What about a "vegetarian" who only accepts meat when it is "free"?  Meaning, they're not paying for it, money isn't going towards the slaughter of more animals, they can't "unkill" the animals.  I know I can't eat it because I'd forever be haunted by what that animal's face might look like before it gets killed, while it's being tortured, and every feeling it might feel while going through the whole process.

I can't JUST say I don't eat meat because I refuse to give my money to that, when the picture is so much larger.  I guess that's why I don't understand this Peter Singer guy. To me, he's a vegan picking at the leftover meat scraps at the table

:)  Thats how the Buddha ate meat, only when it would have otherwise been thrown away.  I dont see any strong moral objection to eating meat that would have otherwise been thrown away, but I'd never do it myself probably just because its a heck of a lot easier to not eat meat if you dont eat meat.  ;)  I remember liking meat; I dont anymore, but I might like it again if I started eating leftovers or what not.  Anyways, the leftovers can be given to neighbors/friends/dogs/homeless/whoever!  ;D

But yeah, there is something to the idea of looking at meat, and knowing what it was, and knowing it would be wrong for you to eat it.  I think a lot of us feel that  :)  Maybe that isnt so much because of morals but just because of the conditioning we've put ourselves through to associate meat with murder (which it pretty much always is).

And as far as the raping women thing goes...  If you dont rape a human woman, she otherwise wouldnt be raped, so unlike Singers raping of otherwise-raped turkeys, you are causing serious pain and torment to women by raping them.  But that does give rise to a big problem...  What if a man was going to rape a woman, and he had a gun, and you walked in on them?  He points the gun at you and he says 'if you dont rape this woman I am going to'.  Are you now free to rape the woman?  I think the intuitive answer is, absolutely not!  I wonder how Singer would answer this.

So what you're saying is that the end could justify the means to Singer.  I still don't agree with Singer's actions at all.  It's still the same to me as someone infecting hundreds of people with the AIDS virus in order to study it and test possible vaccines on them to come up with a cure that will eventually save millions.  The end does not justify all means.  Life is precious...  Period.  No sentient life deserves to be tortured and have inhumane acts committed against it, no matter the body it's in.  There is no acceptable excuse for it.           

I agree completely. However--that said--I will say that while I do not like (at all) the fact that Singer participated in this disgusting treatment against animals, I do think that it will open the eyes of people who had no idea that animals are treated this way. But I wish Singer would have just gone to the farm & observed--not actually participated.

I never thought about any of this while reading the book (I just liked that non-veg*ns who pick up this book will see how their food is raised, treated & slaughtered), which is why I gave it a positive review without mentioning the negative aspects... ???

I don't think this is a book that veg*ns NEED to read, as we already know so much about the things discussed in it. (I probably should have said that to the OP, as well. Oops. But I think it'd benefit her still, since she's going to listen to Singer speak; personally, I like to be familiar with the author's material(s) before going to lectures, etc.) I view this book as a great read for people who DO shop at Wal-Mart (or any regular, non-organic) grocery store for that matter--and great for anyone who eats meat & dairy, period. Or for people who simply don't think about what they buy, what they eat, and how this affects the earth, animals, and our health. I think it's a great way to get people thinking, and actually realize that what they buy matters.

But I still don't like that he participated in this cruelty--I agree with you all on that. I think he could have been just as graphic & effective pulling from another source that has already written about this (and maybe just quoting it in the book) or interviewing farm workers instead of going to the farm himself to work. Truthfully, though, that is a VERY small part of the book, and I think the good outweighs the bad... :-\ I know there is no excuse at all, so please don't think that is what I'm saying--but I am appreciative of the fact that people who read about what actually goes on in these factory farms (or even organic farms that raise animals for meat & dairy--it's all so very much the same :'() can't help but think about how they contribute to these industries & all the suffering they are supporting through their grocery dollars. Sometimes people need to be shocked into reality to make them wake up & see what goes on in these industries... And I think that is what Singer was going for. He had the best intentions; at the end, he writes in length about veganism & why it's good for everyone, and ethically, it is a lifestyle that we should all have. I just think it was a bad decision to work on the farms...

I understand what you're saying JC.  :) 

Good! I didn't want to look like an animal abuse-supporter! ;)

Just one more thing to add to my already lengthy statement above... Something that I took out of Singer's experience at the farms is that no matter WHO is working on these farms (a heartless jerk who stomps on animals like in the "KFC" expose videos :'( >:( or a careful vegan who is doing research for a book, or anyone in-between), working with animals is messy, cruel work. There is no way around it. No matter how gentle Singer was with those turkeys, they still flailed around & fought for their lives... They don't know the difference between "free-range" & factory farms because in the end, they want to live, period.

I used to think that organic, free-range animals led much better lives than their factory farmed counterparts... This book (among other sources) made me see that that is not at all the case.

Since I've been away, this thread has been very active with posts...and to be honest, I don't have the energy to rehash what I already wrote in order to defend my previous posts. I'll just say that I still strongly stand by what I already wrote.

And kudos to you Firefightress...excellent, excellent points.

If you're a Singer fan...I'll just make one final plea for you to open your mind to the possibilities of an animal rights movement that is pure in its thoughts and actions. A movement that sends out one single unequivocal message of peace toward animals. A movement that never ever resorts to any kind of violence or cruelty on any level. Imagine absolute non-violence. Imagine ultimate compassion. Imagine the implications.

Imagine.

That's where it all begins...

Peace.

I have to say, even though I am not participating in this topic, this is the most intelligent, mature, interesting debate I have read on VegWeb in a long time.  It has brought to my attention a topic I was not familiar with, letting me see the point of all sides and bringing up arguments I would not have thought about otherwise.  This is exactly what a debate should be.  Kudos. :)

Yay to VegWeb respect & open-mindedness! ;)