Everyone's a critic......
This article is from 1999 and may be pretty outdated. I recommend including more recent information (see this article: http://nyti.ms/yoSDPf) because there is a lot of information you do not counter, and unfortunately this is the first article (that isn't ironic) that comes up for "false arguments that meat-eaters make against vegetarians" in Google search. Obviously anyone who searches this is looking to prove a point, and your article makes proving that point very easy. Aside from the arguments being somewhat ridiculous, which I won't address because it's leaves so much room for rebuttal, you should know that the words "vetinary" and "vetinarian" do not exist. I think you must mean "veterinary" and "veterinarian." Making simple changes that indicate your basic command of the English language is an easy step towards garnering respect from your readers. On top of this, there are many grammatical issues that I won't get into.
I hope this inspires you to update your article.
Another comment on our most popular article ever.
I read your article and I must say, I am impressed. I myself have been a vegetarian for somewhere around 5 months now and a vegan for about a month or two. After reading common arguments against vegetarianism, I remained unconvinced that vegetarianism was pointless and/or actually bad (either for the individual or in the bigger picture), and after watching a recent YouTube video against vegetarianism, I started to question my diet/lifestyle choice. I am referring to the point about an animal's well being in the wild, in comparison to its quality of life in the wild. After not really seeing the real meaning to this point and sharing it on a vegetarian/vegan forum, I continued to believe that eating meat was "pointless" and "cruel" purely because of the fact that if we care so dearly for animals and want them to live stress free lives that they would in the wild, why not just keep them as pets? Why waste an animal's life if we don't need to? More importantly - in regards to the meat industry - why bring an animal into this world (and look after it) purely for the purpose of killing it some day? I may sound like an idiot as you read this, considering it is just one simple point that got me, but that's the funny thing about it. I'd failed to see the bigger picture which was hidden (or painfully obvious, rather) behind all of my vegetarian fuelled hate for the so-called "needless" killing of animals. The point I am referring to is the point that, at the end of the day, the purpose of the vast majority of animals' lives is, quite simply, to be eaten some day. Why hold off eating an animal if its sole purpose in this world is to be eaten? While I still don't like the idea of an animal being killed not even a year after its birth (given that this particular animal has a life expectancy of, for the sake of argument, 5 years), I see that the reality is really just that the animals' existence is to keep the food chain going.
To cut to the point, I see I was missing a very basic (and important) point here about the moral side of killing and eating other animals. Even before reading this article, I had the fairly recent belief that hunting an animal in the wild was not wrong at all because that was the "natural" way to do it and it was "how nature had intended for us to do it", but after reading this I understand that most living creatures are simply pre-made meals which were, more or less, "designed" to be eaten by another animal. Sorry to bore you with this extremely long message which basically explains how I'm a bit thick at times (or to be fair, quite a lot of the time), but I'd just like to say thanks for the article. It has really challenged my views on our role(s) in the food chain and how I want to proceed with my diet/lifestyle. For that I thank you, as it is quite hard to find people with logical arguments on certain topics. Maybe I will find some kind of counter-argument, but as of now, you have my respect.
Nice to get a note of praise.......
Great review of OST's "SMS" album.
As for your comment regarding live performance, take it from me they are much better "live" - I've seen them many times.
We get more letters about Craig Fitzroy's article about vegetarianism than anything else
Hello, Mr. Fitzroy,
This was an excellent article, and I was glad to see back-up listed at the end, to which one can refer for even broader understanding.
It bothers me that some people are so shallow as to only see the first part of the food chain story. They refuse to go beyond that first level. None of them asks deeper questions, or asks for proof - they just go with the emotional response to killing.
When I went to school, in the '40's and '50's, farm kids were smarter about food than city kids. Amazing, it was, that some kids had no idea where certain foods came from! You could tell them spaghetti grew on trees and they'd believe it! (Not to denigrate the humble spaghetti squash; the answer, many times, to the diabetic's dream!) It seemed to me that farm kids, because they were involved by necessity in the processes of farming, were much more capable at other things, too. They learned how to raise and process foodstuffs. Butchering beef and pork might have been done "off premise", but they learned to kill and dress chickens and other fowl, rabbits and so forth. If I had been raised in my grandparents' day, I'd have known how, too. There wouldn't be any squeamishness allowed, because you had to fight/work hard for everything you and the family got to eat. I don't believe my grandparents ever heard of vegetarians!
