At 06:13 PM 1/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:09:22 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>At 02:42 AM 1/21/99 EST, you wrote:
>>>I have been following this debate with much interest for a personal
>>reason. I
>>>am the companion of three rescued potbellied pigs. They are most certainly
>>>thinking, feeling beings who feel pain and fear for their survival. When
>>pigs
>>>are slaughtered, they are said to cry. I once heard the story of a pig
that
>>>was raised by a family to be eaten. On the day of his slaughter, the
pig hid
>>>in a corner and refused to eat. Pigs do not have a hypothalamus to
regulate
>>>their hunger and are always ready to eat. One could infer that the pig
knew
>>>it was going to die. I respect everyone's choice in eating dead animals,
>>buy I
>>>cannot understand it.
>>>
>>
>>But in "respecting" their choice to eat dead animals, do you infer that you
>>also respect their choice to inflict intentional suffering and fear?
>>
>>Just curious.
>>
>>- Charlotte.
>>
>The purpose is to eat, not to torture animals. Insofar as that happens,
it is inadvertant >and not by malicious intent. HOW DARE YOU accuse
nonveggies of being sick sadists, taking >cruel pleasure in animal terror
and pain!
No one said anyone took "pleasure" in it. But in slaughtering an animal
commercially,
there almost certainly IS suffering, like it or not. Does whether the
suffering is
malicious or not matter? Does that lessen the suffering?
"Sick sadistics"?? -- your words, not mine.
