Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Guest's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Yeah, yoga's great for bodybuilding. Check out this advanced yogi, Harold Zinkin (Mr. California 1957 and founder of the company that makes the Universal Gym), doing a backbend at Muscle Beach. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/09/09/2003251540.jpg
  2. Hi Kate! Yep, this is one of those comments I find so annoying. I mean think about it, what's this person really getting at? Don't women and men have the same basic needs for protein? Can't women be big and strong? I bet people who say this sort have some backward thinking when it comes to women. I think these comments are cross of male chauvinism and a disregard for other animals. You get the same "be a real man" crap when you refuse to exploit or be cruel to women. Like, it might be just as easy to think of someone telling your spouse to be a "real man" and break an important commitment with you to go hangout and have a few drinks. After all, he wouldn't want to be thought of as "whipped," right? For crying out load, if you're male and oppose most forms of violence, like dropping bombs on women and children in far off countries, you're also accused of not being a "real man." Hopefully, if someone was telling your spouse to "be a real man" and disrespect you he would at the very least ignore them or tell them to buzz off. It wouldn't do either of you any good for him to try to conform to the male-stereotype, and the same goes for eating animal-products. But ignoring them, or telling them to buzz off, might not be the best option. I think what I would do is attempt to be more assertive. If I ignore them then they may likely just keep trying. And if I tell them to buzz off they might just keep trying. But if I stand up for my rights and the rights of those they're insisting I ignore then they'll at least have an understanding of where I'm coming from and that I'm not likely to be easily manipulated by attacks on my "manhood." But then again, I'm not interested in acting like a "man." <3 Guest
  3. SiNa94, I just want to let you know that, while I disagree with you on many points, I consider each of your posts to be a gift. I appreciate the chance you are giving me to exercise my brain by challenging my thinking as I continue to strive to end the institutional exploitation and killing of other animals. The more I disagree with your posts, the more I am challenged, and the more I am thankful for your gift. I feel you are helping me become a better vegan advocate by giving me these opportunities, and I'm pleased to accept each of your gifts and look forward to the next. <3 Guest
  4. Actually, it is the original context. Singer, as you point out, straight up says, "I do not, on balance, object to free-range egg production." Regardless of whatever "on balance" refers to, Singer is still talking about the exploitation of hens. Singer even admits that all male chicks are slaughtered and is still "on balance" is not opposed to "free-range" eggs. Of course, it isn't Singer's life being balanced away as "relatively minor" so that some animal exploiter can profit from pandering to the taste buds of people who like the "luxury" of Egg Foo Yong (see early versions of Animal Liberation for Singer's recipe, which instructs the reader to "beat up some eggs -- free-range, of course"). I don't agree that "on balance" the vital interest in a hen and her male chicks living and not being exploited is "relatively minor," as Singer put it, when compared to the nonvital interest of a human making a profit so another human can have an insignificant taste sensation. I think Singer isn't even attempting an "equal consideration of interest." How does a taste sensation win out over life? That line makes my point directly. That Singer does "not ... object to free-range egg production" -- a form of exploitation that Singer calls "factory farming" in The Way We Eat. Exploitation is using others for one's own benefit. Using hens to produce eggs and then killing them "when they cease to lay productively" is a clear cut case of exploitation. In short, Singer is not "committed to the view that we can no longer treat animals as our resources." Using hens to produce eggs, regardless of the method, is still treating these animals as resources. All the quotes are Singer's own words. Are you saying Singer is biased against himself? As for killing? There is nothing else which one can steal form another that is of greater worth. Life is a prerequisite to anything else. Killing really is just about the ultimate in exploitation, isn't it? When a person take another's life for their own benefit they have basically exploited the one they killed to the utmost -- totally used the other up to the point there is nothing left to take. Veganism pre-dates Peter Singer's philosophy by more than 30-years. Veganism is a movement founded in 1944 as a way of life that rejects exploitation of animals, including killing. The term "vegan" was created by Donald Watson who became vegan after visiting an uncle's family farm where all the animals were living in what Singer would call "natural conditions." Watson came to the conclusion that "the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered by the point at which they were no longer of service to human beings." Thus, Watson joined with others to build a vegan movement that is opposed to such idyllic scenes. Keep in mind, this wasn't even the industrial "free-range" operations that Singer is in support of. What Watson is talking about is a pre-World War II, pre-industrial agriculture, pastoral farm. Singer sees the much less idyllic scene of the "free-range" industry where animals, like the hen and her chicks, are being killed when they are not of use to their exploiters and comes to the exact opposite conclusion as Watson. In the "disclaimer" you highlight, Singer clearly talks about not being opposing to what Watson rightly calls "death row." So long as Singer thinks "on balance" the enslaved and executed didn't suffer more than the benefit derived from that enslavement and subsequent slaughter he is willing to support it. However, exploitation and killing are still exploitation and killing. Regardless of whether Peter Singer thinks that exploitation was "pleasant" enough to justify killing, exploitation and killing are not vegan. It never was, and never will be.
