Animal Exploitation:
A Test of Human Compassion Played Out on Weaker Beings

Last Update: 4 May, 2024

Disclaimer: This page is largely opinion and nothing here should be interpreted as medical advice of a licensed physician. Use this information at your own risk.

What's this About?:

This issue is about judging fairness in how we interact with the creatures we commonly call 'animals': the non-human indigenous inhabitants of Earth belonging to the Animal Kingdom.

What's the Threat?

Great harm to animals, on a mass scale, by humans. Humans have been making life a living hell for many billions of animals, by recognizing no rights for them whatsoever, even though they are far more similar to us than different (we are all part of the same Animal Kingdom) and even though they are natural co-inhabitants of the Earth with us. In modern society animal abuse is almost never a question of having to choose between an animal or a human life, but rather a choice to restrain your harm to weaker beings or not.
A weight of spiritual guilt for humanity. When humans persist in animal cruelty, we build a spiritual guilt whihc must come back to haunt, and which the physical world must eventually follow, according to spiritual laws. That you might choose to believe that animals have no rights or soul is not a defense; beliefs and even scriptures can be wrong. We are all animals, and love, not knowledge, is the path of the improvemnet that matters most. Simply put, when you condone the abuse of animals because they are weaker, it spirituallly justifies someone or something to do the same to you eventually. Conversely, if you defend helpless animals, it establishes a spiritual return of protection for you one day somehow.

The sheeer magnitude of this bloodshed worldwide each year is immense.

Degradation of the Human Identity Beneath that of Any Other Known Being. Animal exploitation, particularly in the area of animal experimentation, is of such unlimited harm that it has sunk to invention and performance of such grotesque cruelties the likes of which are not even reported seen in Hell (by those who allegedly have been spiritually shown that place). Worse, these things are done not merely by rogue individuals but with full support of human institutions and the (human) Majority.

It means that humans have sunk to greater wickedness than anything known done by Lucifer (as another example, although he rebelled against God, we tortured and put Christ to death, which is a lot worse) or his minions. Moreover, whereas Hell toerments the guilty, humans prefer to torment the innocent. It's so bad that we don't need to worry about being corrupted by demons; rather, if anything, they should worry about being corrupted by humans.

If you think this is an exaggeration, please consider if you've ever heard of these things humans are definitely doing to animals (the innocent) ever being done in Hell (to the guilty):

Surgically bolting owl heads so they cannot rotate anymore: Johns Hopkins Owl Experimenter Admits His Own Testing is Flawed
Transplanting Animals' Heads:

April 27, 2017 Scientists Transplanted A Rat's Head Onto Another Rat, Hoping to Replicate It in Humans
The unbelievable story of world’s first successful head transplant
2016 Oct 14: The history of head transplantation: a review
September 21, 2022: How Vladimir Demikhov Actually Made A Two-Headed Dog

Entirely Replacing the Brain of a Living Animal with a kind of Battery: 27 October 2021 The gruesome science behind Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Killing a dog to bring its severed head back to life: Watch Soviet Scientists Bring a Dog’s Decapitated Head Back to Life
Opening skulls to insert electrodes into living animals' brains: 2 JUN 2014 Animal testing horror: Scientists cut open kittens' skulls and stuck electrodes in their BRAINS
Surgically Sewing Animals Together: September 19, 2013: Science's Long History of Sewing Two Animals Together and video Parabiosis Surgery
Implanting metal coils into animals' eyes: Implanted Metal Coils in Cat Double Trouble’s Eyes
Many more examples of human ingenuity to invent horrors for animals beyond anything thought to exist even in Hell: WITHOUT CONSENT

Preparing Your Perception:

Animal issues need to be confronted with your whole being, not just academically, and always with a clear witness of the actual procedures being discussed. This is because:

Emotional information is an additional level of truth perception, not a distraction from it
Animals have generally not established communication with us on a mental level (language). We need to stay open to them on a lower level of commmunication: emotional. Although animals have no voice we understhand, when we look on an emotional level, there is a wealth of communication.
However proudly our society might defend the principles of animal exploitation, our society tends to put that exploitation out of view. We need all our levels of awareness working to attempt to perceive what is deliberately hidden when deciding on exactly those hidden things.