At any rate, I thank you for an article that is clear and easy to understand. If we can only get vegetarians/vegans to read it. As they say, you can lead a horse to the library but you can't make him THINK!
Gail Rendle, Nicholson PA, USA
Taki Al Din
Another response to Craig Fitzroy
This is in response to reading Craig Fitzroy's article 'the Great fallacies of Vegetarianism' and some of the feedback he has received.
I am a college student writing an essay and speech for two separate classes on vegetarianism. I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone (pun
intended). I am a lacto-ovo-vegetarian and have been for only about two years now. I am writing both these in favor of vegetarianism. I guess your
psychologists were wrong (at least about me) because the first thing I searched for in my research was 'arguments against vegetarianism'. Your
essay was the first result.
Some of the arguments you presented I found really interesting and, honestly, made me take a second look at my vegetarianism. I think it just may
be that I liked your tone in presentation. The concepts like the Innuits in a meat-free world and the size/intelligence/cuddliness scale I thought were
really creative angles of looking at it. I would just like to remark on some points that haven't been brought up in the responses or have been brought up
and just need to be looked at differently.
The point you presented that most of the studies thus far haven't isolated diet as the only variable really caught my eye. Though as with your
psychological assumption, I don't fit this mold of a vegetarian with a low-risk lifestyle. I do play Ultimate Frisbee, a very demanding sport, but I am a
college student who drinks, smokes, eats pizza five times a week, and has a poor sleeping schedule. I doubt I'm the only vegetarian leading this
same lifestyle. But that is irrelevant. However stimulating the point may be, it still can't disprove that vegetarians lead longer more healthful lives, as
most research suggests. It may only question it. Also, when you say 'many' people go veg for health reasons who are already more likely to lead
healthy lives, you must also concede that 'the majority' of people go veg for moral or religious reasons and therefore, no more like to go jogging than
anyone else. Your conviction in your loosely-rooted self-fulfilling prophecy concept brings me
to quote someone whose criticism will sound louder than mine. "But the guru's words typify with - let's face it - awe-inspiring ignorance the
inexplicably persuasive thought patterns that guide many a claimant to culinary moral superiority. It works like this: say any old rubbish - if it is
ancient wisdom then so much the better. If it is sufficiently plausible for the willing minds of your followers to take on board then that's good enough.
At least, it would seem,..." Your concepts, like Maharaj Ji's, are very interesting and thought-provoking but lack little evidential support.
"But there is no evidence that a healthy vegetarian diet is more healthy than a healthy meat-based diet."
Nutritionally speaking, you are very correct. A healthy vegetarian diet has nothing over a healthy mixed diet along the lines of vitamins, minerals, and
other essentials. Of course, vegetarians do need to consider b-12's and Omega-3's, but these are available through cheap over-the-counter
supplements. However, there's more to it in terms of total health. This is what The American Dietetic Association has to say in their position paper on
vegetarian diets, "Seventh-Day Adventist vegetarians have lower rates of mortality from colon cancer than the general population. This may be
attributable to dietary differences that include increased fiber intake; decreased intake of total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and caffeine; increased
intake of fruits and vegetables; and, in lactovegetarians, increased intakes of calcium. The dietary differences, especially in vegans, may produce
physiologic changes that may inhibit the causal chain for colon cancer. Reduced consumption of meat
and animal protein has also been associated with decreased colon cancer in some, but not all, studies of omnivores." Even if you credit lowered rates
of colon cancer to a healthy lifestyle of the Seventh-Day Adventists, which the ADA does not, how can you explain the lower rate in other omnivores? I
could say more on the topic of health but I wish to discuss the other points you brought up.
In your argument from stupidity there is little substance beyond making fun of people, irrelevant material and misinformation. Nonetheless, you are
right that we are subject to sensory specific satiety. Just as we are attracted more to some whose pheromones and, similarly, DNA are different from
our own, our bodies crave diversity. This doesn't mean that humans have to act on these urges. Just like the urges you get seeing an attractive person
of the opposite sex or urge to smoke a cigarette, it's usually best not to act compulsively.