  5. Actually, Singer is quite clear on being supportive of a world in which animal exploitation continues, whether it's humans using nonhumans for their own benefit, or humans using other humans. That is, Singer's "end goal" is compatible with animal exploitation. In fact, when Singer was asked the question: "What is the end goal for which you are advocating?" by The Minnesota Daily in March 2006: And when responding in the journal Behavioral and Brain Science in 1990: So Singer is not opposed to the exploitation when it comes to using nonhumans for human benefits. This is a constant part Singer's philosophy going back to Animal Liberation. An example: And in an interview from the Autumn 2006 issue of The Vegan, the magazine of The Vegan Society: So Singer is perfectly fine with exploitation, at least as long as the suffering brought on is not far beyond that experienced by a so-called "free-range" hen. Mind you, in Singer's book The Way We Eat, co-authored with Jim Mason, Singer describes the living conditions of "free-range" hens as "factory farming." And at the end of that book, Singer still goes on to recommended that consumers "buy the more expensive but better-tasting eggs from hens free to move around inside sheds." (These aren't even so-called "free-range" eggs, but the even more intensively produced so-called "cage-free" eggs.) Singer describes a vegan lifestyle as the less attractive "other choice," as opposed to the "better-tasting" one. Also, The Vegan is a publication that goes to the members of The Vegan Society, which means that the readers are basically all vegans. And in an interview for this publication Singer calls "free-range" eggs -- again, eggs that come from the same type of exploitive setup Singer called a "factory farm" in The Way We Eat -- a "luxury," and even went on to endorse the consumption of flesh. So, the subtext of all this is that while Singer won't advocate veganism to people, Singer will advocate the consumption of animal products to vegans. I disagree with Singer's philosophy largely because the philosophy is not oppose to exploitation. Were Singer really opposed to animal exploitation I would most likely think differently. Saying "Singer does not agree with animal exploitation" is just the sort of "oversimplification" that is likely to make the philosopher "testy."
  6. In the chapter titled "A Response," in Singer and His Critics (ed. Dale Jamieson), Singer writes that he has "moved to a near-vegan diet, but I am not strict about it, and do not advocate veganism to others, or at least not to those who are not already in the animal movement, because at the present stage of development of our society's concern for animals, this seems to be asking more than most people are prepared to give. In other words, to advocate veganism may be counterproductive." The "present stage of development of our society" is almost identical to the definition of status quo: the existing state of affairs, esp. regarding social or political issues. Of course veganism is "asking more than most people are prepared to give." That's the whole point of working for social change. Antiracist activist Tim Wise points out: "In 1963, about three-quarters of white Americans, according to Gallup polls, believed that the civil rights movement was moving 'too fast' and asking for 'too much.'" And Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "White America is not even psychologically organized to close the gap—essentially, it seeks only to make it less painful and less obvious." As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and abolitionist, wrote in a letter in 1849: So even though in 1963 civil rights were, as Singer puts it for animals, "asking more than most people are prepared to give," the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and it was only passed because people did what Singer is not willing to do: advocate! As Douglass wrote: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will." Perhaps not. But I think it is a false "liberation" that leaves the so-called "liberated" exploited and oppressed. As you likely know, Singer is not opposed to exploitation of nonhuman animals. If Singer doesn't believe that nonhumans deserve freedom than Singer's use of the term "liberation" too hollow and insincere. I like how Gary Francione addresses this in Introduction to Animal Rights: So even if I don't agree with Francione's rights philosophy at least we agree on abolishing animal exploitation, which is more than I can say for Singer.
