Thursday, October 15, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

A dispensation to cause pain

by Adam Rutherford - guardian.co.uk

Thanks to LWS for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/15/animal-slaughter-religion-research?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

The ritual slaughter of animals decreed by Jewish and Muslim dietary laws require that the animals are conscious when they have their throats slit. In the European secular food industry, regulations strive to minimise "the risk of causing pain, fear or distress to the animals" in their being slaughtered for food. Crucially, these rules require the stunning of animals before being killed, either with a bolt to the brain, or with electricity. However, the law kowtows before the Jewish kashrut and Islamic halal guidelines in permitting avoidance of stunning.

This week New Zealand veterinarian scientist Craig Johnson was given an award from the Humane Slaughter Association, for his body of work that demonstrates that animals suffer more without stunning. In one crucial experiment, Johnson et al administered mild anaesthetics to calves so that they could not feel the pain of the incision, but the pain response was still measurable. It remained present in the animals without stunning, but was immediately erased by stunning.

"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful", Johnson told New Scientist. While this may appear to come from the oft-referenced University of the Bleeding Obvious, in fact defenders of Jewish shechita and Muslim dhabiha slaughter cite scientific evidence that the practice is not painful to the animal. In 2003, the Muslim Council of Great Britain claimed that "the brain is instantaneously starved of blood and there is no time to start feeling any pain." Johnson's work says otherwise.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/15/animal-slaughter-religion-research?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

Posted: Thursday, October 15, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 156 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #423906 by Sally Luxmoore on October 15, 2009 at 2:21 pm

"University of the Bleeding Obvious"

Brilliant. Says it all.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

2. Comment #423907 by Lapin Diabolique on October 15, 2009 at 2:21 pm

I agree with Craig Johnson and wholeheartedly agree with the stunning of all animals that are about to be killed as well as the stunning of all rabbis, mullahs and other clergy.

There's nothing like a good taser-jolt to the nuts to shut these useless shaman up.

Imagine the blessed silence.
One can always dream.

Other Comments by Lapin Diabolique

3. Comment #423911 by tieInterceptor on October 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm

I saw years ago a documentary about cows transported from Europe to Muslim countries, like Morocco and Egypt.

The cows MUST arrive alive or they are worthless ... and they are so tightly packed in the trucks and boats, with no food and little water (they will be slaughtered on arrival, so comfort is irrelevant) in every trip inevitably some cows brakes a leg and instead of putting them down right there, and be unable to sell the meat, they keep them alive and force the cows to continue walking with a broken leg, by putting fingers and red pepper in their eyes, so they will stand up and keep moving with the lame leg... then they eventually have their throats cut.

I think the trip is a a week or more.

It was shocking... all of this suffering so some ignoramus can certify that the animal is killed in some irrelevant ritualistic way.

makes me mad... and I still eat meat... but I wish we would eradicate this type of gratuitous torture just to please the "sensibilities" of the religious

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

4. Comment #423915 by owheelj on October 15, 2009 at 2:41 pm

This seems barely worth caring about when you consider the treatment of animals at large factory farms.

That said, I'm completely apathetic about animal rights. I think it's largely just a symptom of societies that are disconnected from their food sources. However I concede that since I grew up on a farm where we slaughtered our own meat my view is probably biased and not objective.

Other Comments by owheelj

5. Comment #423921 by Noodly on October 15, 2009 at 2:59 pm

A very good example of the ridiculous exemptions granted to religions when common sense and compassion are completely ignored.

Other Comments by Noodly

6. Comment #423924 by Tyler Durden on October 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm

In 2003, the Muslim Council of Great Britain claimed that "the brain is instantaneously starved of blood and there is no time to start feeling any pain." Johnson's work says otherwise.

But it's my religion, so you must be wrong and I must be right. It says so right here in my holy book.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

7. Comment #423929 by robotaholic on October 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm

I wish it was easier to be a vegetarian. Between pepperoni pizza & chicken anything I just lose any willpower. A lot of animals require meat to survive -like the big cats...but humans for the most part can pretty much avoid meat altogether. (I think we need maybe some kind of supplement) I just don't want to be associated with the 'animals' listed in this article.