One of the most interesting arguments for vegetarianism is the physiological complicity to a meatless diet and you somehow got it wrong. All
carnivores have short intestinal tracts (usually 7-9 hours). This is due to the fact that after 8-9 hours into digestion, meat starts to become putrid and
is much harder to be processed. Putrid meat is indigestible by humans. The average human intestinal tract is 23 hours, the ideal length to broke down
complex carbohydrates. You do the math. It's true we have incisors and canines for tearing meat, but we also still an appendix. Just because it is in
our body doesn't mean we use it.
On your argument that our natural antibodies kill millions of creatures a day, you're really above that, I think. I know that you know that it's just self-
defense. Just like those antibodies, self-defense is natural. Few people would ever assault or kill another person. On the other hand, few people
wouldn't assault or kill someone who is attacking them or a loved one. I don't eat meat, but if a dog or bird or whatever was attacking me or anyone I
love, I would not hesitate to kick that dog/bird/whatever in the mouth. Likewise, I don't go out picking fights, but if someone comes at me with a knife,
of course I'm going to fight back. And if some canine ear-mite, with or without a face, is attacking my dog, who I love dearly, I would kill it (since
removing it peacefully isn't an option).
Albeit, I do really like your idea of a size/intelligence/cuddliness spectrum. It's definitely exists, sadly. I will even admit guilt, but that doesn't mean I'm
not trying to change that.
"For a wild animal, to be killed and eaten is natural; for a farm animal, to be slaughtered by humans might be a privilege."
Really? You really think to be raised in captivity with the sole intention of being slaughtered when ripe is better than the life they would be living? I
doubt you really believe that.
"Why animals, who are apparently deprived of 'rights', have the right in the wild to survive at the expense of other creatures, when we do not, is a
mystery. We are animals too…"
This idea makes much more sense to me. It is a very natural (I know, I'm probably using it wrong) concept. Humans, however, are the definition of
unnatural. Nature is defined as everything man didn't create or augment. All you're saying is that we can, we have the right to, kill and eat other
animals. All I'm saying is we don't have to kill and eat animals. It's your own prerogative to eat meat or not. All things taken into consideration, it's not
a tough decision.
Taki Al Din
I enjoyed browsing through your website concerning vegetarianism, and
how it sucks.
It does seem to be popular now that vegetarians are using Seventh Day
Adventists, generally vegetarians, as their poster boys and girls for the
efficacy of not eating meat. It's very simple, Seventh Day Adventists
live longer than everyone else, and they are vegetarians. Unfortunately
they seem to always skip the "second" part of the study that Reader's
Digest partially published some years ago. Mormons have the same
life expectancy as Seventh Day Adventists (82 +/-). And, being
Mormon and living in cattle country, I can tell you, Mormon vegetarians
are few and farther between. The conclusion of the study printed in
Reader's Digest? Not smoking or drinking are the number 1 and 2
things a person can do for him/herself to increase their life expectancy.
Keep up the good work.
Most of the people critiquing Fitzroy's piece thought he overlooked the
horrors of factory-farming. He made it quite clear that he did not, but that
factory farming is not a critique of eating meat per se, only of a particular
way of raising animals for food that could be changed. Indeed, there are
many farms where animals have cage-free and also factory-free lives,
spending their entire time eating nutritious grasses in a field until it is time
to kill them.
Most of the critiques fail on many points. First of all, the idea that
meat-eaters are indiscriminately arriving at some prejudiced decision to
single off a non-human animal for consumption just shows how alienated
we all are from nature. For two million years humans ate meat - in fact,
most of the high-carb foods many vegetarians eat today (along with other
things) are the result of the agricultural revolution of only a few tens of
thousands of years, just a drop in our evolutionary history - which started
producing crappy food like bread, cakes, cookies, and other doughy
items, for slaves, peasants and workers because it was cheap and
fattened them up while depriving them of the good food the rich and
We know that the saturated fats that came from eating animals also
helped the human brain to evolve - the brain itself is 70% fat. We know
now that high saturated fat diets actually lead to lower coronary disease
that low-fat diets - this would not be the case if nature had not intended us
to eat meat. We know today that it is not fat but sugars and starch that
make us fat because of the production of insulin they trigger - and that
fatty foods from animal products (meat, cheese, yoghurt and eggs)
actually restrict hunger and tend to keep the fat off us. I am sure those
who say that animals should not be eaten because it is cruel would not
make that argument about a lion - for no other reason but that they think
lions are naturally meat-eaters. Well, do vegetarians drop their arguments
as soon as discover paleontological evidence that humans have eaten
meat and vegetables/fruit for 2 million years when they were
hunter/gatherers - presumable as close to our "natural" diet as can be?