  7. I'm not saying that I don't have a problem with Ward Churchill pretending to be an Indian. I actually do think there are a number of problems with that. I also think Churchill has taken advantage of a racist system that privileges his whiteness. So this is a case of Churchill being in a position to critique racism and the genocide of Native Americans and actually contributing to it. That is, Ward Churchill took a spot that should have gone to a Native American, but didn't. This means Churchill played a role in the displacement of Native Americans, which is related to the pattern of genocide experienced by Native Americans. In this way I think we might actually be in agrement. I just think that is an issue that needs to be addressed in it's own context. But I think you sort of said that when you wrote, "I know thats not what its about."
  8. Please, don't put words in my mouth. I do not appreciate false and mileading statements like the insulting, and imaginary, picture you using to charaterize me. I said nothing about being "totalitarian" or "militant." That was your misrepresentation of vegan advocay, which you again repeat here without an agrument -- it's just your negative opinion. I do believe these statements are cynical and disparaging about veganism, to say the least. I also think it is hateful and appalling to associate vegan advocacy with Hitler the way you are doing. Where in the world did you dream up that grotesque association of linking a vegan movement with killing Jews? I don't believe that anyone who understood the philsophy of veganism would write such a thing -- it's completely counter to what veganism stands for. I'd like to point out that no one, other than yourself, has said anything about "getting in people's faces, cursing them because they eat meat, vandalizing their property, etc." Is this really what you think of vegan advocacy? Because it doesn't show any respect for the vegan advocates. Why do you think that if a person doesn't support the violence of stalking and killing free-living animals or the violence of so-called "humane" rape, enslavement and mass killing then that person must use violence to promote such nonviolence? That is a totally illogical and contradictory conclusion. I, personally, think it is strange that you say such warm, positive things about people who get pleasure out of doing violence to free-living nonhumans, but have such a defeatist and hostile view of vegan advocacy and the people who encourage nonviolence towards all animals -- human and nonhuman. Yes, it's called prejudice when you judge someone too quickly. My arguement doesn't hint at anything close to what you describe, yet you have made a personal attack against me as a person -- this is prejudice. Ironically, this means you're the one going off on me. I simply arguing my view about whether it is a good idea to support hunting to ban factory farming. I agree with Hero and say no to both stalking-killing free-living animals and the superexploitation of enslaved nonhumans for food. Veganism is opposed to hunting, period. I don't see how it is fair to make assumptions about me simply because I disagree with you. Nor do I think it is appropriate to malign vegan advocacy in the way you have by implying that the promotion of veganism -- that is, opposed to all violence and exploitation of animals -- is "totalitarian" or necessitates "getting in people's faces."
  9. Please read my article on this forum: "The Environment." As an animal advocate, a vegan and an environmentalist I cannot work with "hunters," people who stalk and kill nonhumans. And I argue that it is counter to animal advocacy, veganism and environmental protection to work with these stalker-killers. Being silent against stalking-killing is a form of passive support. Again, it is like saying, "The hunters came for the free-living animals, but I only care about factory farming so I won't speak out." That quote you used was about speaking out, yet you are arguing against speaking out. As I point out in my article, environmental organizations do not take a strong stand against the superexploitation of nonhuman animals because that would alienate the stalking-killing "allies." So why would stalker-killers take a stand against such superexploitation as factory farming? The fact is that they wouldn't, because the philosophy of institutional "hunting" is actually based on the same consecpt of superexploitation that factory farming is based on. Aldo Leopold literally wrote the book on modern "hunting" -- "Game Management." In this book, Leopold refers to free-living animals as "crops" to be maximized through human control for "harvest." (That's exactly how factory farmers refer to nonhumans.) This is an out growth of Gifford Pinchot utilitarian philosophy and is writen into the all state and federal laws that govern stalking-killing. Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt invented the "hunter's ethic" to promote the recreational, sport-like trophy killing of living beings. (Pinchot's and Roosevelt's club for stalker-killers, the Boone and Crocket Club, gave points for the size of the nonhumans that the members killed. "Fair chase" was about formalizing rules for this competitive stalking and killing.) This is hardly a pro-"humane" philosophy. If stalker-killers really believed in not causing suffering they wouldn't stalk and kill nonhumans in the first place. The folks who are going to be "divided and conquered" are the animal advocates. It is a split between anti-"hunting" and anti-factory farming that is being proposed. A universal approach to animal rights -- that actually opposes the oppression of nonhumans as a whole -- has not been attempted, yet. The current approach is the piecemeal approach you recommend. I think that an alternative