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #423933 by Stella on October 15, 2009 at 3:27 pm

I'm vegan.

In a mid-sized American city, it's not that hard.

When I go visit my parents in Bumfuck, East Texas, I am vegan.

It's not that hard.

I used to think it was hard, when I was approaching it like one would a diet. After many years of on-again, off-again vegetarianism, I went vegan in February 2008, and it's been one of the best things I've ever done.

Other Comments by Stella

9. Comment #423936 by AllanW on October 15, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Comment #423933 by Stella on October 15, 2009 at 3:27 pm

When I go visit my parents in Bumfuck, East Texas,

Erm. I hesitate to ask but is that a real place?

Regarding the article, once again science proves that religion is a menace.

Other Comments by AllanW

10. Comment #423942 by ANTIcarrot on October 15, 2009 at 3:44 pm

And in yet more news from the University of the Bleeding Obvious... stunning doesn't always work either.

Famously for chickens in the KFC slaughterhouses, they were 'proud' of a 90% success rate - in a building that killed over a billion chickens a year. Do the math on 10% of a billion. If any individual comitted that level of animal abuse, they would be locked up. The percentages aren't that much better for any other method of stunning. It's not only the religious that get exceptions from legal complience.

It always strikes me as hipocritical when one group of meat eaters stands up and says, "Oh but we only torturously killed 200 million animals this year when our methods failed! Unlike those filthy muslims, who cruelly slaughtered 20,000 animals! Aren't they terrible!"

Sure you can claim that at least you try to avoid cruelty, but you also create the need for cruelty in the first place. So, yeah...

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

11. Comment #423943 by Jos Gibbons on October 15, 2009 at 3:48 pm

I found this article at once interesting and well-written, since it carefully explored and conceded the one or two tricky conundrums in the issue of animal treatment, while still focusing on the fact that the main topic of the article is frankly nowhere near as tricky. In other words, clever philosophers aside, at least one question's answer is obvious.

I like also that Rutherford mentioned the lack of a scriptural basis for these practices, if only because if that's really true then I've learnt something. It is, however, strictly irrelevant, in the sense that whether something is moral shouldn't depend on whether a religious text condones it. I've seen a few interviews with moderate Muslim critics of jihadist terrorism, and was rather perturbed by the fact that their objections are purely about claiming the Koran's words don't support the extremists' opinions (which, judging by the dishonesty in the latter's translations of the Koran into English, may be an issue on which the moderates are right, although I doubt it), rather than, say, whether it causes needless suffering. Ultimately, I'm glad Rutherford did include it, not because a "but the book says ..." counter-argument works, but because the people who need to be reached nonetheless THINK it does.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

12. Comment #423944 by Oystein Elgaroy on October 15, 2009 at 3:50 pm

The all-powerful creator of the universe apparently cares more about how his subjects prepare their meat than feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. It is a testimony to our species' limitless capacity for stupidity that the proponents of these cruel practices cannot see how absurd their beliefs are.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

13. Comment #423945 by Vaal on October 15, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Primitive idiots.

I quite fancy Mullah and chips. I am sure they won't be so enthusiastic about "halal" if it is happening to them.

Other Comments by Vaal

14. Comment #423946 by George Lennan on October 15, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Didn't some ghastly lefty cultural appeasement council in the UK recently start serving halal meat to all schoolchildren because it was cheaper than buying both halal and reasonable meat from different suppliers?

Other Comments by George Lennan

15. Comment #423949 by epeeist on October 15, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Comment #423943 by Jos Gibbons:

I like also that Rutherford mentioned the lack of a scriptural basis for these practices, if only because if that's really true then I've learnt something. It is, however, strictly irreleant, in the sense that whether something is moral shouldn't depend on whether a religious text condones it.

You don't need to go as far as terrorism. FGM, forced marriages and honour killings are claimed to be "cultural practices" rather than religious ones whenever the top is raised.

Another case of eating your cake and having it?

