Forgiving Animals?

[dudeofthedead]

Imagine this conversation between a regular guy and myself:

 

A Guy : 'You said you don't eat meat because you think that's ethnically wrong but I'm sure any animal predator out there would enjoy every bite of you if given the chance to kill you, so why would I care about its life anyway?'

 

dudeofthedead: 'Dude, you can't compare our method of killing to their own. Humans are lazy and have to rely on other people to get access to their food, there's no doubt many of you omnivores would choose to become vegetarian if they had to hunt for their meat. At least when an animal manages to trigger one's demise, he or she deserves the reward that once used to be your body, perhaps even showing gratitude for being granted this succulent meal while you-- wouldn't even be thankful for what you've been given, as you're wasting huge amounts of food every day. Also, remember they use no tools whatsoever, just their own strength and courage. That kind of commands respect if you ask me.'

 

AG: 'But animals are stupid, besides you almost refer to me as being pieces of meat, as if implying I should be treated the way animals are, and I know deep inside my sensible heart I'm much better than that, as I have developed an intelligence of my own, and learned to appreciate art and I also have what they call desires and feelings.'

 

DOTD: 'If you love meat this much, you should consider devouring your own limbs. I for one am certain you taste really good, you know, although I would stay away from your guts, as I don't want to be soaked in shit. As for these delicate feelings that you believe are unique to your species, they are basically there from the moment we animals are born, you and I both know an unfeeling person would not be conscious of their own existence. Kick me in the balls and maybe I will start crying, as by instinct. When lions mate, it's because, somewhere, they feel like fulfilling an important need. Very much like the same couple of lions would interrupt their coitus if shown hostility, since they would prefer to trust their instinct and feel it's time to run for their lives.'

 

AG: 'It's interesting you mentioned the word 'instinct', well that's it, animals flee because they are driven by instinct, but yet that doesn't mean they have feelings or rights.'

 

DOTD: 'Yeah right (you stoopid ass), like you wouldn't run away screaming out your lungs when being chased by a psychopath. But yet that doesn't mean you have feelings or rights.'

 

END OF DISCUSSION

 

So, what do you think? Some parts are indeed meant to be highly provocative, and I trust it will spawn many contradictory reactions. Although this thread is open to general debate, I want you to focus on the main subject, which is this mutual (animals-humans) choice to kill or not. For example, do you think a spider would choose not to poison you to death in a sudden change of heart because Mrs Widow saw you have a 'pure heart'? Imagine one of your close relatives being attacked by a bear, would you do something to prevent that, or no because then the animal's life is at stake? Does knowing that some animals would not be hesitant to rip us apart justify being cruel to them? You are invited to contribute.

[Richard]

I don't blame non-human animals for their behaviour because I don't think they're really intelligent enough to be held responsible for their actions. It's like blaming a baby for something. They're just doing whatever, they don't understand the big picture I think (generally).

 

Humans on the other hand, they are intelligent enough to understand, and they have a clear choice in lifestyle and diet, there is no need to kill and harm things as a human.

 

In self defense, I think wounding and killing are acceptable, regardless of species, if the threat is real. I mean, I wouldn't kill a wasp or a bee. And I'd run away from a bear or a rhino or whatever. But if it came up that there was no escape, and it's kill or be killed, then I'd kill humans or animals to survive.

[dudeofthedead]

Damn Richard, your responses make up for an interesting read.

 

Though I still find it a bit rude when you say you don't think animals are intelligent enough to be held responsible for their actions, as that makes me think that you still disregard them on some unconscious level. Look, I know it's not true, otherwise you wouldn't even be here. But I think it is better we look at it this way: animals are good at some things that we humans couldn't even dream about, but that doesn't mean we are physically handicapped. There's no use for such a radical way of thinking, remember there are numerous contrasts. Let's say both species are more or less predisposed to perform certain feats while being no good for another bunch of them, and together we 'fill the gaps' (yo Adrian, hmm... sorry), we complete each other.

