Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
I eat them 45%
I hunt them 9%
They hunt me 9%
I am a hand wringing, leftist, terrorist, nutjob vegan but I still kill animals whether I want to admit it or not 36%

Votes: 44

 Animals: Food for Thought

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 31, 2002
I am an avid hunter, fisherman, and farmer, and as such have occasion to spend numerous hours working in or enjoying the great outdoors. My religious beliefs also provide extensive opportunity to interact with some of God's smaller creations. To my dismay, many people who have spent their entire lives in the vast paved cities that dot the US landscape feel compelled to speak out about animals, their treatment, and their rights.

Of course there are big time operations that campaign for better treatment of animals. They sign up dozens of stars and public personalities to try to convince you to change your ways.

Other groups take a more radical stance, burning down animal testing labs and such. Such groups are usually composed of loose knit packs of individuals who are seldom aware of the plans of their cohorts.

I would like to take the opportunity to expose the ignorance of these self styled whale savers to the readers of Adequacy.


More stories about Animals
Pet Ownership - Killing Through Kindness
Obesity and the Jennifer Lopez Message
What are Ruminants Fed (and what is a ruminant anyways)
Don't Go In The Water
Urban Scavengers
Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory

More stories by
Right Hand Man

Protect Our Children Now
Led by a delusional group of extremists who think that nature is fed by mercy, the animal rights crowd wants to eliminate the lifestyle practiced by 98% of Americans. While the end game of the animal rights activists is to eradicate the entire human population from the face of the earth, their current projects include denying you medical treatment, stealing away your pets, ending all hunting, and forcing women to freeze to death in the winter. It is plain to see that these groups are a threat to decent society as they appear more than willing to commit acts of blatant terrorism to further their evil goals. Even while the nation faces one of its most trying times ever, these people will not relent.

They count as their bretheren the 80s icon for depravity Boy George. No decent person would ever care to associate themselves with such filth, thus we must assume that the entire animal rights movement is awash with deviancy and immorality. Despite this truth their arguments should not simply be dismissed, they must be completely dismantled so that future generations will not doom themselves by repeating their mistakes. We shall take a look at two of the main arguments raised by the underground terrorists:

Animals Have Rights

Obviously false. As noted by many well respected philosophers, animals certainly do not have rights. They lack Free Will, given to humans by God, and cannot make judgements based on morality. Thus they do not have rights. As anyone can see, animals will not hesitate to take a bite out of one of us for no reason at all, which shows a callous disregard for our feelings and is certainly not indicative of a respectful creature. Humans don't go around biting each other.

Even if a person cannot be convinced by the evidence above they must agree with the assertion that most animals happily give up any rights that they may have been ascribed by a few ignorant humans. Medical and cosmetic testing has gone on for dozens of years. Countless chimps, goats, rabbits and such have freely given their lives to make our lives better. How else can one explain that these lab animals continue to reproduce, providing us with an unending supply of test subjects? It is almost as if they know that if allowed to roam free they would lead much worse lives.

It is Immoral to Kill Animals

More garbage from the animal rights thugs. For a people who claim to want humans to improve their treatment of animals this is an untenable position. In the eyes of most it would be far more cruel to eat an animal while it is still alive than to simply kill it first.

I love animals as much as the next guy but the inescapable fact is that animals account for an important source of sustenance for many of us. Whether we kill the animal ourselves or have someone else do it for us, we all need to eat, thus kill, for survival. Of course there are alternatvies to eating meat, namely vegetarianism, but those people tend to be sickly, pasty, weaklings and no one wants to be in that position.

At its core the question of the morality of killing animals is pointless. It is simply the lot of human beings. We were given dominion over the animal kingdom by God and killing them simply fills our ecological niche, and our stomachs. Morality doesn't enter the equation for us, no more than it did for these animals. Animals are nourishing, tasty, and plentiful, why bother ourselves with fretting over the morality of using them for our own ends? They would turn the tables if they could.

Don't fall in with the Jeremy Rifkinds of the world (author of the extremist book Beyond Beef and direct descendant of mass murderer Joel Rifkind). Stay on the straight and narrow. Keep eating meat, keep buying products tested on animals, and keep taking medication. You'll not only live a better life, but you'll be contributing to the gainful employment of thousands of our animal friends.


Editors, I fail to see the controversy here (3.50 / 2) (#2)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 08:44:59 AM PST
Even the most casual reading of Genesis indicates that God made animals for man's use. Leviticus goes into tedious detail about what animals the desert dwelling Jews may eat (thankfully, we Christians wisened up, and have a luscious ham to look forward to to break our Lenten fast).

What next? Non-Catholics go to Hell? Masturbators spend a year in purgatory for each wasted sperm cell? Please, let us go back to debating controversial topics.