Other Comments by epeeist

16. Comment #423957 by Communist on October 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm

In my home country Norway, the muslims have accepted that the animal should be unconcious during slaughter. But the jews do not accept this. Two days ago, a jewish spokesman here called the Norwegian banning of traditional slaughter 'eighty years of antisemitic shame on our common conciousness'. If this ban is racism, then where do the limits to racism go?

Other Comments by Communist

17. Comment #423961 by Jos Gibbons on October 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Comment #423949 by epeeist

I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I don't even know who you're accusing of cake duplicity, me or someone else.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

18. Comment #423966 by pipsy on October 15, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Antisemitic shame my arse. Semitic shame is what they should feel for indulging such a practice, not to mention several other so called religious traditions.

Other Comments by pipsy

19. Comment #423970 by RationalPrimate on October 15, 2009 at 5:45 pm

Hmm, I've read the comments here with a certain uneasiness - as a strict vegan, and atheist, (now we're beginning to talk minority opinion), I am slightly dismayed at what appears to be a bit of a double standard emerging here. The main gist of most of the comments here is the usual one: "Amazing what (torture and savagery) can be justified in the name of some holy book." And I quite agree, however in my view it is perfectly logical to extend this particular point to also include this: "Amazing what (torture and savagery) can be justified in the name of "dang that burger just tastes too darn good, there's no way I can give that up!"

People who think stunning a perfectly healthy animal before killing it, simply to satisfy their taste for its flesh and blood, somehow makes the killing no longer savage or cruel has some sort of disconnect going on in their minds. Except for euthanasia, killing can never be humane.

Being vegan is easier than people tend to think and can be (if done correctly) the healthiest way to live.

Other Comments by RationalPrimate

20. Comment #423972 by phatbat on October 15, 2009 at 5:48 pm

19. Comment #423970 by RationalPrimate

Well, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat? Ever asked youself that?

Other Comments by phatbat

21. Comment #423973 by epeeist on October 15, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Comment #423961 by Jos Gibbons:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I don't even know who you're accusing of cake duplicity, me or someone else.

I tried to avoid apportioning blame unless I can specifically identify where it should lie. And I am definitely not trying to pin any on you.

Whenever FGM, honour killings or forced marriages are raised then many of the religious will claim that this is nothing to do with the religion, it is a cultural artefact.

Now, this practice isn't mentioned in any of the documents of the respective faiths so is it religious or is it cultural? My personal opinion is that it is probably more cultural than anything, though I wouldn't rule out some element of haruspicy. In hot climates it would avoid the meat going off as quickly. This being so then I don't see any problem in getting rid of the practice.

If the claim is that it is a religious practice then the powers that be in each religion should have to make a rational case as to why we should keep a practice that is ethically dubious.

Other Comments by epeeist

22. Comment #423978 by Lucas on October 15, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Gazelles die every day in the jaws of lions without stunning or anesthetic. In tooth and claw baby, in tooth and claw. Let us not forget that we humans have teeth and claws as well. Nothing wrong with being vegan (except for the terrible shitting involved), but there's also nothing wrong with killing and eating an animal, even if it hurts it a little. Inflicting torture and needless suffering is one thing, but it is indeed painful to be killed and eaten, and that's just the way of nature.

I find it interesting that those who have grown up on farms or around animals, especially if they've killed, gutted, and eaten one themselves, have a pretty laissez faire attitude about it comparatively. Am I wrong, or is it only city kids and those who've had access to a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods their whole lives who can afford to worry about how much it hurts an animal to kill and eat it? I really think there is a class issue here.

Other Comments by Lucas

23. Comment #423983 by Mr DArcy on October 15, 2009 at 6:36 pm

"Ouch"! I'm sure I heard that potato scream as I put it into the pot, along with all those micro-organisms living on and in it. Every time I breathe I get this particular feeling of murdering millions of bacteria with each inhalation. As for my teeth and digestive system, well they seem to be "designed" for an omnivore like most humans.