[Richard]

Damn Richard, your responses make up for an interesting read.

 

Though I still find it a bit rude when you say you don't think animals are intelligent enough to be held responsible for their actions, as that makes me think that you still disregard them on some unconscious level. Look, I know it's not true, otherwise you wouldn't even be here. But I think it is better we look at it this way: animals are good at some things that we humans couldn't even dream about, but that doesn't mean we are physically handicapped. There's no use for such a radical way of thinking, remember there are numerous contrasts. Let's say both species are more or less predisposed to perform certain feats while being no good for another bunch of them, and together we 'fill the gaps' (yo Adrian, hmm... sorry), we complete each other.

 

Yeah I'd agree that each animal does have different abilities which often set them apart from each other. But those abilities aren't what I'd use to judge value of anything. Like I was saying, a human baby isn't capable of knowing right from wrong, and doesn't really have much sense of anything for a while. I think that a human baby is just as 'valuable' as an adult human, and any other animal. But a human baby can't be blamed for his/her actions. If a baby lashes out and pokes me in the eye, I don't say 'stupid baby!' and get mad at it, because the baby doesn't know any better. But if an adult human poked me in the eye, I would have an issue with that person. Similarly, when a cat scratches me, I don't get in a fight with the cat, I don't blame the cat, it wasn't trying to be mean. Humans seem like one of the only species which can deliberately be mean, and that's when I'd blame them for their actions.

[dudeofthedead]

Okay, you regard them as innocent beings, and as our human baby grows up and finally becomes an adult, then that person should take responsibility for his/her actions. I wonder, does the same argument apply to animals as well or are they, in your opinion, to remain innocent children for the rest of their lives, even when grown up?

[Richard]

Okay, you regard them as innocent beings, and as our human baby grows up and finally becomes an adult, then that person should take responsibility for his/her actions. I wonder, does the same argument apply to animals as well or are they, in your opinion, to remain innocent children for the rest of their lives, even when grown up?

 

Yeah, almost all animals seem to me like they are innocent because of their understanding and the way they appear to think and act. If a bear killed my family, I wouldn't track that bear down and get revenge. But if a person did it, I would most likely feel really angry with that person, hate them, because they had a choice, and they knew what they were doing.

[michaelhobson]

I have no affection or respect for predators or carnivores. I know in the case of wild animal predators, they have no choice for their own survival. I just don't find their survival more important than the hundreds of lives they will take during their lifetime. While they can be majestic and beautiful animals, there is always the shadow of murder and pain.

 

Mankind has waged a bloody war against predator animals. It has been a long, bitter and reupulsive eradication, leaving many species near extinction. As much as I condemn this war against animals, I feel the end result is at least positive. I would prefer not to share the world with carnivores of the human or animal kind. My personal utopia is only populated by herbivores.

 

As for human meat eaters, I always tell them that they should be responsible for their own meat. To me that means going out in to the wild bare naked, hunting and killing with their bare hands and eating the corpses raw! How many people would actually pull that off? Not many, there would be a lot more vegans in the world.

[pelicanAndrew]

If we hadn't killed off most of the natural predators nature would be in balance.

 

I believe in living in balance with nature and respecting it. Not eating animals is just one of those ways. I do believe in conservation hunting. I'll use deer as an example. There are way too many of them. Giving people hunting permits helps keep the population in check and helps keep the deer healthy as there is enough food for everyone. Granted humans aren't like wolves and we don't always kill the weakest and sickly. That is my one huge problem i have with it. That and i could never kill a deer because they are beautiful.

[michaelhobson]

If we hadn't killed off most of the natural predators nature would be in balance.