A. Rightmann

No trolling indeed... (none / 0) (#26)
by afc on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 05:25:02 PM PST
I only spent half an hour here, and I am in awe.

No trolls, indeed. News for grown-ups, yeah right.

jolly good (none / 0) (#27)
by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 05:34:22 PM PST
I only spent half an hour here, and I am in awe.

Indeed, that was my reaction as well.

No trolls, indeed.

No sir!

News for grown-ups, yeah right.

Yes indeed!

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Good article. (4.00 / 2) (#3)
by derek3000 on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:46:16 AM PST
While I was a vegetarian before, and am considering going back, it is only for health reasons. I read a very interesting essay on this subject that changed my opinion on the whole matter.

Regarding interactions between humans and animals, you can draw a kind of triangle of moral responsibility.

Animals have no moral responsibility towards man. This is mentioned in the article--if a wild bear attacks me, I can't take it to court. I could kill it to defend myself, though. Also, Animals have no moral responsibility towards each other. This is the Law of Nature--only the strongest survive.

With this information, how can we possibly have any moral responsibility towards them? It's obvious that we can't.

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Anthropocentrism (3.00 / 1) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:07:32 PM PST
This is a decidedly non-anthropocentric viewpoint, which isn't bad by any means. What you are saying is that we humans are part of nature, and so if a fox can kill a rabbit to eat, why can't we? This is perfectly reasonable.

The other approach is that we are not a part of nature per se. This would almost assuradly make one conclude that we are here by some divine creation, and in this case too, we have dominion over the animals.

So either way, quit starving yourself and go get a 1/4 pounder with cheese.

starving? (none / 0) (#19)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:32:18 AM PST
I'm 188 lbs. now. What do you want? Granted, I'm 6'2", but still...

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Do you accept moral responsibility to each other? (2.00 / 1) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:26:57 PM PST
If humans have responsibility to behave morally towards one another and moral irresponsibility towards animals undermines that responsibility, then your triangle is an insufficient model.

I'm not sure what you are saying... (none / 0) (#20)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:34:42 AM PST
can you re-word it?

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

here: (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:09:23 PM PST
Violence committed upon animals is wrong for two reasons:
  1. Such violence directly harms animals;
  2. Such violence also harms humans by encouraging humans to be violent towards each other as well.
Even if you can't accept the validity of the former, the latter should be independently persuasive.

Re: here (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 05:42:36 PM PST
In what way does violence towards animals encourage humans to become violent? I believe that the opposite is true. Contrast the civility of the average hunter or outdoorsman with that of the average inner-city resident. The crimes committed by inner-city people are much more violent and occur more frequently than crimes committed by the average outdoorsman. This fact indicates that not only does violence towards animals not encourage violence but actually reduces its chances of occuring.

Jeremy Rifkinds (2.00 / 1) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 04:27:06 PM PST
If you follow you own link, you would see that the author of "Beyond Beef" is Jeremy Rifkin, not Jeremy Rifkinds. So he is probably not related to the serial murderer, because they have different last names.

Plus, you judge all of us based on Boy George's endorsement? That doesn't follow logically. Just because someone agrees with one aspect of a philosophy, doesn't mean that they are all the same in every aspect.

Allow me to reiterate (1.00 / 2) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:12:27 PM PST is run and maintained by retarded individuals that would know god if it bit them in the arse.

Derrrrrrrrr (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 06:26:53 AM PST
As a retarded individual, I find this briefly and only slightly offensive..

sickly pasty weaklings? (3.00 / 1) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:30:12 PM PST
Your article is half cocked. Vegetarianism
has been around for thousands of years and
there are many vegetarian athletes.
Violent animal rights nutballs do not represent
all vegetarians, they just get alot of attention,
much like the 'patriot movement' is not
representative of all gun owners.

Come again? (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:28:22 PM PST
I fail to see how the patriot movement and vegetarianism are related.

ok (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 08:34:18 AM PST
Violent animal rights nutballs do not represent
all vegetarians, they just get alot of attention,
much like the 'patriot movement' is not
representative of all gun owners.

It is an analogy. X is to Y as A is to B.
X=animal-rights-nuts Y=vegetarianism
A=patriot-movement-wackos B=gun-owner-ism

I have a few problems with this (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by PotatoError on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 08:55:22 PM PST
I agree with most of your article. I just have one basic problem:

You seem to be catogorising all animals into the same group.
You assume humans to have free will (this hasnt been proven though) but say that all animals dont possess free will. This might be the case with simple animals like insects which be explained well as biological robots. But there are some very intelligent animals out there such as primates and dolphins.
I cant see how you can say a human baby has free will but a adult chimpanzee doesnt. Both have reletively the same IQ and behave almost identically.
Have you ever thought what a human would be like if they were left on an island as a baby to grow up on their own?
They would grow up not being able to understand language - they would only understand need for food and water and shelter. They would no doubt discover ways of getting food and water although its doubtful that they would ever build anything in their lives. They would grow long hair, they would stink, they would not understand ethics or morality - things that society teaches.
How would you distinguish such a person from an animal? You couldnt. Such a man would not be able to "make judgements based on morality".