To find the emotional truth of this issue, it's important to watch actual footage of the practices discussed in action. Unfortunately not only do many people 'not want to see' such footage, while callously endorsing the practice, but it's increasingly illegal to obtain it.

Emotional Understanding:

It is worthwhile to get an emotional perception of the realities of this issue, from illustrataions, testimonies, and footage, for a balanced understanding before jumping into academic arguments or making any decisions. This also serves as our CAPTCHA, because AI won't understand the emotional level. Resources include:

Moral Standing

Are animaals worthy of compassion? Please consider:

Animals live.
Animals feel pain

Jan 23, 2017: Animals can feel pain. A biologist explains how we know.

Animals are conscious
Many animals have shown ability to learn and communicate in human language when provided some mechanism to do so:

In fact there is a movement to teach animals language for a much closer bond with pets, such as with the FluentPet system.

All animals are similar to humans on cellular and biochemical levels, with all mammals having many similarities.
Animals share the planet with us.

What are the truths we need to view this issue correctly?

Outside of emergency survival situations, humans have no need to abuse or consume animals, so that doing so is a completely unnecessary cruelty.

Promoting it as your right doesn't make it right.

Promoting it as your traditional lfiestyle doesn't make it right.

Hiding the cruelty from public view, or refusing to look at what you condone, doesn't make it right.

So many animals are abused worldwide that literally any change in our policies would translate into many animals saved.

So great is the spiritual suppression of humanity by this cruelty that it's plausible that the Establishment encourages humans to keep abusing animals, and not contemplate the issue, so that the same people can justify abuse of humanity the same way that humanity justifies abuse of animals. In other words, our rulers seem to treat us like cattle regardless, but we can decide how well cattle are treated.

Human Prejudice against Animals:

Unfortunately, although young children are naturally inclined to like animals, meat-eating societies tend to work on them as soon as they are able to eat solid food to accept the idea that the only purpose of animals is for human use. As a result, if you're old enough to read this, your mind may be so locked up by culture that you cannot understand why animal rights is even an issue for any sane person.

Perspective:

We present from the belief that:

Animals are worthy of compassionate treatment, being our little brothers and sisters in Creation.
Humans are worth more than animals but all life is precious. By this we mean that humans should be permitted to harm animals as necessary to protect vital human interests, but otherwise harms to animals avoided.

On this point we differ from the conventional animal rights movement, which seems to take the impractical view that either humans and animals are equal (whcih would make accidentally walking on an ant manslaughter), or the view that all animals are necessary while all humans are a kind of unnecessary plauge on the planet.
Due to modern human technology, there is no need to directly and deliberately harm animals for any purposeso long as we continue to enjoy the benefits of that technology. The vast majority of animal exploitation today is unnecessary and defended by blind selfishness and antiquated systems of morality which don't take into account changes in technology and necessity.

Importance: Why is Animal Rights a Necessary Issue to Understand?

We need to know where we fit in to the universe, including animals around us, so that we can govern our behaviour accordingly. To find this truth we need to inconvenience ourselves with thinking.
We need to understand morality to maintain our moral innocence. Animal rights is a moral issue, since it concerns how we treat other beings, so it must be important. Morality is always important and the morality of our actions is eternally culpable. Morality is not the same as religion, for example you can easily have one without the other.
We cannot rationally deny a moral question and responsibiltiy. Animal lives are still lives and we have a moral responsiblity to them and to the Creator for how we affect those lives.
The number of lives at stake is vast. Animals slaughtered as food alone are in the many billions each year.
The degree of suffering per life is often extreme. For example, industrial animals endure potentially unlimited suffering from birth to death, most of whom never even see the sun.
There is no way to achieve harmony with the diversity of life on earth if we don't develop a respectful view of animals. Environmental harmony needs more than just recycling to achieve.
How we've abused beings weaker than us can be used as a justification by higher (more powerful) beings to abuse us. Actually it already has been, but that would require the reader to believe such beings exist, and is beyond the scope of this article. For now, the point is that our abuse of lower beings can be used against us by higher beings if they exist.

