Changes

{{infoboxinfobox1

|date=7 Sep September 2006

|amazonukcover=<amazonuk>0099504022</amazonuk>|amazonusaznuk=0099504022|aznus=<amazonus>0099504022</amazonus>

|comment= I was terrified that this would include bits on how nasty sueprmarkets cannily force us to eat foods supposed to be bad for us (and I am seriously allergic to the idea of 'bad foods' and I have even been considering writing a letter to the school after my daugter came back day after day with a message that 'sugar is bad for you' and the next day 'crisps are bad for you' and the next day 'you are not allowed juice in your water bottle'!). That is off-topic however.

NB. I have never been to the US but it seems to me that people here (even in the UK) just don't realise how much more civilised Europe (for all its issues) is. Enough to look at the statistics that show how many TV commercials would an average child see by the age of 7 or the fact that schoolchildren in the US are actually MADE to watch ads, or the whole health insurance thing, and things like that.    

|comment= I have just read a review of this on Spiked, and it seems like it's a completely different book. You write mostly about human-ethic issues and neatly skip over condemnation of gluttony, supposed dangers to health and ethical vegetarianism, while Fitzpatrick (whose review is, as a Spiked one would be, critical) slides over human ethics issues and concentrates on how the book is about ethical issues to do with 'farm animal abuse' and animal suffering.

|comment= Yes, I saw that review. Singer also got an enormous roasting on Newsnight. Pardon the pun. I mention in the review that his final prescription is to eat vegan, plus bivalves, plus, if one must, humanely slaughtered meat raised only on land unsuited to agriculture. This is what seems to be upsetting everyone else. I don't really understand it, I must say. While I certainly wouldn't turn vegan under any circumstances - and say that - I didn't find the book in the least rabid. I'd say Singer puts animal welfare above people welfare and even environmental welfare, but I didn't think the book was about ranking one over the other. I thought it was about working out for oneself what there is to rank and how to go about doing it. Neither did I feel nagged or hectored. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone just beginning to think about the ethical implications of what they're eating, but I did find it of use. And I didn't think it was at all at all at all polemical. Gosh! I must be getting tolerant in my old age!  

|comment= Thanks!!! Yes, I know you mentioned it, I just wasn't sure what was the main focus of the book. I think I couldn't NOT get seriously rabid myself about somebody who puts animal welfare above people welfare, even leaving environmental issues aside for a while. And it's not lack of tolerance, it would be more suspicion that all other arguments are also made with the secret agenda of animal protection. But then I eat all kinds of meat, happily wear leather and would wear fur if I could only afford it...