An example of one-sided thinking that ignores evidence when it is
convenient to do so.
The idea that starvation is caused by meat-eating is a joke. Most of the
planet is made of deserts, oceans, mountains, and other non-arable land.
The fallacy in the argument that meat eating causes starvation by tying up
large amounts of land for pastures suffers by not comparing it to what the
situation would be if the vast non-arable land of the planet were rendered
arable - demineralization on a vast scale, eco-suicide (which is not to say
we are not in eco-suicide now, but the fault lies in competitive capitalism,
not in meat-eating). I have been to the Third World. Children die of
starvation because they have no money for food, not because we eat meat
- it is the result of capitalism in which you starve if you don't have enough
money for food, nothing to do with how land is used up today for food
production (for example, are the rich in those countries starving? no...
they are living as abundantly as the rich everywhere else).
Vegetarianism is a well-intentioned religion, not founded on any scientific
principle. It started with the Greeks who thought we would be "purer" if we
did not eat meat - utter rubbish, of course with no psychological basis. I
think vegetarians are simply misguided in attirbuting meat-eating to all
kinds of societal evils that likely have other causes.
Tell me one empirical truth about vegetarianism and I will attempt to show
you there is another explanation, or another way to view it.
Craig Fitzroy's "The Great Fallacies of Vegetarianism."
Very interesting site, although I have to say I strongly disagree with you.
You say 'humans may be nasty but Nature - red in tooth and claw, as
Tennyson so memorably put it - is nastier, and no amount of empathy or
sentiment will change that.'- I really think it is better for an animal to be
killed in the wild , than for it to be kept in a tiny crate all it's miserable life,
specially reared for human consumption. Yes 'life will destroy other life',
that is how the world works. But the meat industry is so far from anything
natural, it is sickening. Also- "As to the quality of life of farm animals, we
might compare the relatively stress-free existence of a dairy or beef herd in
the field with, say, that of fellow-ruminants the wildebeest browsing the
plains of the Serengeti. The former will be well-fed, watered and sheltered
from harsh weather; they will also have access to vetinary treatment." This
is just ridiculous! You can't honestly believe that farm animals live a
happier life than wildebeest. What about factory farms? and the conditions
inside abattoirs? Guess you hadn't thought about that...
On Craig Fitzroy's "The Great Fallacies of Vegetarianism."
I'm going to try to refute some of the arguments made in the section entitled "The Argument from Sentiment," in which the writer argues that eating meat is not wrong.
" Every time we buy, cook, carve and eat a dead animal we are commissioning the slaughter of the next live animal. This much is true. We should, however, consider the animal's fate in the wild. Fish, fowl, mammals and insects in their natural state do not die of old age or go peacefully in their sleep with the family around the bedside; they are generally killed and eaten (not necessarily in that order) by other fish, fowl, mammals or insects. We might assume that such deaths are, on average, more frightening and painful than the swift despatch they will experience in the slaughterhouse (I will offer no defence here for the slow ritual killings prescribed by certain religious traditions, which can be cruel in the extreme). For a wild animal, to be killed and eaten is natural; for a farm animal, to be slaughtered by humans might be a privilege."
It's not as though the entire world is going to immediately turn vegetarian overnight; it would likely be a slow, gradual process. Animals will not be sent back into the wild to fend for themselves as you seem to imply, but will simply be gradually bred less and less.
"The choice... is not whether animals should be raised in a factory farm or released into the wild, but whether animals destined to live on a factory farm to be killed should be born at all." - Peter Singer
"Why animals, who are apparently deprived of 'rights', have the right in the wild to survive at the expense of other creatures, when we do not, is a mystery. We are animals too…"
Animals aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong. We, as intelligent humans, are. Also -- two wrongs don't make a right.