Looked at another way, the difference between God and us is far greater than the difference between us and animals, yet He loved us enough to die for us. Can we not show them some compassion, at least a little out of the mercy shown to us?

Sure, it might not be what your Church Pastor teaches, but it's not your Pastor who will judge you on the last day. Make sure you do what you can justify.

OVERALL, moral blindness to the issue of how we treat all other animal species has been allowing us to cause such tremendous suffering to so many innocent creatures that it should be undeniable that this is an important issue to improve on if we want our world to truly be peaceful, harmonious, and if we want to improve as individuals and a species.

What's different about animals?

The Similarities: We share tremendous similarities with what we call 'animals', including that:

We are all part of the 'animal' taxonomical kingdom of life.
All animals share in the Biblical 'breath of life' as implied by Genesis 6:17, 7:15, and 7:22:

Genesis 7:15: And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Genesis 7:22: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Genesis 6:17: And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

We all have an identical system of genetic encoding and translation of proteins. For example, the same three nucleotides of DNA code for the exact same protein in all animals.
The genetic code of all animals is remarkably similar. For example, mice share 92% of human genes, and fruit flies 44%.
We all derive our energy from eating food (rather than, for example, photosynthesis) and respiring it with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide as a by-product.
All animals have specialized adaptations to the specific environments we live in. For example, fish have gills to breathe underwater.
Most animals have some discernable level of decision-making and memory. For example, even worms can be taught to run a maze.
Most animals reproduce sexually. As an aside, this method of reproduction is interesting because it is not favoured by Evolution by Natural Selection, since it is less efficient to produce more offspring.
Most animals have a nervous system, and react to harmful stimulus in an aversive way, which suggests that we all experience pain as suffering in a similar way. Pain management is an important part of veterinary medicine.
Most forms of animal life have some kind of face, which is to say, eyes above a mouth.
Many forms of animal life nurse and protect their young (rather than just abandoning eggs).
Most forms of animal life can receive and interpret environmental stimuli of touch, sound, light, chemical (smell or taste), and temperature.
Some forms of animals, the vertebrates, have a spine like we do.
Some forms, the mammals, are also warm-blooded and give birth to young who nurse with milk like us.

The Differences:

We are more intelligent than any animal so far as we know, in terms of problem-solving, communication, and technology. Nevertheless many animals show surprising levels of problem-solving abilty, and apes have been taught to communicate in human sign language. As for technology, although a minority of animals do use tools, it's nothing like human technology.
Our technology makes us much stronger than animals so long as we have the benefits of that technology available. Otherwise many animals are physically stronger and better attuned and adapted to the environment than us.
We seem more concerned about the future than most animals, in that few animals seem to prepare much ahead, although some do.
Many animals have a mysterious innate knowledge which we don't. For example, spiders build webs, and migratory birds navigate vast distances, without any clear teacher or tools.
We seem better looking than animals, from our viewpoint, although we probably look ugly to them. Each one is perfect in its own way.

Overall, the truth is that we are only one species in the animal kingdom, and it's time our laws, religion, and morality abandon the incompatible attitude of 100% rights for humans and 0% rights for animals.

The Problem:

Humanity has been enslaving, torturing, and killing animals, even when it is of negligible benefit, as though there is literally no moral limitation to it. This is very dangerous to our moral responsibilty, our evolution as a species, and our responsibility before any higher being able to put us in the position we put animals.