Much of our sophisication is down to teaching - it isnt with us at birth. If we are not raised in civilisation we arent distinguishable from the animals at all.
To think that we are actually special is ludicrous - our only claim to fame is our intelligence - that is why we have dominated this planet.

Of course we must pretend we are special for our society to work. We cant accept that animals can be part of our society because they are so different. So we make the rule that we are superior animals and therefore are justified in killing the lesser animals.

If an advanced alien race came along and started killing us we would claim they werent justified - it sounds hypocritical but its how things work. We arent really special but we must believe it to exist and survive.

Oh good. (4.00 / 2) (#12)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 12:59:16 AM PST
Now, all you have to do is to define what "intelligence" means.

Good luck. Hope you are qualified, though, because people smarter than you have not answered that question.

If you were intellectually honest, though, you would have to admit that the only difference between man and animals is the issue of free will. Man has the potential to become something more -- an ethical, intelligent being; likewise, man also has the potential to devolve back into a chimpanzee. Apes, on the other hand, have no choice in the matter. They cannot suddenly decide that they want to change their lifestyle.

Which is why every human life must be treasured, regardless -- because of the potential inherrent in humanity itself.

Peace and much love...

I see your point (none / 0) (#21)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:34:53 PM PST
"Man has the potential to become something more -- an ethical, intelligent being"
Yes but other animals arent at the same intelligence level as us. They cant properly understand ethics because their reasoning isnt as advanced.

Ethics are human defined anyway. We made up all the ethics. Most of them are based on common sense. There is a lot of "well if I dont do it to him, he wont do it to me. I dont want him to do it to me so therefore I mustn't do it to him".

Our high intelligence is the only difference between us and the animals. If any other social creatures on earth had an equal intellienge, they too would be able to concieve ethics and moral issues.
Ethics can really be seen as "behavior in society". Murder is ethically "bad" because it is out of behavior in society. All humans have developed a rule that murder is wrong - its pretty logical really, its not magic how this rule was created. No human wants to be the one murdered so in general everyone sticks to this rule as it increases their survival.
Same with stealing - noone wants to have their stuff stolen so its natural to enforce an agreement in a society that noone will steal.

Intelligent animals of human level can also percieve events from another animals perspective. We can imagine we are in another other persons position - this is where such feelings as guilt and pity come from. We cam put ourselves in another's position so well that we actually begin to feel dimmed down feelings that we believe they are feeling. This is why you would feel sorry for someone if they have just had something stolen from them.
This kind of thing also leads to definitions of good and evil. If someone steals then in general that makes people feel sorry for the victim because they can put themselves in the victims shoes. THe majority would then not understand how the stealer could do such a thing and would brand them "evil" or whatever other word was in place for describing someone who causes hurt.

Any intelligent animal will develop these traits if it belongs to a social group. Ethics are required if a society is to have any order and stability at all.

As a diversion this leads on to an aspect of Artificial intelligence which im very interested in.
Lots of people will say "you cant program a robot to have feelings and ethics" - a robot being an artifical intelligence. Well leading on from what ive written above you wouldnt have to program feelings or ethics into an AI. You would simply make it intelligent enough and then put 10 such AI's together and let it form automatically.

Ethics defined by humans? (none / 0) (#31)
by hodgepodge on Tue Feb 5th, 2002 at 06:48:44 PM PST
It seems your reasoning with respect to our ethical responsibility has a crucial flaw, to wit:

Ethics are human defined anyway. We made up all the ethics. Most of them are based on common sense. There is a lot of "well if I dont do it to him, he wont do it to me. I dont want him to do it to me so therefore I mustn't do it to him".

Now, I'm no Biblical scholar, but it seems very clear to me that our ethical codes are largely based on the revealed word of God. God said, "Thou shalt not kill," and indeed the idea of killing another human without just cause is morally repugnant. You appear to have gotten your causal chain mixed up, in that you attribute our distast for murder and thievery to standards set by society. You completely fail to realize that God set the standards for both society and personal behavior - so it should come as no surprise that our societies largely enforce God's standards for personal behavior.

As for the question of "artificial" intelligence, or of so-called "intelligent" animals, it is clear that, while computers and animals may be able to follow simple commands, and even, in certain cases, display a convincing simulation of intelligent behavior, neither machine nor beast has been endowed by God with a soul. Without a soul, both free will and intelligence are impossible.