"Vegetarians and vegans, along with the rest must draw the line somewhere when deciding which fellow-creatures are worthy of protection. Most of us would not eat another human being or a chimpanzee unless our own lives depended on it and the ape in question was already dead. (Even then some of us would probably hesitate before munching on Dame Barbara Cartland.) But at which point along the size/intelligence/cuddliness spectrum does the snuffing out of a precious life become the extermination of a bug?"
We must take into account the interests of all beings that have the capacity to suffer. It is, indeed, hard to say when a creature no longer is able to feel pain, but wherever this line is drawn, it is far less arbitrary than the line drawn separating humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It’s easy to hate, but still it’s unhealthy to stay in
hate. So many things in this world trigger hate.
Everyday we wake and see that nothing, absolutely
nothing is been done about the wicked and selfish
things that occur in our world. For example: First,
look around us, in our families, in our communities,
our nation, the world, there is so much hatred. “Where
is the love”? Hate impregnates all –racism,
segregation, isolation, murder etc. “Love thy neighbor
as thy self”, don’t people know that. People hate
because you are white and they black, you are prettier
than they, you are more brilliant than you should be,
you are Christian, they are Muslim and you are
western. Secondly, I hate to see that there is so
much Muslim extremist, who would love to blow
themselves up in pieces for the sake of recognition,
religion. Terrorism has eaten deep into the hearts of
many Moslem extremist. It’s growing and what troubles
me is “what is The future of terrorism”? Would it
still be safe to live in this world? What really turns
on my hate, is the fact that many still volunteer to
be suicide bombers and have no guilt of its
implications. Third, I wonder, I really do wonder, if
the developed countries are not tired of exploiting
the Africa.. During the colonial era, the developed
countries had the developing countries in their palms,
and then they supposedly granted independence. Did
they? There is a huge difference between political
independence and economic independence. What is
amazing, is that the developed countries did develop
from the resources of the developing countries in
terms of slavery, natural resources, minerals etc. So
many individual from the developing countries have
become billionaires in the name of helping poor
nations in Africa. Fourth, “Charity”. People should
respect it. It is loosing its essence, its purpose and
its obligations. Charity organizations have become
profit business. Innocent people give their money in
the name of helping the poor, the less privileged, but
it goes straight to private pockets, and those who
need it the most are left to suffer. Celebrities for
the sake of popularity and recognition use charity as
a means for that. The bible says “when you do a
charitable deed, do not sound the trumpet before you,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets that they may have glory from men, but when
you do a charitable deed in secret, your father in
heaven shall reward you openly”. Fifth, living in the
African continent it’s so hard to travel abroad and
yet so easy to travel into these African countries.
Sixth, I hate to see that in the western countries
(not mentioning any), Christians are intimidated and
ashamed to mention JESUS in public and still the
Muslims’ are proud and shout Mohamed. I am not against
any religion but if there is really freedom of speech,
why is their expression limited. I also hate to see
that churches have lost their faith. Many churches
have become business association, an avenue to deliver
speeches and sing one or two songs. Seventh, and still
counting, everything is cancerous. The doctors advice
don’t eat this, don’t eat that, it sums up that
civilization has tainted our nutrition. No one can
really live up to 120 years, with the way we consume
processed food. If we keep eating the junks and
rubbish we feed on. Eight, it is sad to see what
politics has become. It’s a deadly game, and the elite
rule it. Ninth, marriage has lost its flavor. People
enter for the wrong reason. A couple gets married
today and divorce the next day. Husbands murder their
wives and children, because of marital affairs.
Marriage has become more complicated than it was.
Tenth, there is hardly trust among friends,
colleagues, and partners, or couples. Where there is
no trust there is no solid and sincere cooperation.
This world could be a better place, if only people no
how well to treat others, treat them special. It’s not
all about competing but cooperation, love and harmony,
honesty and happiness.