 

I believe in living in balance with nature and respecting it. Not eating animals is just one of those ways. I do believe in conservation hunting. I'll use deer as an example. There are way too many of them. Giving people hunting permits helps keep the population in check and helps keep the deer healthy as there is enough food for everyone. Granted humans aren't like wolves and we don't always kill the weakest and sickly. That is my one huge problem i have with it. That and i could never kill a deer because they are beautiful.

 

Hunting, now there's a vegan idea.

 

Do you really believe that modern 'hunting' i.e. military operations against deer is a good idea. Do you really believe it balances the population? Deer hunting like everything else in this country is big business and money. The hunting season is designed to wipe out the males leaving plenty of food for the babymaking females, therefore keeping the deer population at it's absolute maximum. When there is less food available, as in the males eating some too, female deer quickly become infertile and populations control themselves naturally as they did for millennia. Wolves never played a major part that I know of in controlling deer populations.

 

And the idea that murdering deer "helps keep the deer healthy" is just absurd! Wow, how disappointing to hear this opinion from a 'vegan'.

[Guest]

I think killing anything in self defense is fine no matter what the situation...unless of course the being would be easy to restrain. Other than that in terms of my own veganism I wouldn't want forgiveness from animals I've eaten since that would mean it was OK for me to do it in my eyes

[offense74]

And the idea that murdering deer "helps keep the deer healthy" is just absurd! Wow, how disappointing to hear this opinion from a 'vegan'.

First if you're going to say stuff like this you have to give us your definition of what a vegan is. If you ask 100 vegans you would probably get 50 different anweres.

Hunting is not as simple as you make it sound. I've seen plenty of discussions between vegans (who appose all hunting) and hunters. Both of these believe that the other is in this for personal reasons and actually don't care about the welfare of animals.

Dick Cheney type hunting (where you breed something that can hardly move and then shoot it) is of course a dumbass activity. But if a population of animals is growing so rapidly so it eats all the food available it will have the consequence that other animals doesn't eat the food and might be endangered it also meens that didease is spread more easily among the spieces (and possibly others) population. If a few humans gets a deadly desease you can isolate them but this is not easily made with birds, locusts, mosquitos, rodents or even deer. In those cases it might be better to kill 10 animals instead of watching 50000 die.

I don't like hunting as such but it can sometimes be the lesser of two evils.

[pelicanAndrew]

If we hadn't killed off most of the natural predators nature would be in balance.

 

I believe in living in balance with nature and respecting it. Not eating animals is just one of those ways. I do believe in conservation hunting. I'll use deer as an example. There are way too many of them. Giving people hunting permits helps keep the population in check and helps keep the deer healthy as there is enough food for everyone. Granted humans aren't like wolves and we don't always kill the weakest and sickly. That is my one huge problem i have with it. That and i could never kill a deer because they are beautiful.

 

Hunting, now there's a vegan idea.

 

Do you really believe that modern 'hunting' i.e. military operations against deer is a good idea. Do you really believe it balances the population? Deer hunting like everything else in this country is big business and money. The hunting season is designed to wipe out the males leaving plenty of food for the babymaking females, therefore keeping the deer population at it's absolute maximum. When there is less food available, as in the males eating some too, female deer quickly become infertile and populations control themselves naturally as they did for millennia. Wolves never played a major part that I know of in controlling deer populations.

 

And the idea that murdering deer "helps keep the deer healthy" is just absurd! Wow, how disappointing to hear this opinion from a 'vegan'.

 

I had no idea about the food thing. I always thought it was the deer who helped keep population in check.

 

I was talking more about conservation hunting and not the "grrr i'm big and manly and can kill animals cause i spent thousands of dollars on a high powered rifle!" type of hunting. Most conservation hunters use bows and donate the meat they get to the poor.

[michaelhobson]

And the idea that murdering deer "helps keep the deer healthy" is just absurd! Wow, how disappointing to hear this opinion from a 'vegan'.

First if you're going to say stuff like this you have to give us your definition of what a vegan is. If you ask 100 vegans you would probably get 50 different anweres.