Well from my high "moral" ground of the top of Ben Nevis, I'd better descend to the low life of Fort William.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

24. Comment #423990 by Simon Wilson on October 15, 2009 at 7:32 pm

For all those farm-grown boys and girls, why does it seem OK to not worry about how you kill an animal? Why cant you just kill an animal as humanely and quickly as you can? Just because nature is red in tooth and claw, why do we have to be?
Surely that is the main point of this article? That all animals that we kill be done so as quickly and decently as possible.
I eat a fair amount of meat - although the vegatarian options is often my choice, and I would like to see the laws tightened to reduce the animals suffering before I eat it.

Other Comments by Simon Wilson

25. Comment #423991 by Ygern on October 15, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Comment #423978 by Lucas

That's not a particularly good defence: it's natural, so what are you complaining about.

We are not wild animals, we can do better.

Point of comparison: it is also completely natural for women to die in excruciating agony in childbirth. That isn't a good defence for why it would be okay to not give them access to epidurals and all other modern medical aids that allow less traumatic and safer birthing.

Other Comments by Ygern

26. Comment #423994 by Cartomancer on October 15, 2009 at 8:14 pm

Trying to stop human beings eating meat is just as silly as trying to stop us having sex - both are hardwired natural instincts bred into us through millennia of evolution. It is most probably due to millennia of meat-eating that we have developed the big brains required to do all this ethics stuff in the first place.

In order to solve the problem of STDs, we could just tell everyone to stop having sex. But that wouldn't work, because people are people and instinctively driven to want and enjoy having sex. So we produce and recommend condoms instead. Likewise, people will not stop eating meat - and nor should we, it's good for us - so what we can do instead is come up with effective ethical guidelines to reduce the suffering of our farm animals. Militant vegetarianism is entirely comparable to abstinence-only sex education - it's just not going to work.

The problem here, however, is an entirely different one - religious exceptionalism. It is people with no good reason pretending they deserve an exception from society's rules just because they have an old tradition that says so.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

27. Comment #423996 by root2squared on October 15, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Two days ago, a jewish spokesman here called the Norwegian banning of traditional slaughter 'eighty years of antisemitic shame on our common conciousness'.

Oh religion. You are so funny; an endless source of infinite varieties of humor.
It's hilarious stories like this that almost make me wish you never go away.

Other Comments by root2squared

28. Comment #424006 by mmurray on October 15, 2009 at 9:09 pm

but it is indeed painful to be killed and eaten, and that's just the way of nature.

So you are against pain-killers for people with terminal diseases ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

29. Comment #424008 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2009 at 9:11 pm

but there's also nothing wrong with killing and eating an animal, even if it hurts it a little. Inflicting torture and needless suffering is one thing, but it is indeed painful to be killed and eaten, and that's just the way of nature.

i eat meat, one way i 'justify' it is that any animal that is born is going to die and probably in some less than perfect way and that includes me and you, as long as there is good managed husbandry and as humane a dispatch as is reasonable then i will continue to do so. saying that i tend to eat mainly free range organic chicken as my meat source which i feel fulfils those criteria somewhat and the day that i cant afford those birds is the day i will switch to lentils (which i also eat anyway). or i'll switch to animals which are probably less capable of suffering: whelks, shrimp.

when i visit the Uk though i do like a nice black pudding eh epeeist!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

30. Comment #424010 by epeeist on October 15, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Comment #424008 by phasmagigas:

when i visit the Uk though i do like a nice black pudding eh epeeist!

I actually coach in Bury, the home of the best black puddings in the UK.

Other Comments by epeeist

31. Comment #424013 by RationalPrimate on October 15, 2009 at 9:32 pm

With reference to my comment earlier (#423970) and (most of) the pro meat eating comments following it.

The point I was making was that I found it disquieting that some people on here are ranting and raving at what they consider to be unjustifiable cruelty to animals, i.e. the methods in which certain religions endorse and indeed require animals to be slaughtered, while they themselves seem to think that their own simple bloodthirsty need for the taste of meat was sufficient justification for what they euphemistically consider the "less cruel" slaughter of animals (after they are first stunned).