Just over six weeks ago I became a UK citizen. In order to do this, I had to jump through a number of hurdles to prove that I was worthy of this ‘honour’. These hurdles included maintaining a point-free driver’s licence for two years, passing a citizenship exam and pledging an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II and her Heirs and Successors. Overcoming the first two challenges was relatively easy. Pledging allegiance to the Queen created a bit of a moral dilemma, however.
As an American, I was raised to pledge my allegiance to a set of principles rather than any one individual. The core US principles are based around the idea that all men are created equal and entitled to a set of unreliable rights that include ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Although I often question how certain people (especially dear old George W) put these principles into practice, they represent ideas that I am fundamentally proud to endorse.
I cannot say that I feel the same about supporting the Queen and her kin. While I thoroughly enjoy the royal family for their entertainment value, I have never thought of them as representing anything that was worthy or moral. In fact, from my perspective, this monarchy appears to have a particular talent for all that is dishonest and distasteful.
For these reasons, I was not surprised by the fact that the royal family would be supporting the war effort in Iraq with one of their own. In fact, this appeared to be the logical next step for a young man who has already distinguished himself as a bit of a tosser. Beginning with his questionable birthright and following on to his stint as a pothead, his fisticuffs with the press and his recent donning of the SS uniform, his willing participation in a war that is immoral and indefensible actually makes perfect sense.
Given these sentiments, I well sympathise with the feelings that underpin Vanguard Online’s recent diatribe regarding Prince Harry’s eminent departure to Iraq. When I first read this news, I wondered what the Prince’s involvement signified in the long and sordid history of this unnecessary war. Like the commentary’s author, I, too, was shocked and dismayed when the US announced plans to invade Iraq with the full support of the UK government. Since that time, the world has witnessed this ‘special relationship’ commit atrocity after atrocity in the pursuit of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction without the support of its citizens and in violation of the UN charter. It is situations like this that make me question my allegiance to the principles and individuals of either nation.
However, despite these feelings, I was a bit taken aback by the vicious nature of the Vanguard commentary – particularly in light of the overall positive ‘be for something, not against it’ nature of the website. Not only did I find the article to be in bad taste, I felt that the violent imagery and the crude references to Lady Diana’s death amounted to little more than a cheap bid for attention. Yes, we all should be outraged by the UK’s continued involvement in the war in Iraq, but to ask for the Prince’s return in a body bag only serves to insight hate rather than promote peace. Is hate a principle that Vanguard Online really wants to endorse?
For this reason, I challenge the webzine to drop its cowardly ‘shock jock’ tactics (why didn’t the author provide his/her name?) and address the UK’s involvement in the Iraqi war with an article that considers the issues with the gravity they deserve and the intelligence that I know the author is capable of. Is this something that the ‘talent of Sheffield’ can rise to? If so, I look forward to reading Vanguard Online’s next instalment on the Iraqi debate and learning the name of its author.
With love and peace,
Far be it for me to criticize online music reviewers, having written
hundreds myself, but wow, could your "critic" of the new Nomeansno embarrass
your site any further with a severe misunderstanding of the music and lyrics
of the band's new CD. It was painful to see how little of the work seeped
into his head. It's really the kind of review that crushes your site's
Just my two cents.
Well, we put this to Simon Middleyard, who penned the piece and here's what he had to say.....
I'd love to know exactly what he thought the lyrics mean. I mean, there are
only so many ways you can look at 2 men and a woman indulging in
(Plus, I had the lyrics in the booklet - the guy's not very subtle!)
Tami & Scott Brown
whay dont thaey tour in ancorage alaska of at least be on purevolume?? the
and u rock thanks blake.
"As to the quality of life of farm animals, we might compare the relatively
stress-free existence of a dairy or beef herd in the field with, say, that of
fellow-ruminants the wildebeest browsing the plains of the Serengeti. The
former will be well-fed, watered and sheltered from harsh weather; they will
also have access to vetinary treatment."
No offense, I'm a vegan and actually found your site entertaining, but this
is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. Have you read any articles
about modern factory farms??
Vanguard run a piece by Guernica on us a few years ago.
You also have a letter from a Yasushi Yanagidera published a couple of
months ago trying to contact us.
Would it be possible for you to add a link to your website or publish our
web address to help people get in touch with us.
Thanks for any help.
We're hoping to get some new material out soon.
