"Turning the lying talking-(meat)head meaty-uh into truthful media on animal suffering, human health, world hunger, energy crises, and environmental devastation."

Bob Linden hosts "the planets first and only commercial vegan radio show" extolling the many virtues - both ethical and prudential - of animal liberation and veganism.

Listen here

 

Tom Regan writes,

"Being kind to animals is not enough. Avoiding cruelty is not enough. Housing animals in more comfortable, larger cages is not enough. Whether we exploit animals to eat, to wear, to entertain us, or to learn, the truth of animal rights requires empty cages, not larger cages." 

Misinformation, infantilism, and negative imagery aside, ethical veganism

"unmasks the rhetoric of these industries (e.g., factory farming) and shows why what their spokespersons say about their treatment of animals (these industries treat animals "humanely") is not sometimes false. It is always false."

Note: Ad hominem "arguments" are fallacious:

1) Person A makes a claim;

2) Person B makes an attack on Person A;

3) Therefore A's claim is false.

"The character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made - or the quality of the argument being made."

What this method of argumentation amounts to is the strategic avoidance of having a discourse about our premises, opting instead to rely on childish antics and attempted character assassinations such as the following:

"Of course you believe that nonhumans shouldn't suffer merely because we believe they taste good, you're an atheist; ergo nothing you say in support of your position counts because, again, you're just a godless heathen (and you hate humans and Jesus)."

Thanks go out to Before Wisdom

Listen closely to Dienna Capers' words: She is an omnivore who make's an emotional appeal that can only reasonably end with her going vegan (or at least stop sanctioning the murder of Maxine's brother because he tastes good).

 

 

All beings tremble before danger, all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. (Dhammapada, 129-130.)

In this statement "the Buddha explains that we should not kill out of consideration for the feelings of fear and the love of life that beings experience. Moreover, he says all beings share these attributes, suggesting that the word which has been translated as "beings" implies "sentient beings.""

 

He who for the sake of happiness hurts others who also want happiness, shall not hereafter find happiness. (Dhammapada, 131.)

From RosemaryAmey.ca

Ignorance is not bliss:

 

 

P.E.T.A.

I was speaking with a friend today about the issue of animal rights and he re-articulated a cogent argument that I wanted to very briefly reproduce, and apply to the issue of fishing.

Harm is bad

Consider any concept of ethics you've heard proffered - from the Stoics to Rawls - and you will notice that the belief that "harm is bad" is either explicitly stated, is implied in the argument itself, or follows. Think about your own beliefs: Shouldn't suffering be limited; don't you accept the premise that pain for example, should be reduced as a matter of ethics?  

Now, to what principle can we appeal when attempting to defend the position that the harm suffered by certain groups doesn't matter ethically - or when we imply that while harm is bad, harm to some groups of people is worse than others? The answer is simple: prejudice. And it's not a defensible position.

The follow example is illuminating: from P.E.T.A. - 'Fishing Hurts'

Because no U.S. law regulates the treatment of fish, both commercial fishers and fish farms treat fish in ways that would warrant felony cruelty-to-animal charges if the victims were dogs or cats instead of fish.

Dragged from the ocean depths, fish undergo excruciating decompression - often the intense internal pressure ruptures their swimbladders, pops out their eyes, and pushes their stomachs through their mouths. Then they're tossed on board, where many slowly suffocate or are crushed to death. Others are still alive when their throats and bellies are cut open. Remarkably, fish farming is even worse because farmed fish are fed 5 pounds of commercially caught fish (species not eaten by humans) for every 1 pound of fish flesh produced.

Factory-farmed fish are subjected to extreme crowding and filthy conditions, which spread infections and parasites. Farmers use antibiotics and other drugs to keep the fish alive and to make them grow, but because the conditions on factory fish farms are so horrendous, up to 40 percent of farmed fish die even before slaughter.

Consider further the issue of "sport" fishing. As opposed to allowing an individual fish to suffocate to death, some people prefer to crush their skulls with a rock. Imagine that; failed attempts aside (although that's just disgusting to think about), consider the fear, distress and pain of that experience.

So, returning to this prejudice: What we say when we are eating animals is that our gastronomical interest - "Fish flesh tastes good" - ought to trump or at least count for more than the fish's fundamental interest in not being harmed (e.g, suffering, pain, death).

But why? Evidence supports the belief that fish can suffer in many of the same ways that I can - including psychologically; they can be harmed to the same degree and intensity, and yet, that doesn't matter to us.  

This is a prejudice; it's similar in kind to racism, classism and sexism. Our defense of this prejudice is as base as bigotry: "They're not humans" - meaning, "They don't belong to our group, so their harm doesn't count." 

How can we implicitly accept this premise while attempting to counter the arguments of the racist for example, who argues that blacks aren't a part of our group, therefore, their interests - no matter how fundamental - ought to be trumped by the interests of the group-members.

It's speciesism. It's as indefensible, ethically, as refusing women entrance into the community of those who matter because they don't have a penis.