Peter Singer: answers the questions.

[Alistair]

Some of the questions are ridiculous - ''How often do you wash?'' etc but they are all answered beautifully. :)

I particularly like

'' What's the most effective retort I can use when criticised for being a vegetarian? ''

Try asking them why they are not vegetarian. PS :D

Link to Independent Online/ (http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1466409.ece)

[Oracl]

Thanks for posting that, veganblue. :)

He does have a wonderful way of answering any question, however silly! :agree:

[Fauxmage]

Yes, thanks veganblue! I enjoyed reading the article. Its strange about the oysters though. Why does everyone want to pick on oysters? Oysters are people too!!!
:oyster:

[thevegantwins]

It was an interesting interview, thanks veganblue though I still find his belief in killing babies born with severe physical disablities very disturbing.

[dreamer]

I too am disheartened when people like Singer, who are the "face" of animal rights in many ways, disparage some creatures--i.e., "it's OK to eat oysters because they have no discernible nervous system." I have a friend who eats seafood and dairy and eggs w/o a care in the world and seems to not want to even consider changing. She became veggie after reading one of Singer's book a couple of decades ago and seems to find her way of living now in sync with his views (though he does, at least now, seem to be against dairy and I would assume eggs). I also don't much like his view on infanticide, though I haven't read his entire thought-process on that issue.

[Alistair]

[Original post was lost in the aether - some of the discussion rehashed below :)]

...though I still find his belief in killing babies born with severe physical disablities very disturbing.

Singer examines issues deeply and his weighted conclusions are quite logical but often are repellant against some of our deeper instincts - such as the sanctity of life, especially of children, at all costs.

Our ability to keep earthlings alive against all odds and survival obstacles sometimes does not take the cost to the individual into account.

(Description of a child born with severe abnormalities kept alive with modern medicines and surgery - blind, mute and unable to move independently or eat, born with a blind ended digestive tract).
The infant would have died within days under natural circumstances but had been given an extension of life that it has been demonstrated that it cannot enjoy.

That's an argument that has been routinely used to justify animal murder, the animals don't enjoy life. How do we know what that baby is experiencing? There is no way to know, we just assign feelings based on the physical state of that child which might not reflect what is happening internally.

It is a tricky one. You could also argue that the child was not suffering because it didn't know anything else than a life of interference and confinement. That said, pain is measurable in the blood - what effect it has on the mind and how much a person can bear is subject to what they are used to. There *are* was to know how much an animal is suffering based upon physical measurements

We can measure suffering - but how much that is normal for someone...

The responsibility between protecting life and polonging suffering or taking life and ending suffering - it is a terrible terrible choice to be forced to make.

My housemate tells of working on a mango farm where a struggling baby bird dying in the hot sun, being eaten by ants with *no* chance of survival - where the other workers all just walked around it and let it slowly die. My housemate took pity and quickly ended it's life but those around him that neither went to save it or end its life thought that *he* was the monster.

Sometimes doing nothing is the greater evil.

I would hate to be in the position to have to decide something like this but I would also hate to be responsible for prolonging suffering too.

[Oracl]

Singer seems to say that oysters don't have the capacity to suffer - physiologically - that they are ''mindless''.
I thought that Singer changed his mind on the subject of oysters. In the second edition of Animal Liberation he said that we cannot be confident that oysters don't feel pain so:
"Since it is so easy to avoid eating them, I now think it better to do so."

[Alistair]

I am so glad to hear it!

(So are the oysters!) :clam:

[Oracl]

(So are the oysters!) :clam:
:)

[Bowwowmeow]

From Through the Looking-glass and What Alice Found There:

. . ."The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view? . . .

Lewis Carroll

[thevegantwins]

Oh shit, I went to quote something veganblue posted (post #6) and instead of quoting him, I accidentally edited his original post. :o

Help, Oh Wise Oracl or Fauxmage, can this be undone?

[Fauxmage]

Sorry vegantwins! I had a look, but its gone. I don't make back-ups that frequently. If I had, it might be retrievable, but I haven't. Maybe veganblue can remember the part that got deleted? :o

[thevegantwins]

Thanks for trying, I feel like such a shmuck! :(

[Soynut]

It was an interesting interview, thanks veganblue though I still find his belief in killing babies born with severe physical disablities very disturbing.

Me too.