courtesy of tondar...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070910.html

I think this editorial says a lot about the vick controversy that most peope aren't willing to admit. We are certainly all hypocritical in certain feelings. It can't be avoided, as there's an exception to every rule. It's great to see so many people condemming canine torture, and eating meat doesn't take away from that. However, it's true that if you really want to be consistent in your beliefs, how can you say that dogfighting/killing is wrong at the same time that you eat meat? I'd argue that it greatly matters where your meat comes from. This author seems to generalize all animal killing for meat as torture. While most of it is, and most animals used for meat live in disgusting conditions, aren't allowed to graze, are fed rendered animal fat, pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and generally mistreated, I don't think that animals who are allowed to live naturally and who are well treated until their death should be considered "tortured" (provided their death is quick and 'humane'). I think this article goes a little far, but it's something people should look at: Is supporting the big-business unethical meat industry really any better than supporting dogfighting?