I am writing in regards to Craig Fitzroy's article 'the Great fallacies of Vegetarianism'.
I agree that many of the 'arguments' cited in favour of vegetarianism are feeble, and do deserve criticism. However the counter 'Argument from
Sentiment' is an irrelevant point. Fitzroy says "For a wild animal, to be killed and eaten is natural; for a farm animal, to be slaughtered by humans
might be a privilege." This may be the case. It may cause less suffering to be farmed rather than to be in a natural environment. Observance of the
majority of conditions that farmed animals undergo would seem to present the contrary view however. But this is irrelevant.
The real issue is that we are taking the rights of non-human animals from them. If we all agree that all humans deserve equal consideration of their
rights, irrespective of any physical difference, then we have to extend this argument to the rights of non-human animals. To do otherwise is to
discriminate on the basis of a physical attribute. If a white person was to restrict the rights of a black person on the basis of a physical attribute then
this would be called racism. Therefore to kill an animal on the basis of a physical attribute is exactly the same as racism, or any other prejudice. So
merely by being consistent with morals most people already hold, it is evident that most people should, by their own set of ethics, be vegetarians.
Fitzroy states "There is evidence from psychological research that, having arrived at a decision, we will frequently search for additional arguments to
justify that decision; arguments which played no part in forming our opinion." Unfortunately this is the reason many people remain omnivorous; they
decide that eating meat is ethical and afterwards then try to justify it.
This is by no means the only argument in favour of animal rights, many others can be found on the internet. Try this site: http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/meatarg.html
I just read your article "Disobeying international laws" and have sent an
email to Philip Sapsford QC and Justin Hugheston-Roberts about this.
The court martial centres around the fact that UN 'recognises' the current
Iraq government which is asking for US/UK help.
I thought you may be interested in the email - please tell me what you think
and where I am wrong.
Re: Flight Lieutenant Dr Malcolm Kendall-Smith
It all seems quite straight-forward - can you please tell me what I am
The UN has been forced to recognise the Iraq government (which was declared
under occupation of illegal invaders) - to try and get some peace there.
However - in doing so, one has to ask - is invasion for regime change
legal - yes or no?
It clearly is not.
Therefore, how exactly is the fulfilment of US's declared criminal aim (to
change Iraq regime) legal?
Answer - it cannot be.
Obviously, the UN would be unable to legally sanction the fulfilment of the
regime change brought about by illegal invaders.
They would err in law to do so.
So - surely, the UK ordering any forces to join them is illegal?
I would have thought the UN would have to get the illegal invaders out of
the equation before other UN forces helped Iraq put in a government.
The Iraq invasion was clearly illegal before it began - the reasoning is here.
I thank you both for your time and hope you can tell me where I am wrong.
You can see the review Garry is writing about here.
Flight Lieutenant Dr Malcolm Kendall-Smith is a hero. I trust and hope that
his sentence can be appealed after this kangaroo court trial.
You can see the review Norman is writing about here.
Recently read your review on the 'Boy Kill Boy Live at Sheffield Leadmill'
concert, as much as your reviewing skills are quite far better than mine, I
must say was bit disappointed, as a personal Boy Kill Boy fan, you might
think I'm just being biased, and well yeah I'll be honest there pretty much
is biased opinions here seeing as I wasn't at the gig, HOWEVER, I
discovered them by attending their support gig for the Hard-Fi tour in
Glasgow, and that’s when i started to love them, now sure they have that’s
80's sound but doesn’t everyone have their own influences?, what about
all those heavy metal rock bands that to be honest sound all the same
(their sound being pish) as for their hair...well each to their own i say
as for there live performances regarding moving about and the bassist
giving off the impression as to “Look at me, I’m in ‘the next big thing’
and I’m cooool” look on his face then being a bassist and a performer
myself I'd say isn’t having that look and attitude about you better than
standing shoe gazing while you play?....really give the audience
An opinions and opinion and i accept you dont think much of them, but
really think about it.
You can see the review Natalie is writing about here.
Re 'The Great Fallacies of Vegetarianism'
Well, at least your arguments are remotely balanced.