The Components of the Problem:

We've been exploiting animals in the following ways:

Hunting: Actually there are two parts to this exploitation: hunting to survive and hunting for pleasure. Killing for pleasure is morally wrong: it is a prime example of cruelty.
Trapping for fur. Trapping is a method by which humans use our ingenuity not to make the wild environment easier for animals to live in, but to implement devices of torment and death targetting animals in their natural environment. With no one to see which animals are caught or how they are caught or how long they are caught, and no mercy even for mothers trying to care for young, the possibilities for animal suffering by trapping are unlimited. Simply put, if you want to see something like Hell being lived out in our world you need look no further than videos on trapping:
- Crying Shame
- HIDE – Anti-Fur PSA feat. Mena Suvari & Billie Eilish
Farming for fur.

Flesh-based food products. These always require killing the animal, as it is not considered healthy to eat or sell meat from animals which died of their own causes. Where production is for profit, incentive is towards the fastest cheapest rather than surest and most painless method of kililng before slaughter. Production of meats which are supposed to be bled out first require the animal's heart to still be pumping the blood out as they are slaughtered, to get the most blood out.

Here are some expositions of the cruelty secretly involved in food production, which is often far beyond that required to produce the product, because when a being is seen as having no rights it cannot be seen as worth any kind of compassionate thought:
Female Reproduction-cycle food products: namely eggs and milk. Milk and egg production is usually even more cruel, ie. more prolonged suffering, than meat production. Although it is possible to produce some milk and eggs without much cruelty, for profit reasons industry tends to produce them with such cruelty that it equals or surpases the production of meat, and these animals are typically slaughtered at the end of their lifecycle anyway. But additional cruelties in this sector include: grinding up male chicks because they won't lay eggs, separating male calves from mothers to prevent them drinking the milk, and feed them an iron-deficient diet to make them sick whcih is considered a delicacy as the meat sold as veal.
Routinely foregoing anaesthetic in many surgical procedures for farm animals. The thinking here is that the animals can't lodge a complaint, and anaesthetic is costly and slows down profit-pursuant operations. Example article: Why are painful procedures performed without anaesthetic?
Hunting Wild Animals to Harvest Certain Bodyparts for Resale or even just for useless sport: Similar to fur but usually not farmed, some animals have bodyparts which are commercially valuable, such as tusks, skins, or shells, which can lead some humans to hunt them for profit. In the wild environment this can drive them to extinction.
Animal (Medical) Experimentation:

Humans have been using animals in scientific experiments of every kind, where although unnecessary animal abuse might be limited by law, harm to the animal for purposes of the experiment is usually unlimited. Neither are these experiments limited to testing products before human use but can include abominable Frankinstein-level indignities to life. The animals are not even permitted names so that the scientists will not become attached to them. Anaesthetic is generally not used to alleviate their pain in such experiments for fear of chemically or behaviourally influencing the results of the study. In other words, humans have justified literally unlimilted harm to animals if it's for the purpose of scientific research. Many tests are designed to kill the animals, for example, the LD50 is a standard chemical test which keeps increasing the dose until half (50%) of the animals not only suffer but actualy die (lethal dose), at which dosage the test has identified the dose which kills 50% of the animals. Even if the animals survive the experiment, they are usually not permitted to live afterwards, so that each experiment can start with completely fresh animals uninfluenced by any other study. Even worse, scientists don't even seem to consider the animal suffering as a cost to balance benefits against, but rather someting to ignore to not have animal research restricted by such thinking. In fact, there is no requirement for a reasonable prospect of learning something useful to torture and kill an animal for research, and most of such experiments make no difference to our scientif understanding, often even by design.
Animal experimentation is a serious issue in terms of cruelty (at least because the animals are usually killed after the experiment), and sometimes ghastly cruel (no cruelty is too much if it's considered the test of the experiment). There really is no limit to the horrors we've been inflicting on animals in the name of science. Example December 08, 2022: Elon Musk’s medical device company Neuralink facing federal investigation over animal testing

Animal experimentation also a serious issue in terms of the number of beings experimented on: over 100 million per year in the USA alone.

