This Can’t Be

I stumbled on this article at Newsweek yesterday, The Rights Of Animals […] Will We All Soon Be Vegans? Which piqued my interest. What if? And appearing in Newsweek? Impressive. At first…

Before too long my instinct was proven correct. It’s full of some fairly problematic logic. Some new welfarist thinking for ya. I’m pretty sure the whole animal rights issue revolves around not subjecting nonhumans to an existence where their exploitation is the accepted necessity of sustenance? 

And growing animal flesh in “vats?” Where does the material needed to do something like this originate? An animal? So the author eventually disproves his own original premise? We won’t all be vegan if we continue to eat meat. Whether grown in a lab or not, it’s still animal flesh. A vegan avoids ALL animal products. Because a vegan is concerned about an animals suffering, sure, but putting something in our mouths, at least, that once was a part of a living, feeling, sentient being is objectionable to most vegans. Myself included. 

Exploitation by any other name is still exploitation…

For some strange reason I didn’t notice the authors name before I started to read the article. But I did after. Peter Singer wrote it. The so-called “Father” of animal rights movement. Is it any wonder the movement is in the shape it’s in? Take that however you want, but me commenting on the movements current state wasn’t meant as a ringing endorsement of it’s “good health.”

I wonder if Peter Singer is as perverse as his logic? I’m not really asking. I know all about his schtick. Mr. Singer is a man who believes consensual sex between two different species, I’ll assume, he meant between humans and nonhumans, should be an accepted practice…