I was aware that Peter Singer loved animals, but I didn't know he LOVED animals... just kidding. I think it's possible that he's gone over the edge.
Speaking of boycotts... I happen to be very vegetarian and support any group that works to protect the rights of animals; however, I cannot support PETA. Why? Because I do not believe that the "end justifies the means." In other words, sexually provocative pictures of young women that are regularly featured in PETA's "Animal Times" publication may make vegetarianism more palatable to the masses, but I believe such marketing schemes exploit the female body. It doesn't make much sense to me. But of course, as the below post states, the master class is indeed alive and well in Norfolk. on 2/9/02 8:14 PM, Lee Hall at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Methinks more whiney than rad. What does this PeTA campaign imply? That > humane enslavement of sentient beings is acceptable? I don't recall a > debate about the premises of such an argument. > > Then again, if Peter Singer says it's okay to have sex with them as long as > it's done humanely, I suppose it comes as no surprise that welfare groups > might think nonhuman animals can be consumed humanely too. > > Better treatment of livestock. Better treatment of slaves. The master class > is alive and well and living in Norfolk. > > Lee. >