 

I define vegan as "ethical vegan", someone who believes animals have rights, the most basic of which is life. Dietary vegans are not vegans at all, they simply don't eat animal products. I think if you asked 100 real vegans, you would get 100 similar answers, not 50 different ones.

 

I was talking more about conservation hunting and not the "grrr i'm big and manly and can kill animals cause i spent thousands of dollars on a high powered rifle!" type of hunting. Most conservation hunters use bows and donate the meat they get to the poor.

 

Disappointed again! I see little if any difference between murdering and murdering a human. Murder=Wrong, what is the debate about? There are 40 states in the U.S. that have deer murder seasons. There are no national statistics kept, but most states I checked report deer murders on average of 250,000 per year. That's over 10 million murdered annually in this country alone, and we wonder why Americans aren't outraged that Bush has murdered over 100,000 Iraqis, murder is part of our culture.

 

Why would anyone visit a vegan message board, post in the Animal Rights forum and attempt to support deer hunting. I just don't get it.

 

A few of the dead and their killers...

 

http://www.bird-n-buck.com/FLATBED_BUCKS_03.jpg

 

http://www.buckfax.com/images/Deer/Andrew%20Schafer%20fisrt%20buck%202005%20bow.jpg

 

http://www.wyomingoutdoorsradio.com/vaughan%20buck%20ready.jpg

 

http://www.wyomingoutdoorsradio.com/logue%20bull%20ready.jpg

 

http://www.wyomingoutdoorsradio.com/kusterbuckready.jpg

 

http://www.indianpointcamp.com/images/deer-hunting.jpg

 

http://www.crai-ky.com/staff/outdoors/2000/fall2000-deer-in-truck.jpg

 

http://www.minnesota-resort.com/Deer_NelsCrew2.jpg

 

http://mn-resort.com/Deer9_NelsCrew_cropped.jpg

 

http://www.coueswhitetail.com/az_rifle_hunters/tasa-coues-deer-barn.jpg

 

Welcome to reality! It's good to know these butchers have your support!

[jonzen]

MichaelHobson, if there is one thing I have gathered by reading your entries, it is that you seem to truly enjoy the art of argument.

 

My feeling is that there is room for all levels of veganism and all beliefs. And by my saying this, I could imagine that you might dismiss me as not being worthy of calling myself a vegan?

 

Your views are sometimes extreme to me, but I support your right to them. I only have challenges with you when you come down so hard on others for speaking.

[michaelhobson]

MichaelHobson, if there is one thing I have gathered by reading your entries, it is that you seem to truly enjoy the art of argument.

 

My feeling is that there is room for all levels of veganism and all beliefs. And by my saying this, I could imagine that you might dismiss me as not being worthy of calling myself a vegan?

 

Your views are sometimes extreme to me, but I support your right to them. I only have challenges with you when you come down so hard on others for speaking.

 

Yes, you wouldn't want to actually address the issue. It's much easier to just dismiss the messenger?

 

There are no "levels of veganism", it's very simple really. If you aren't vegan, that's fine I like you anyway, but why call yourself vegan? That's the part I don't understand. It's not some great social prize to be vegan, you simply are or aren't.

 

And yes, as I have said before, this is a vegan board. I will always come down hard on anti-vegan sentiments.

[Trev]

I have no affection or respect for predators or carnivores. I know in the case of wild animal predators, they have no choice for their own survival. I just don't find their survival more important than the hundreds of lives they will take during their lifetime. While they can be majestic and beautiful animals, there is always the shadow of murder and pain.

 

Mankind has waged a bloody war against predator animals. It has been a long, bitter and reupulsive eradication, leaving many species near extinction. As much as I condemn this war against animals, I feel the end result is at least positive. I would prefer not to share the world with carnivores of the human or animal kind. My personal utopia is only populated by herbivores.

