|
|
Hey, everyone. Scroggle2 here. I was reading through the most recent issue of
the Whyville Times, and I started to notice something. Not just something little
as in, "Ah, I'm not gonna read that, that's stupid," but more like, "Hey, that
editorial doesn't look at both sides of the argument" kind of thing. The article
I'm talking about is by 8Dyay8D, entitled "Vegetarianism."
The article basically just explained their opinion on another article opposing
vegetarianism. One thing that bothered me about it was this one sentence:
"I choose not to snack on meat not because of the fact that it is a dead
carcass, but because of the conditions the animals live in."
Yes, it's true that the animals raised for slaughter aren't treated very nicely
as you'd like, but did you know that you're not actually "limiting the
suffering" when you decide to eat more wheat than meat? According to Steven
Davis, a professor at Oregon State University, "Vegan diets are not bloodless
diets. Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan
diets." At least one study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused
a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mice, rabbits, snakes,
skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers, rats, and pheasants are all murdered from
tractors in fields.
All I'm trying to say is that even though
you may think a vegetarian diet will limit the suffering of a few animals, just
as many animals are murdered from your new dieting habits, too. And I also leave you
with a question: Why is it right to kill a mouse and not a cow?
This is scroggle2, signing off...
|