In both cases the murder of the animals is cruel, savage and unjustifiable. Justification by "I like the taste of meat" and "evolution has hardwired us to eat meat" is just as ludicrous as justification by some stupid holy book.

(By the way @Cartomancer evolution has also hardwired us for religion and religion was indeed a major contributor to the field of ethics - surely you won't want that to be used as an argument for the value of a good old fashioned religious presence in your government or your school system or anywhere else for that matter!)

Other Comments by RationalPrimate

32. Comment #424022 by phasmagigas on October 15, 2009 at 10:50 pm

eepeist

I actually coach in Bury, the home of the best black puddings in the UK.

yes, there are good, also the ones in bolton can be very reasonable.

heck, im starting to even miss black peas at this time of year! and dont get me started on parkin, luckily i can make my own, i just have to bring in treacle.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

33. Comment #424024 by Crazycharlie on October 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm

The food industry should be closely monitored to make sure that the pain and suffering of animals we use for food is minimized. Of coarse religious rituals and dietary laws are completely ridiculous. But, sorry to go off topic... Humans have been eating vegetables AND MEAT for hundreds of thousands of years. Most of our pre-human ancestors probably supplemented their diet with meat. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives genetically, supplement their diet with meat. It's not unnatural to eat meat! Does this mean that we can't live without meat? Of coarse not. At the same time, I'm not "uneasy" criticizing these silly religious dietary laws and I see no double standard. Being a vegetarian, I'm sure, is much healthier than having meat in your diet but, I've always been very sceptical of vegetarians. Every time I hear someone say they're a "vegan", or someone tells me, "He or she's a vegan.", the first thing I do is look to see if that person is wearing a leather coat, belt or leather shoes,or, if it's a woman, look for makeup because, millions of tons of animal fat go into making cosmetics. I hate hypocrisy, that's why I hate religion so much. Sorry... Just had to "get that off my chest".

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

34. Comment #424025 by Ignorant Amos on October 15, 2009 at 11:06 pm

xsjadolateralus

"Militant Vegetarian" springs to mind.

Who is going to pay to keep these aninmals until they die of "natural" causes?

How long do you think domesticated animals would last before extinction if they were not breed for food?

Just a few thoughts.

In an ideal world, eh?

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

35. Comment #424026 by Ignorant Amos on October 15, 2009 at 11:12 pm

36. Comment #424019 by xsjadolateralus

The main difference between Atheists and Religious is the Atheists ability to recognize trends.

Do ya think?

Not this Atheist......

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

36. Comment #424027 by Ignorant Amos on October 15, 2009 at 11:22 pm

.....like ex-smokers....ex meat eaters are a pain.

Worse than that, like the fundie religious, they are always trying to shove there position down your throat...pun intended.

Lights blue touch paper and withraws!!!!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

37. Comment #424029 by root2squared on October 15, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Trying to stop human beings eating meat is just as silly as trying to stop us having sex - both are hardwired natural instincts bred into us through millennia of evolution

That is incorrect. I am vegetarian and I have an aversion to meat. I know plenty of people who would throw up if you made them eat meat. There is no hardwired natural instinct to eat meat.

Other Comments by root2squared

38. Comment #424030 by decius on October 15, 2009 at 11:33 pm

Comment #424019 by xsjadolateralus

The main difference between Atheists and Religious is the Atheists ability to recognize trends.

That's a huge part of what science does.

For not believing in deities, one doesn't need to recognise any trend. In fact, whatever others may or may not do is completely irrelevant to one's ability to demolish faulty arguments and reject dogma.

Furthermore, science isn't in the business of "recognising trends", but of studying the natural world. Recognising trends is what fashion magazines and economists do.

To not recognize the trend and correlation of religion and barbarism, is to be absent minded. Just as well as, not recognizing the trend of slaughter and health.

What on earth is "the trend of slaughter and health"?

You just can't be oblivious to the trend of religion receding and civilization growing. Just as you can't ignore the advancement of what I would call moral vegetarianism and advancement of both health and civilization.

Would you call this a scientific argument?

