This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The book is organized into ten chapters, framed by a Prologue and Epilogue focused on Weidensaul’s banding experience in Denali National Park. His participant observations connect to his own research experiences, providing history and perspective. Weidensaul traveled to each location to witness the research in process.
Well, she apparently did such a great job convincing the folks at the Minnesota Book Awards that you can claim to love animals and then send them to slaughter, that not only was she a finalist for their award, but she won it. In her blog yesterday she wrote of her experience accepting the award, and who she thanked and didn't thank.
The problem with that statement is it's not as if farmers are searching "the wild" for cows, pigs, chicken and fish, plucking them from their homes, and plopping them on a farm to live out their (shortened) lives prior to slaughter. They are created to be slaughtered. The choice isn't the wild or the farm. Yes, that's true.
Not the day, the film, where Bill Murray experiences the same day over and over again. When I think about the language that has been used by people who kill animals or have someone else do it for them, a couple of years ago the "compassionate" trend began. Lipka introduced me to the idea of killing "respectfully." Respectfully?
Is it true that the least I can do is support the engineering of animals who experience less unpleasantness than they would have had they not been engineered that way? Why kill and maim and waste taxpayer dollars--or any dollars--on such things? Like when they're about to be, say, slaughtered? This is where I'm confused.
People in South Florida are still in an uproar over the mutilation and slaughter of 19 house cats (allegedly) by 18-year old Tyler Weinman, who was declared mentally competent and not a danger to himself or others (!). The four counts of burglary he is being charged with carry a heftier sentence than the animal killing.
Thankfully the days of visiting Africa purely for slaughtering its wildlife have mostly come to a merciful end, and safari operators have adopted the Big Five term to market tours that offer sightings of the fortunate remanants of Africa’s once teeming great herds.
Cain=farmer=evil murderer; Abel=slaughtered animals=victim/good son. In fact, I'd even permit them to not ever kill anyone, but rather to eat the kill of another that has been quietly decomposing for a day or two, as many carnivores do. We simply cannot survive without killing them! Net message? Now, who's a carnivore?
Of course, as a result, "ethical meat" becomes an option unless one realizes that killing when you don't need to is killing when you don't need to, no matter if it occurs in a slaughterhouse or in a mobile slaughter operation or in a backyard.
When in the position of having the choice, which so far is always, I'd rather choose not to have someone killed for me. This is a tough one to even dignify as it's not a good reason for killing someone. Justice for beings who look very different from us but who, like us, experience pleasure and pain, boredom and frustration.
The Nimans move him, as do several other farmers, including one who "apologizes to his animals as they are sent off to slaughter" (244), as if that's any consolation to someone whose life you are about to take when you don't need to. But this plate also holds all of the animals that were killed for your serving of sushi.
According to Reuters: Japan, which considers whaling to be a cherished cultural tradition, killed 679 minke whales despite plans to catch around 850. Dr. David Jentsch says to his colleagues "your silence will no longer protect you" and his community of vivisectionists has decided to have a pro-torture and slaughter (i.e.,
Beloved family pet Dalmatian, Pepper, is stolen, and after several weeks of searching is discovered to have been experimented on at a hospital and died on the table when researchers tried to implant her with an experimental cardiac pacemaker. By the end of my time as researcher, I was performing behavioral experiments on humans.
And once in a while, there is a check-in on what was happening in the United States–the killing of a bird protection warden in the Everglades, investigations into millinery sweatshops, the earlier passage of bird protection legislation. and the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act of 1921 in Great Britain).
There are moral reasons to go vegetarian: recognition that it is wrong to contribute to unnecessary animal suffering the injustice of exploiting animals and killing them for no good reason If human have rights, then many nonhuman animals also have rights, and confining and killing these animals for food violates these rights.
Meat, however, purchased at the supermarket, externally packaged and internally laced with petrochemicals, fattened in feed lots, slaughtered impersonally, and, in general, mechanically processed from artificial insemination to microwave roaster, is an affront not only to physical metabolism and bodily health but to conscience as well.
That is, they contribute to increasing, in the long run, the quantity of satisfaction which an individual experiences. The interests in nourishment and in gustatory pleasure lead man to kill and eat cattle, fish, and fowl. The issue is: Does he gain more value than he would experience if he let them live?
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. Similarly, most people also agree that: (2) It is wrong to kill a conscious sentient animal for no good reason. Nor ought we kill them without reason.
He clearly thinks that it is wrong to cause animals to suffer unnecessarily, but he appears to be somewhat ambivalent about killing animals (provided the killing is carried out humanely). I suspect that underlying his thinking here is a common rationalization that many of my students initially embrace. Running time: 12 Minutes.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content