approach that is consistent and systematic is what is needed. Not the division of nonhuman oppression that is being suggested. Well, Peter Singer has never claimed to be opposed to vivisection as a whole. We are all humans, and therefore we all benefit from nonhuman oppression. So yes, we do have something in common with vivisectors. But I think the point is to challenge that oppression, not embrace it. It's inconsistent to say one suffering is more important than the other. As Suzanne Parr points out: "There in no hierarchy of oppressions. Each is terrible and destructive. To eliminate one oppression successfully, a movement has to include work to eliminate them all or else success will always be limited and incomplete." So-called "cage-free" eggs are factory farm eggs. These are eggs from concentrated shed opperations. Even Peter Singer admitted, in The Way We Eat, these shed eggs are factory farmed, but still supported it. So the campus is still serving factory farm eggs. In the end, chickens are still being superexploited. In addition, this superexploitation has the blessing of so-called "animal advocates." However, HSUS is not a vegan or vegetarian organization. The president of HSUS explicitly stated as much in a letter published in a major Montana newspaper -- countering another letter that claimed the organization was opposed to "meat." Yes, the organization claims to oppose some forms of factory farming. But they also consent to and promote other forms of factory farming, like concentrated-shed egg production. Yet Peter Singer and HSUS have come up with defenses for flesh, eggs and dairy that is not the "worst" form. Even what is being suggested in this thread makes an implicit defense of stalking-killing and flesh, eggs and dariy that is perceived as "factory farmed." I think this is counterproductive. I think this as an extremely cynical and disparaging statement about veganism. This makes me sad, considering we are on a vegan forum. I guess this is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we have an internalized "negative connotations for the movement," as is being promoted with the pessimistic and dismissive cliché "all or nothing," then of course "we will only create negative connotations for the movement." We won't get what we don't ask for. I think what has been proposed in this thread is what creates the negative connotations. I think John Muir had the big picture when warning against the utilitarian point of view, "None of our fellow mortals is safe who eats what we eat, who in any way interferes with our pleasures, or who may be used for work or food, clothing or ornament, or mere cruel, sportish amusement." If we don't challenge it all, then those fellow mortal will remain in danger.
  10. I have to disagree with this on a fundamental level. I believe we can, and must, argue for rights now! Carpe diem! I don't see any logical progression of "welfare" to rights. I think the McDonald's and other PeTA campaigns have been complete failures in terms of animal rights, and victories for the exploitation of nonhuman animals. From my perspective, these campaigns have not resulted in meaningful improvements for nonhuman animals. They have not helped dismantle the systemic exploitation of nonhumans. Rather, they have generated good-will for the corporations that profit from the systemic exploitation of nonhumans. I believe what PeTA did, and is doing, was get in bed with the corporations profiting from the exploitation of nonhumans. The people who consult for PeTA on these campaigns are folks like Dr. Janice Swanson and Dr. Temple Grandin. These are the architects of the new systems nonhuman exploitation, which consists of raping ("breeding"), enslaving ("rearing") and slaughtering ("processing") nonhuman living beings. Again, the quote about the Nazis is being misused -- and this shows the disconnect between what is being suggested and the reality for nonhuman animals. The quote doesn't mean we should get our foot in the door of the Nazi death machine by helping make the slaughter of the Communists, the Socialists, the Trade Unionists, and the Jews more "humane." So it is also counter to the so-called "welfare" campaigns that promote the "best practices" of the corporate death machine. I hear SiNa94 influence by Peter Singer. PeTA is also influenced by Singer. However, Singer doesn't support animals right. So there again is a logical failure in the "welfare" to rights line of thinking. Nor does Singer support veganism, and is not opposed to nonhuman destruction and exploitation. Nor is Matthew Scully a supporter of either veganism or animal rights. Both Singer and Scully, like PeTA, appeal to the status quo that believes it's okay to exploit nonhumans as long as the so-called "worst abuses" are eliminated. These are all conservative perspectives. Given this, of course I disagree with the premise that SiNa94 has put forward. I don't plan to wait until after I'm dead to promote animals' rights. And I think that a vegan community like this should be a place to affirm animal rights and oppose all animal exploitation. If I want to read pro-hunting, anti-nonhuman stuff I can open any newspaper. In my opinion, social change doesn't come from pandering to existing prejudices and power structure, but rather from challenging the existing prejudices and power structure. The threads "vegetarians are evil" and "10 reasons why the vegan diet will kill you" are critical of those titles, unlike this thread were "Support hunting to ban factory farms?" is being argued in a way that is counter to the interests of free-living animals. I'm challenging what is being proposed by SiNa94 because I find it abhorrent. It's not that I "misunderstand" what is being suggested, but that I understand it and I'm against it.