It's sad that even on a site as intellectual as this one, you would still see such an ignorance, and outright denial of facts.

Which facts? You just spewed some vegetarian fundamentalist dogma interspersed with bits of nutritional pseudoscience.

Amen

Other Comments by decius

39. Comment #424031 by root2squared on October 15, 2009 at 11:34 pm

36. Comment #424019 by xsjadolateralus

Your sentiments are admirable, but I think too optimistic. We are not even beyond killing each other yet. I think it'll be a long time before most people will care about animals, if at all.

Other Comments by root2squared

40. Comment #424032 by decius on October 15, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Comment #424009 by xsjadolateralus

I'd like to meet you IRL and show you a little human nature.

Have you issued a threat to Cartomancer?

Other Comments by decius

41. Comment #424033 by Ignorant Amos on October 15, 2009 at 11:40 pm

45. Comment #424032 by decius

It appears to be a threat by any standards.

Not what we do here.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

42. Comment #424034 by Mark Jones on October 15, 2009 at 11:50 pm

Comment #424032 by decius

Agreed. Xsjadolateralus should withdraw that comment, IMO.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

43. Comment #424035 by decius on October 15, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Comment #424033 by Ignorant Amos

What a peculiar moral high horse he mounts.
It sounds like what an ALF whackaloon would say.

Other Comments by decius

44. Comment #424036 by Crazycharlie on October 16, 2009 at 12:07 am

Don't worry Cartomancer. Even if you did meet "xsjadolateralus" he probably couldn't do you any harm with those weak, skinny, little "vegan" arms of his. Also, you eat meat so obviously you're an animal. You'd kick his ass so high, it'd wink at him in the mirror when he brushed his teeth. ;p...

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

45. Comment #424039 by Ignorant Amos on October 16, 2009 at 12:14 am

48. Comment #424035 by decius

indeed

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

46. Comment #424042 by Crazycharlie on October 16, 2009 at 12:53 am

xsjadolateralus---
At comment #424019 you mentioned "moral vegetarianism" meaning, I would presume, you wouldn't eat meat or harm animals for moral reasons.

A few questions...

Do you have a pair of leather shoes?

Do you have a leather belt?

Do you have a leather coat?

Do you have a book bound in leather?

If you're a woman, do you use makeup?

Do you take any medications that, in clinical trials, were tested on animals.

Do you try to determine, before you use them, if any of the products you use like shampoos, medications, cosmetics, harmed animals in their manufacture?

If, at a birthday party, do you ask if eggs, which, after all, are produced at big nasty chicken farms, were used to make the cake?....

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

47. Comment #424043 by Alternative Carpark on October 16, 2009 at 12:58 am

Let us suppose, that you were told you were going to be KILLED and EATEN; would your impending death lose its sting at all with the knowledge that you were first going to be whacked on the back of the head with a pointy hammer, rather than have your throat slit there and then?

If, and only if, the animals killed in these stupid rituals are eaten afterwards, then I don't think that secular carnivores should be so quick to take the moral high ground. It seems to me to be a somewhat artificial grey area, regarding animal suffering, created by guilty non-vegetarians.

Compare kosher and halal meat production methods with those of foie gras – I know I wouldn't want to be a goose.

There are people who go out and shoot animals for fun or microwave cats for kicks; let’s sort them out first.

When we are done, Peter Singer can come and sort us all out.

Comment #424029 by root2squared

I know plenty of people who would throw up....

Steady on there, you're putting me off my steak!

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

48. Comment #424045 by Crazycharlie on October 16, 2009 at 1:10 am

If you want to be a "vegan" for health reasons that's great. If you're one for moral reasons then I'll be watching for the hypocrisy.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

49. Comment #424049 by Ignorant Amos on October 16, 2009 at 1:26 am

53. Comment #424045 by Crazycharlie

Judging by the comments....you may start watching!

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

50. Comment #424052 by root2squared on October 16, 2009 at 1:29 am

Vegetarians are evil!

http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/index.html

Other Comments by root2squared

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 | Next | Last