As a point of information “an eye for an eye” was in its time incredibly forward thinking. It was never meant to be taken literally. The point was that in those far off days people would often take the law into their own hands, extracting their own form of revenge on the one they perceived had wronged them. The concept was to stop events spiralling out of control.

An eye for an eye meant that a punishment had to be proportionate – so if someone pushed you and you fell over it did not justify your kicking him or stabbing him,

It also meant that to mete out an appropriate and proportionate punishment you would first have to stop and consider what that might be. In other words there had to be a cooling off period. This was geared to encouraging people to seek neutral counsel. (Hence the beginning of independent judges, etc.)

Exactly. Those are not Palestinians. More like Asians.

“Human nature” is a meaningless phrase.

Human societies differ tremendously in what is considered natural, as well as moral, in time and in place.

What was “natural” thousands of years ago (an eye for an eye) is hardly acceptable in most human societies today, and what is “natural” in some parts of the world today (genital mutilation of girls, anyone?) is considered unnatural and immoral in others.

There is no such thing as biologically based human “nature.”

But if you hold that human nature is the reason humans kill and exploit animals then you must also hold that human nature can allow us to develop beyond such behavior and STOP killing and exploiting animals. As well as other humans: Speciesism is from the same page as racism and sexism.

It is farcical for the author of this (or any) article to include the words “slaughtering” and “[said to be] humane” in the same sentence. Please, do go visit those places you wrote about where “large animals like cattle are slaughtered.” If it is good enough for your teeth and your guts to ingest animals, it is good enough for your eyes and your brain to ingest the suffering you cause.

That the author, and the founder, of a so-called “green” newsletter claiming to be “a sustainable voice,” can support any kind of meat production, is ludicrous. There is nothing ethical or favorable to the environment in any meat or dairy industry, large or small, industrial or home-scale.

“[I]n their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right … for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.” (I.B. Singer)

“As long as there are slaughterhouses there will be battlefields.” (Leo Tolstoy)

Um… I think your comment isn’t that clear. Do you mean why are people still eating animals? Human nature, I guess.

Wrong question.

Correct question:

“Why are animals still being slaughtered as captives by cowards with bloodthirsty tendencies?”

END THE WAR ON ANIMALS – THIS IS NOT ABOUT “RELIGION,” IT’S ABOUT COMMON SENSE!