Truth is, I understand your cause - I’ve seen slaughter houses myself - but I still believe in reasonable taking and eating of game (as an outdoorsman and hunter)… I cannot sustain a prolonged intellectual debate on the subject as my time is short, but I’d suggest hitting Ted Kaczynski up for his opinions on the subject. […] Where do you draw the line and what standard is used to define that line? Those that are in it for the health benefits accept poultry and fish as edible. Where do those opposed to suffering stand? (Ever see a fish struggling out of water?) What about grubs/worms/etc.? And finally, plants are alive too, they react to stimuli (including pain); have circulation systems, etc. So how about them?
Tim McVeigh responds to PETA.
The man killed 168 people, but still makes more sense than PETA.
The man killed 168 people, but still makes more sense than PETA.