What if the judge was veg? Would this have changed her/his verdict?
Tell it, sista.
I believe our need to kill for food sort of reflects our need to "work" for money. The concept that suffering is both natural and necessary. Sort of a masochistic, Catholic-guilt mindset. Animals are our food, therefore it is their duty to suffer for us. Bullocks.
I like how you mentionned that information shared about animal suffering at these holiday dinners is considered an attack, an attempt to make meat-eaters feel guilty, but when they criticize the non-meat-eater's choices, it's accepted as "their way of coping". They already feel uncomfortable enough just having you there, and their way of bridging the gap is to make fun of the subject. If only they could grasp how incredibly not funny it is.
I am the only veggie in a family of about 30 meateaters in a hardcore barbecueing Albertan family. I am attempting to bridge the gap this year by baking an unturkey with my mom.
http://blog.liberationbc.org/2009/10/vegan-mofo-7-unturkey/
I completely agree.
I'm always careful now about which charities I donate to. There is no such thing as killing for a good cause.
Anytime someone says "I like to think that _____", you can be sure that what follows will be a statement involving conscious ignorance.
(...oxymoron?)
Can Ellen really be called vegan if she endorses one of the worst animal-testing corporations on the planet for her own gain?
The way it should be.
It is not a question of morality (though if it were, the primates would be winning as they are not conducting horrific experiments on humans...), it is a question of whether these animals are capable of suffering - this should be the determining factor as to whether any potentially damaging experiments are conducted on them.
No one is attempting to "wish away" vivisection, we are logically determining that it is an inaccurate, unsafe science that causes unecessary suffering for both humans and animals.