1. Vegetarianism is healthier - maybe this hasn't been PROVED but
there's pretty good evidence. I'm not vegan because of the health
benefits, though I have found it a bonus in that respect. I feel much
better than I did before and since giving up dairy I've not suffered even a
cold. I don't care if I don't live longer than other people, I'm just glad that
my cancer risk is much lower.
2. Meat eating is cruel. Of course it is. Can you imagine the kind of
people that would choose to kill animals? Have you not heard about the
abuse that goes on inside abbatoirs - torture has been caught on film
and what about pigs (which have been shown in tests to be more
intelligent than dogs) that spend their entire lives indoors in a concrete
crate where they cannot even turn around? How could you possibly say
that meat eating is not cruel? Perhaps you don't care, which means the
re's no point in arguing this with you. Fair enough, but it shows what
kind of person you are.
3. Human beings are not designed to eat meat. Much like the gorilla.
Big and strong - a descendant of ours. Doesn't kill things to eat. We
couldn't bite through an animal's skin if we tried, unlike proper
Lastly, you talk about where people draw the line. The difference
between mites and smallpox, and cows and pigs, etc. is that the
former are parasites. If you're suffering, you do something about it. You
don't suffer from not eating meat - any vegetarian/vegan can tell you
that. You just have to have the right balance of food groups - carbs, fat,
protein, etc. then it's fine. Meat contains nothing good that you can't
get from another source, and it's also full of inessential fats which will
only clog up your arteries.
If I've annoyed you, well, you did ask for comments!
Dear, Vangurd Online.
I'm Yasushi Yanagidera from Japan.
I'm sorry suddenly my contact.
I wish to contact with Jel member, Mr.Andy or Nev.
I couldn't send e-mail on your web site (Contact the band)
Because, I listened their songs called "all the blinding menace"cd album .
I'm really fun !!
I think great indie-pop music. Your music is my ideal !!
a devoted fan.
Dear Vanguard (or Ross as the email address says),
I came across your site from a bookmark I made however
(and whenever - I don't know) long ago. Very good job
on the October articles. I enjoyed what I read and
wanted to encourage you to keep up the work. The
"Unbrand America" picture at the bottom of the page
with the billboard stating 'Declare Independence from
Corporate Rule' may be how I came across your site
Thanks for the good reading,
A letter about our feature "The Great Fallacies of Vegetarianism"
From Sharon Balloch
I think it is sad that you write such things. The billions of animals
slaughtered so you can feel good about eating them do not agree it is
fine to kill. You put a curse in your body every time you eat meat.
Expect to get cancer, for it is part of your payment that allows you to
kill so freely. Look around at those who have such stomach troubles
that they must take meds just to digest meat. But they still eat it, so
do not worry you will be helping them attain what they are looking for. If
you are Christian do you think Christ strangled that lamb in his arm and
ate it, many would like you to think so and I am sure you would agree.
Many pay the price yours will be more as you lead others to this road.
From Andrew Burrows
andy B here, i play drums in razorlight....
i was at ur website reading current and old single reviews, and i found the
review for 'somewhere else', and totally remember doing an inerview with
someone from vanguard online when i was in a previous band called stag.
just wanted to say hello. not sure who it was? nice chap.
hope all's cool
And speaking of ex-drummers from Stag, now with Razorlight.....
I'm hoping beyond all hope that you can help me find a rare disc! I had a
bright neon green CD titled "Steal This Record" that included artists such
as Sparklehorse performing Spirit Ditch and Radiohead doing Street Spirit;
I believe Stag doing Low Watt Glow was on it as well. It was stolen. Irony
at it's very finest. Any help you could offer with regard to finding this disc
would be so greatly appreciated!!!!!
If you can help Tanya – drop a line to Vanguard.
Fraser wrote to enlighten Vanguard on CKY’s album
CKY: An Answer Can Be Found
Hey!!! Why not give yourself a shot up the arse, disturb
the waters of apathy and write us a letter yourself? Email
The reason that they put the note on this record is because in the past
they have been accused of using synths to achieve some of their sounds,
but, in fact they are very proud of their ability to get the "tweaked" sound
they have by instrumental talent.
the skater "Emo's" would win cause (“There’s ten thousand reasons to
survive, you only needed one to die.”) they aren't afraid of death?