 

As for human meat eaters, I always tell them that they should be responsible for their own meat. To me that means going out in to the wild bare naked, hunting and killing with their bare hands and eating the corpses raw! How many people would actually pull that off? Not many, there would be a lot more vegans in the world.

 

My apologies for rewinding the thread a little, but I see some conflicts with your thinking. I think judging predators and non-predators is one of the things we humans have done to distance ourselves and place ourselves above the natural order of things. It is our great arrogance. Non-human animals, predators or not, do what they have to in order to survive, nothing more. They don't kill out of malice, they kill to eat. Sharks can't switch their diet to seaweed all of a sudden, nor can lions.They have evolved in this way to help maintain the balance in nature. When mankind eradicates predators, the balance is upset. This gives rise to things like overpopulation, and allows humans to justify things like "conservation" hunting.

 

Is it possible to have an herbivore-exclusive utopia? No. It has never occurred on this earth. To say that you have no respect or affection for predators or carnivores is the same as saying you have no respect for nature. How can you segregate animals? If you call yourself an animal rights activist, do you oppose the slaughtering of herbivores, but condone the abuse of circus lions, or the finning of sharks for soup? You also said that eventhough animals can be majestic and beautiful - which are exclusively human judgments made only for our benefit (this is why humans hang animal heads on their walls) - and you condemn the war on predators, the end result is positive. Positive? So, hunting the polar bear into extinction is okay by your moral code, because they won't kill any more harp seals. How is that any different from killing deer?

 

Murder is manmade - it is a word, a subjective term. It is unfair, and unethical to impose it on animals of other species, and use it to decide whether they should live or die. If we need to kill to survive, so be it. Vegans know we don't. I like to think that the definition of a vegan includes some understanding of the natural world, since that is essentially what we are attempting to return to by becoming vegan.

[offense74]

I define vegan as "ethical vegan", someone who believes animals have rights, the most basic of which is life. Dietary vegans are not vegans at all, they simply don't eat animal products. I think if you asked 100 real vegans, you would get 100 similar answers, not 50 different ones.

So if we see that life is going to be destroyed is it our responsibility to stop it? Was it a good thing that the US joined in to stop Hitler? According to your standpoint Murder=Wrong (human or animal) I'd say you would let Hitler continue? Killing nazis is the lesser of two evils. Killing 10 animals to save 50000 is according to me lesser of two evils too. Can you see how some people that eats only vegetation would consider it cruel and not ethical not to kill the 10 animals or try to stop the nazis?

With the definition you have of a vegan the "angel competition" always start. It always ends up with 1 vegan out of all that were in the discussion. Trust me, there are other vegans that wouldn't call you vegan either. But I'm fine with whatever you want to call me or anybody else.

Some hunters have definitely played a leading role in wildland & habitat conservation but most have done so primarily to make sure that they get to keep hunting...

 

Whatever your opinion of "conservation hunters", etc - there is no question that humans have wrecked havoc on nature & put it WAY out of balance. We do so by destroying &/or degrading natural habitats / wildlands, by introducing invasive species that wipe out the natives and by hunting critters to extinction - including predatory animals that are vital to healthy ecosystems. We need to take action to correct these wrongs.

I agree with this completely.

Inuites, Bushmen and Maasai hunt. That doesn't meen that they are responsible for the massive eradication of animals on this planet. Just by living where we are and doing our stuff we kill more animals than they can ever dream to do. I didn't see you being nearly as frustrated and angry when it came to the climate issue for example and that kills way more animals.

[Gaia]

The fear of death is the last obstacle to resolve.

 

Almost there.

[Richard]

there are other ways to help the environment and species of animals and controlling population besides shooting them.

 

I understand where hobby is coming from, but if there were no predators at all, then herbivorous creatures would over-breed in the wild, eat all the plants in the area, and then many of them would starve to death before the plants grew back to support the population. Starving to death sucks, I don't know which is really worse; starving or being eaten. You'd have to some how control how many herbivores were born in the first place, and then supply them with enough food for their life times, and then they'd all live out happy lives until they die of old age or disease. But simply getting rid of predators, I'm not sure if it would be of great use?