God said 'Thou shalt not kill.' (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:51:50 PM PST
Not 'Thou shalt not kill humans.'

Hypocrites. I'm no vegan, killing for food is fine. But killing for sport is horrible.

On the point of humans being more moral than animals- Show me one instance of murder (other than for territorial, food, or other similar circumstances), theft, have used God's name in vain (other than, say, parrots, who can only regurgitate what was taught to them by... humans), or any of your supposed evils.

Prefixes (none / 0) (#35)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 06:09:38 AM PST
I think it's a question of amoral vs. immoral, dear.

And obviously... (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 09:12:29 AM PST
The animal kingdom has far more morals than any human on this planet.

Meatless (2.00 / 2) (#11)
by First Incision on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:28:31 PM PST
As a pasty vegetarian weakling, I have to say I like it. I was much weaker with those extra 15 pounds of fat, and lower nutrient and fiber intake.

But as someone who has conducted animal experiments, don't confuse me with an animal-rights type.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

How are you NOT pathetic? (none / 0) (#30)
by MicroBerto on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 08:38:17 PM PST
So the fact that you couldn't control your disgusting eating habits through <B>MODERATION</B> and <B>SELF CONTROL</B> now make you a better person??<BR>
- Mike Roberto

Save the whales? (3.00 / 1) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 04:09:44 AM PST
My friend, you are living in the past. Nowadays, the animal rights lobby PETA urges us to kill the whales. All that Greenpeace stuff was misguided, because "A whale swims free for most of its life. It can feed hundreds, so less fish have to die. We have all our priorities wrong.".

Odd (3.00 / 1) (#14)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 04:58:53 AM PST
I'm pleased that she is no longer in the United States.

To highlight her campaign, she is prepared to throw pies, disrupt tournaments, picket restaurants and distribute leaflets outside schools.

She should be pleased as well. Here in the US, I know some people who are prepared to pick up a rifle to highlight their campaign. In the words of our president: Freedom must be defended.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Resort to violence and the terrorists have won (4.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 05:56:04 AM PST
And that's what these Animal Rights protestors are - terrorists. I realise that the word "terrorist" has been overused and misused here to refer to pasty-faced little boys in their parent's basement, but animal rights protestors are real terrorists by the dictionary definition - they commit unlawful violent acts against innocent people, they threaten our way of life. We can only take refuge in the knowledge that THE RULE OF LAW WILL PREVAIL against these terrorists. They incite hatred but the pen, not the sword will save us. I understand you use your weapon skills only for defense, but each drop of human blood spilled is an insult to civilisation. We should not stoop to the terrorists' level.

Peter Singer (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 05:28:26 AM PST
Right Hand Man: Have you heard of the man Peter Singer, if so, what are your opinions on him?

Peter Singer: chickenlover (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 06:00:07 AM PST
OK, so I'm not Right Hand Man, but are we talking about Peter Singer, Champion of Bestiality here? Personally, I think he's a tolerable pervert, but the law says he is a criminal. -- because it isn't

Singer (none / 0) (#18)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 06:39:59 AM PST
Peter Singer is on par with abortion doctors, although he is a little further out there. I can't really elaborate further, except that I doubt he will see his desire for apes to enjoy the same legal rights as humans come to pass.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Let's go around kicking puppies where ever we go. (none / 0) (#22)
by Mack on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:39:12 AM PST
I mean c'mon I find it difficult to believe that some all good supreme being would forgive us for subjecting animals to painful lab testings. You may think you know what God is thinking, but we don't know that for sure until we die.

YEa (none / 0) (#24)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:37:06 PM PST
how many emails do I get from religious hippies claiming that "God is good and honest and well meaning". How the fuck would they know? If God is almighty and powerful there is no way they can ever understand Him (or Her? or It? or maybe God has no personna, again how the fuck would we know).

The big question has to be: Is God incapable of lying to us? Being almighty would make this a definite NO.

animal, meat, fur ..etc (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 05:29:58 AM PST
If God didn't want to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat....duh!

That is interesting (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 7th, 2002 at 08:30:28 AM PST
Dear Readers,

I am always amazed at the stupid comments that I hear coming from simple minded attention seekers. It saddens me to think that there are people like this author in existance.

I have a lot of very caring decent American friends - and so I don't buy into the usual race bashing that goes on in these kind of forums. But I have to say that this "right hand man" is perhaps the saddest person I have ever heard of.

I will pray nightly for "right hand man" and his family to die of cancer.


sextardsextardsextardsextardsextardsextardsextards (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 06:57:54 PM PST


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to