Let’s stop defending Foer’s wishy-washy logic, folks. His intellectual “speculations” about exploitation his, his direct involvement with a group that essentally works to absolve those who consume animal products, and his own admitted consumption of animal products, is causing a lot of harm to animals, even if it does turn some folks vegan.

@Kelly – yeah. I am never sure why people seem to think (hope?) that treating them better makes the rest of it okay.

A gilded cage is still a cage. *snort*

Regarding hunters… I’ve had a few run ins with them. The last thing they ever want to hear but it is the truth – There is no over population “problem”. There are tens of thousands of breeding facilities for “game” animals, which raise everything from fowl to elk and deer.

My point to those who advocate hunting is either there isn’t a wildlife population “problem”, in which case we need not kill these animals. Or, there IS a “problem”, in which case we shouldn’t be “breeding” more.

It confirms the post by Marji – …We breed to hunt. :(

I hear many hunters proclaim the same thing regarding “conservation”. It’s all just hooey to justify otherwise indefensible acts.

But yes, those are more great examples of the myth of consent, the limitation/boundaries set by society or cultural “norms”, which people somehow interpret to mean that those are the active choices of the people who are not in power…

@Ginny – yes, I tried to make his ambivalence clear by directly quoting his “might conceivably agree to be eventually eaten in exchange” but I probably could have been clearer. I thought it quite strange that he’d set up the logic showing how flawed the myth of animal consent was, and then turn around and say “but those arguments might be missing the point,” and go on to talk about how it was conceivable that with good treatment preceding the killing, the animals might consent. Which actually is close to what is being argued in the original version of the myth, so it is all rather contradictory. Or ambivalent, if you prefer.