, eating animals and their secrections is not a "personal" choice. There is an "other" involved, and that is the animal that suffers and is killed for these "products". Your taste buds do not outweight their right to life and liberty.

We all have the power to opt-out - the first step on the path to liberation is veganism.

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 7, 2008 05:15 PM

ana, i will stand by "ineffectual" by any standard in relation to rights, but particularly if welfarists are to be put offside.

You speak of fighting for the bulls freedom, but freedom to do what exactly- eat grass and die slowly. Not a huge difference either way besides speed of death. You'd rather see no bulls than exploited bulls, what would they say about that?
Would the slaves have elected to be freed if it ultimately meant starving? Think about it from a loafing around no work perspective, as opposed to hard physical labour.

I don't see viewing animals as property having much influence. Freedom isn't affecting the game hunters perception of their prey(legal hunting that is). They don't have legal ownership of say a deer prior to killing it. Deer are free irrespective of farmed animals being "owned". With similar results.

During the middle ages they burned witches(fairly loose defintion of witch), and they've burn't more than the odd heretic along the way, I don't think animals have been singled out to be abused. It's quite amazing what people will believe with no basis in fact. The justice system was farcical- if you survived you were a witch and subsequently killed, and if you died you were innocent. But dead. There's a win.

Sure there are homeless people etc, I guess it's because no one thought of abolishing them?
One would think antiwar protestors had a fairly good point. Not exactly welfarist ideology, but it hasn't stopped war.

What abolitionists are up against is that there is no widespread feeling that animals are worthy of the same rights as humans. I can't say welfare is universal either, but an awful lot closer.

Posted by: rojo | February 10, 2008 10:24 AM

Brandon, respectfully, I think you conveniently changed the subject so you could win the argument.

Can you please answer the question at hand?

Assumption: We all agree that cows should not suffer. You, I and Ana are all people who do not eat cows.

What are you, Brandon, proposing to do about the cows who are factory farmed, torutred, kept confined and abused, right now?

Are you saying that you can make everyone go vegetarian right now, in the next 24 hours, in the next 2 days, in the next 2 years?? What are you going to do to help those suffering right now?

Unless you plan to put a gun to the head of everyone who eats cattle, then you're allowing them to suffer. HOW are you going to make people go vegetarian?

Your fancy words are not helping the many cows being eaten right now.

If the cows went from living in toruturous conditions, to living in conditions where they are treated as well as any beloved pet horse, at least that buys us time to alleviate their suffering.

By saying that I should not promote humane treatment, you put yourself in charge. Now, what's your plan???

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 10, 2008 03:03 PM

Maya
With all due respect none of these cows are going to be treated like a pet horse (and in many circumstances it is not so good being a companion horse since many are sold for slaughter). In fact, they will not be treated well at all. Try to examine the fact that this is a PR ploy and nothing more. So, do you think that by the time 2012 comes around some changes will be implemented?? Not if it costs these monstrous companies any money. But what does this all serve? Not the animals who are to be slaughtered anyway. That is an animal welfare stand; these incremental changes are only there to help those who want to continue eating animals, it is not a means to encourage people to stop eating them. Read Gary Francione, look at FARM, Farm Animal Reform Movement(abolitionist), Friends of Animals, and Vegan Outreach for example. Wasting time and money getting minimal changes is absurd. These animals are still going to receive a horrible violent death no matter their previous state. There is no space to give animals on these factory farms. They are drugged and abused in order to sell their flesh cheaply; it is not about what is best for the animals. Again, your negative tone to Brandon and in general about veganism is counterproductive and quite frankly disconcerting. The animals suffer not you so it is easy to dictate conditions for those that will be murdered. I do not agree with you at all. How to change minds...education and example. It will not happen as you take them to a store to purchase organic flesh. HSUS is a welfare group for you, they condone this. The groups I named don't so I support them. Peace to you and the animals who suffer as both factory farmed and organic flesh is consumed.

Posted by: Ana | February 11, 2008 01:16 PM

Hi Ana! (and Brandon!)

Brandon, I did not intend to sound so hysterical in my comment, sorry. It sounded disrespectful and I didn't mean it that way.

And Ana, you're right that the standards aren't high enough right now, but I think that can change.

I think it's fairly obvious we must agree to disagree on this, but I promise I will think it over - you two have made very provocative points!! ;)

Namaste my friends.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 11, 2008 04:33 PM

Ana,

Great post overall.

One thing to comment on though:
I wouldn't suggest supporting Friends of Animals. They are incredibly ineffective. They claim to be abolitionists, but they walk in lockstep with HSUS with their dogmatic opposition to direct action.

Maya,

Welfare reforms do not make lives better for the animals currently imprisoned to be slaughtered for food. It's not like these corporations cut down the battery cages and immediately move the animals into the larger cage (meaning: the floor of large building) upon agreeing to "cage-free" reforms. The change begins (if it even begins at all) with future animals used for food, usually years later. Do not be deceived: welfare reform does not do anything meaningful for the animals currently being slaughtered. These marginal changes only come in the future.

Meanwhile, we as abolitionist animal rights advocates reject such reformist strategies as a waste of time. As more and more people become vegetarian and subsequently vegan, the animal exploitation industries will reform themselves to stay profitable. It is a zero-sum game. All of the time and money spent on welfare reform is time and money that could have been spent promoting veganism. For it is veganism, which strikes the roots and shifts the paradigm from animal use to animal rights. Veganism will help bring down this unjust system.

You can argue that it is hopeless to advocate abolition because you think it will never be acheived. If we took your fatalistic view, you would be right, we would never achieve abolition.

Our society teaches us that it is moral to use living sentient nonhumans as resources - for food, clothing, experimentation, entertainment, and other things. Most do not question this point.

We must continue to educate people that they do have a choice. They don't have to support the use of animals as property. Considering the fact that we can be completely healthy on a 100% plant-based vegan diet and can choose this alternative, killing an animal for food is completely unnecessary, unjust, and wrong. We can eat a wide variety of plant-based foods, wear many different non-animal fibers such as cotton, conduct non-animal product tests and medical experiments (which are also more valid and reliable), and support non-animal forms of entertainment (like circuses without nonhuman animals such Cirque du Soleil and view animals in their natural habitats instead of zoos).

I think once people are confronted with the vegan message, they may initially fight against it (because it is in opposition to mainstream thinking). However, if they critically analyze what we are saying, I do not think they will reject it. I believe they will make changes in their life and eventually adopt our position.

If we want to shift the paradigm from animal use to animal rights, we must never give up or compromise.

Above all, this is an issue of justice: and justice does not demand reform, it demands abolition!

Posted by: Brandon Becker | February 12, 2008 03:58 PM

humans ate meat.< yea cave men ate meat but they also did lots of bad things, but do we do thosetoday? no so there!
no more excuses....GO VEGGIE!

Posted by: kenady | March 26, 2008 10:24 AM

i agree with kenady
and if i was a guy i would rather be a vegitarian than take a drug!!!

Posted by: mooka | March 26, 2008 04:01 PM