  11. [The following is an article I wrote titled "The Environment" that was published in the fall of 2006.] Animal agriculture degrades the environment in many ways – from deforestation and grassland destruction to water pollution; from intensive energy consumption and global warming to the global expansion of farmland; from the global spread of diseases to biodiversity loss and threats of extinction.[1] This is a well-established reality, and it has been for some time. On energy consumption and global warming, Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, found that removing animal products from one’s diet would reduce greenhouse emissions, eliminating 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide that each person generates in a year, as well as reducing methane (which has 21 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide) and nitrous oxide. By comparison, switching to a hybrid car would only eliminate 1 ton of carbon dioxide per year.[2] Nevertheless, mainstream environmental organizations have yet to confront animal agribusiness -- and their members’ support for this sector -- in a serious way. If Eshel’s and Martin’s findings come as a surprise, it is precisely because environmental groups have hesitated to inform the public. Vegans and other animal advocates have long been aware of the ecological impact of animal consumption. And as early as 1944 the founders of the Vegan Society emphasized the importance of a conservation ethic in their charter, which defines veganism as taking into account humanity's “responsibilities to the earth and its resources and seeks to bring about a healthy soil … and a proper use of the materials of the earth.”[3] Animal rights and environmental advocacy have much to gain from each other in the effort to protect and restore land and water and intervene in pollution and global climate change. The fusion of animal rights and environmental advocacy would bring speed and synergy to these related causes. A major obstacle to the unification of the two communities, especially in terms of land preservation, wilderness advocacy and endangered species protection, is the view of conservation formed by hunters at the end of the 19th century, when several species of hunted animals teetered on the verge of extinction. At that time, as today, the conservation movement was fragmented between those wanting to protect nature for nature’s sake, and those wanting to manage nature for human use – the latter comprising the majority. One of the earliest and most adamant advocates of the former view was John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club. Muir’s vision of conservation as the preservation of untamed wilderness contrasted with that of Gifford Pinchot, a forester and politician who advocated for conservation as the utilitarian management of natural recourses. In 1904, Muir noted, in a letter on the preservation of free-living animals, “The murder business and sport by saint and sinner alike has been pushed ruthlessly, merrily on, until at last protective measures are being called for, partly, I suppose, because the pleasure of killing is in danger of being lost from there being little or nothing left to kill, and partly, let us hope, from a dim glimmering recognition of the rights of animals and their kinship to ourselves.”[4] While Muir was no friend of hunting, the Sierra Club took a neutral position on hunting that lasted a hundred years. In 1994, the club’s board of directors adopted a pro-hunting policy. In 1996, the club launched the Hunter and Angler Outreach Campaign and its magazine, Sierra, published the article, “Natural Allies,” by hunter Ted Williams, which argued, “If only hunters, anglers, and environmentalists would stop taking potshots at each other, they’d be an invincible force for wildlands protection.”[5] The article became the foundation for Sierra Club’s outreach campaign, later renamed Natural Allies, which, during the buildup to the 2004 presidential election, saw the appointment of a designated director.[6] Historian Michael Smith notes that “John Muir established his reputation as a nature writer shortly after the Civil War, observing the alarming depletion of the nation’s resources long before the conservation movement became institutionalized during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency.”[7] The Sierra Club now downplays its own founder’s achievements and influence on environmentalism in favor of Theodore Roosevelt and the Boone and Crocket Club, a trophy hunting organization Roosevelt founded with Gifford Pinchot that formulated the concept of fair chase. Roosevelt and Pinchot expropriated the word “conservation” to describe an anthropocentric view of nature’s purpose.[8] Yet the Sierra Club’s electronic “Conservation Timeline” actually begins with the founding of the Boone and Crocket Club in 1887.