[michaelhobson]

Is it possible to have an herbivore-exclusive utopia? No. It has never occurred on this earth. To say that you have no respect or affection for predators or carnivores is the same as saying you have no respect for nature. How can you segregate animals?

 

That's why I labeled it "my personal utopia", I don't expect that it's eveer going to exist, utopia is a fictional place. I couldn't support getting there anyway, I wouldn't support killing carnivores. However, much of the killing has already been done and I'm not necessarily in favor of repopulating these animals. If they make it on their own, that's fine. I have no problem segregating animals, they're no different than people, some I like and some I don't. Carnivores of either class usually fall in to the don't-like category.

 

I like to think that the definition of a vegan includes some understanding of the natural world, since that is essentially what we are attempting to return to by becoming vegan.

 

Vegan and returning to the natural world are vastly different pursuits. Rewilding groups such as http://www.wildroots.org/ consider themselves post-vegan, and support hunting and eating animals. Rewilding is much more a process or returning to the natural world. Veganism is directly opposed to this thought process, we seek to enable a cruelty-free existence. This process involves such things as b-12 supliments, soy protein, synthetic fabrics and shoes etc., not natural by any standard.

[michaelhobson]

So if we see that life is going to be destroyed is it our responsibility to stop it? Was it a good thing that the US joined in to stop Hitler? According to your standpoint Murder=Wrong (human or animal) I'd say you would let Hitler continue? Killing nazis is the lesser of two evils. Killing 10 animals to save 50000 is according to me lesser of two evils too. Can you see how some people that eats only vegetation would consider it cruel and not ethical not to kill the 10 animals or try to stop the nazis?

 

In this case, the hunters are the nazis, and as in the last century, the nazis must be stopped. I have no moral problem with killing hunters. I'd do it myself, the only thing that stops me is fear of being caught and going to prison. I think I can do more good for animals on the outside.

 

With the definition you have of a vegan the "angel competition" always start. It always ends up with 1 vegan out of all that were in the discussion. Trust me, there are other vegans that wouldn't call you vegan either. But I'm fine with whatever you want to call me or anybody else.

 

My definition of vegan is very inclusive, not hardline by any standards in the vegan community. Dismissing true vegan values as an "angel competition" is just an easy out. Vegans don't hunt and don't support hunters, it's that simple. I don't want to call you anything, but if you support hunting why call 'yourself' vegan?

[Gaia]

From what I am reading, you can call yourself a vegan and still be filled with hate and violence. And compassion is for only a select few.

 

This is why I've decided not to call myself vegan anymore. I shall say that my diet is plant-based, and so is my environment. Every since I started looking at vegan forums, I've noticed an undercurrent of violence and negativity. How isolated and misunderstood the vegans are. How righteous we are, and how everybody else is so wrong. I feel like I am right back in church again as a kid. No thanks. I love all of God's creations, with their faults and assets. And that includes Man. Even when one is so angry and will use murder to oppose murder.

 

The last sentence was in reference to michael's getting away with murder on killing the hunters, but when I stop and think about it, it is with all war. It can be an individual case, or go macro and take it to the world's war on terror. With all of our history, we still don't get that violence begets violence.

[Richard]

From what I am reading, you can call yourself a vegan and still be filled with hate and violence. And compassion is for only a select few.

 

This is why I've decided not to call myself vegan anymore. I shall say that my diet is plant-based, and so is my environment. Every since I started looking at vegan forums, I've noticed an undercurrent of violence and negativity. How isolated and misunderstood the vegans are. How righteous we are, and how everybody else is so wrong. I feel like I am right back in church again as a kid. No thanks. I love all of God's creations, with their faults and assets. And that includes Man. Even when one is so angry and will use murder to oppose murder.