[9] And today, hunters are called the original environmentalists by parties as divergent as the Sierra Club’s executive director Carl Pope[10] and hunting militant Ted Nugent[11]. Early hunter-conservationists were not claiming to advance environmentalism so much as the efficient, professional management of natural resources in the interest of the national economy. This was made clear in Roosevelt’s first State of the Union address in 1901: The fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of the forests by use. Forest protection is not an end in itself; it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend upon them. The preservation of our forests is an imperative business necessity.[12] Pinchot referred to this vision of conservation as “the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the long run,” and treated it as the foundation for the sustained-yield, multiple-use policies for federal resource management. Muir, in contrast, realized such utilitarian precepts would have disastrous results for other animals, noting, “None of our fellow mortals is safe who eats what we eat, who in any way interferes with our pleasures, or who may be used for work or food, clothing or ornament, or mere cruel, sportish amusement.”[13] Hunting and fishing are multi-billion dollar industries intimately linked with state and federal agencies, not unlike logging and ranching interests. It’s not apparent that, as a group, those who participate in the recreational, consumptive removal of free-living land and aquatic animals are “natural allies” in the preservation of untamed lands. But for as long as mainstream environmental organizations seek to romanticize the 19th century hunter-conservationist, those organizations will fail to offer a decisive challenge to our planet’s most pressing environmental concerns. Footnotes “MEAT: Now, It's Not Personal! But like it or not, meat-eating is becoming a problem for everyone on the planet.” – World Watch Magazine (Jul./Aug. 2004). “It’s Better to Green Your Diet than Your Car” – New Scientist (17 Dec. 2005). Quoted in Freya Dinshah, The Vegan Kitchen (12th edition, May 1996). Letter to Henry Fairfield Osborn (16 Jul. 1904). In William Frederic Badè, The Life and Letters of John Muir. Ted Williams, “Natural Allies” – Sierra (Sep./Oct. 1996). Ellen Gamerman, “Deer Hunting Caught in an Identity Crisis” – Deseret Morning News (10 Nov. 2005). Michael B. Smith, “The Value of a Tree: Public Debates of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot” – The Historian (22 Jun. 1998). Ibid. “Hunting and Fishing: An American Conservation Heritage” – http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlife/hunting_fishing/timeline.asp (last visited 30 Jun. 2006). Carl Pope, “Ways and Means: A Sporting Chance” – Sierra (May/Jun. 1996). Danny Hakim, “Vegans, Keep Out: It’s Hunting Season” – The New York Times (27 Sept. 2005). Quoted in Smith (1998); see note 7. John Muir, The Story of My Boyhood and Youth.
  12. I think it's really messed up to use that quote to promote an alliance with hunters! Because, that's using the quote, which is about the need for equal intervention against all oppression, to say something totally counter to the original intent of the quote. For example, "The hunters came for the free-living animals, but I only care about factory farming so I won't speak out." In the book Animal Rights/Human Rights, David Nibert quotes social activist and writer Suzanne Parr: This is what the quote you're using is about. But twisting it to argue for hunting to stop factory farming is saying the exact opposite. It's like making an alliance with the Nazis who are killing the Communists, the Socialists, the Trade Unionists, and the Jews simply to save yourself, rather than being an ally with those who are bring destroyed in order to fight all forms of oppression. It's not just a catchy title. What if the title was "Kill the Communists, the Socialists, the Trade Unionists and ban Genocide"? It's obviously not an appealing slogan if you're a communist, socialist, or trade unionist! And if you're a non-human who is threatened by the limiting, controlling and destroying of your life by hunting then this not a great discussion. I'm really shocked at the insensitivity and lack of compassion on this thread. It is also totally counter to the reality.
  13. Obviously the child was on a starvation diet, not a vegan diet. There is no report that the couple knew how to raise a baby, or any mention of why the child wasn't breast fed. I disagree that the couple "deserves" a life sentence. I have no doubt that were Jade Sanders and Lamont Thomas white they would have gotten a more forgiving sentence. But that's rather obvious if you look at the race disparities in convictions.
  14. Ouch! Looks like you took a nasty spill. Glad you're okay.
  • Create New...