 

The last sentence was in reference to michael's getting away with murder on killing the hunters, but when I stop and think about it, it is with all war. It can be an individual case, or go macro and take it to the world's war on terror. With all of our history, we still don't get that violence begets violence.

 

I know what you mean about the word 'veganism' because there seems to be such disagreement about what it means, even amongst people who say they are vegan. I'm not sure what you're saying about hunting though?

[offense74]

I don't want to call you anything, but if you support hunting why call 'yourself' vegan?

I don't. I use it as a convenience word when I eat at veggie places so that I don't get dairy in my food. Since the word here in Sweden is not connected to positive thoughts in the general population I see no point dragging myself down with the 'real vegans'. The picture is that of violence, anger, extreme (left) political views, alienation and hate.

When it comes to hunting I'm just challanging your black and white view and the consequences that might follow from such a view.

 

Everywhere I looked on the 'net, your definition of a vegan never comes up. It clearly states that you can be vegan for various reasons such as health, environment, animal rights, animal welfare, whatever.

There will always be someone who like lives up in a tree, eating bark that will tell you that you don't care enough and thus shouldn't call yourself a vegan. Why is his definition wrong and yours right? You obviously draw a line somewhere and so does others. Where did you find your definition and why is it better than other definitions?

[Crash]

Actually soy protein and b12 are natural components. Alot of meat eaters are also experiencing a b12 deficiency as noted below, because b12 is made from bacteria.

Myth vs. Reality
 
The reason touted for the B12 myth is that B12 is found primarily in animal foods. Very few plant foods provide good sources of B12, they say. In a way that's true, but only because the source of B12 is not plants OR animals; neither manufacture their own B12. In the B12 reality, Bacteria are the B12 producers on which both plants and animals rely. And in humans, that bacteria doesn't necessarily come from plants -- the mouth, upper intestine, and lower intestine all contain bacteria that produce B12. However, it's unknown if enough B12 to meet the daily requirement comes from internal sources of B12. More likely, they produce some, and the rest comes in with food and water consumed.
 
All of the Vitamin B12 in the world ultimately comes from bacteria. Neither plants nor animals can synthesize it. But plants can be contaminated with B12 when they come in contact with soil bacteria that produce it. Animal foods are rich in B12 only because animals eat foods that are contaminated with it or because bacteria living in an animal's intestines make it.
 
Most people with B12 deficiencies and/or pernicious anemia are NOT vegans. Very few vegans have pernicious anemia. B12 deficiencies occur primarily when:
1.) Something is competing for your B12 (like parasites);
2.) Something is destroying your B12 (like cyanide in cigarettes); or
3.) Something is preventing the proper absorption of B12 (inadequate production of intrinsic factor).

I don't support hunting to control the population -- would any condone the killing of humans due to overpopulation ? If not, what's the difference ? Like it or not, predators are a part of nature and are built to be carnivores - humans are not. With the predators' eradication due to hunting, people moving in and destroying their environments, of course there will be a surge in other populations (ie, deer). (However, I do believe that one year deer were brought in to PA prior to the hunting season. )

 

As for who's vegan and who's not - imho actions are what matter (ie, not eating, wearing, or using products derived from animals).

I think judging predators and non-predators is one of the things we humans have done to distance ourselves and place ourselves above the natural order of things. It is our great arrogance. Non-human animals, predators or not, do what they have to in order to survive, nothing more. They don't kill out of malice, they kill to eat.

I agree with Trev on this point. Man is the only species that will kill for sport, entertainment, fashion, greed, etc. Very base reasons, considering most humans like to think they are the "superior species." Imo humans are just another species on this planet that like to fool themselves into believing they are in control. This mindset may have worked when the human species was trying to survive, but that doesn't make it any more true now than it was then.

 

True carnivores kill only to survive.

 

Gaia - hang in there. We've all gone through many emotional upsets and sometimes people let off steam. Don't take it personally.