Animal experimentation is one of those very hidden albeit socially accepted issues. It's open for intellectual debate, but never open for the Public to visit or oversee. In fact such labs are so well hidden, that they are usually unmarked.

Animal experimentation has enjoyed social approval apparently for the following foolish reasons:
1. The audacity to presume a right to experiment on animals if we so choose. This is based on our power over animals and denies the fact that the life and limb given to animals by the Creator is not our right to arbitrarily take away. Science has no morality at all: not towards animals, and not even towards humans. Only by artificially restraining science within moral bounds can we hope to guide it towards moral results. Scientists may not like moral restrictions, such as human or animal compassion, but society needs to impose these restrictions to keep our soul. Interestingly, if we judge our superior intellect as justification to experiment on animals, then it gives any beings superior to use the moral right to experiment on us: by a reversal of our own judgment.
2. Most established world religions don't teach animal compassion. Since these religions effectively dictate the moral codes for most people, religions not including animals in their scope of rights or compassion means that insensitivity to animal suffering is entrenched in those who follow such religions: to convince them it's 'wrong' to hurt an animal you have to convince them their entire religion and view of the world is wrong, and long before you do they're likely to resent their religion being criticized at all.
  
  Religions are only a model to approach God, and models can be wrong, but, for cultural reasons, most people will not tolerate their religion being criticized, with anyone leveling any kind of criticism, however obvious, tending to be attacked for it as a disrespecter of the community following that religion.
3. Experts demand access to animals for experimentation on promise of curse, without ever being required to actually to produce cures. Many cruel animal experiments by their design cannot possibly produce any useful knowledge for humans, but are merely an accepted way of doing science. For example, article December 12, 2023: PETA’s First ‘JunkSci’ Award Recipient Beheaded Rats in a Guillotine.
  
  Animal experimentation hasn't come up with any wonderful cures for any major disease. Medicine is a for-profit industry, where disease is a business market to exploit not destroy. They have no incentive to cure no matter how much money is donated for research. Their incentive is to find ways to prolong and profit from disease as a business. Medical researchers even create new threats, even far more dangerous than the wild varieties, and the Public has accepted that also, in blind worship of science and the corresponding belief that it must not be restricted.
  
  Beyond not being required to produce cures, the money stream of disease research creates an incentive to avoid finding actual curse to keep the money coming.
4. The fickle belief that tests on animals translate directly to meaning for humans. The way this belief tends to be used in practice is that if the animal tests go the way the testers want, they claim that it is meaningful for humans, but if the results go opposite to what the testers want to see, they claim that it's of no meaning to humans because of the differences between those animals and humans. This is a convenient trick for business, to gather legally accepted evidence while also having the ability to exclude it if it's not favourable.
5. p>A spiritually depraved attitude that we can and should heal by savage and lethal cruelty to innocent beings. It's essentially animal sacrifice, and sometimes the word 'sacrifice' is used in the experimental protocols for the killing. Real healing begins with compassion.
6. Concealment. The biggest reason is the simplest. Of all animal exploitation, animal experimentation tends to be the most carefully hidden from the Public and kept out of Public discussion as much as possible. If it's out of mind, then it's out of criticism.
From the position of the experimenter, the reason animal experiments are done seems to be to make our world into a kind of Hell. It is a way for the cruel to legally be very cruel to animals, including those who worship the Devil to legally create an atmosphere of torture and suffering.
[1] As Jesus passed through a certain village he saw a crowd of idlers of the baser sort, and they were tormenting a cat which they had found and shamefully treating it. And Jesus commanded them to desist and began to reason with them, but they would have none of his words, and reviled him.
[2] Then he made a whip of knotted cords and drove them away, saying, This earth which my Father‐ Mother made for joy and gladness, ye have made into the lowest hell with your deeds of violence and cruelty; And they fled before his face.
Gospel of the Holy Twelve, Lection XXIV:1-2)
The morality of animal experimentation is clear: it's cruel. It's inflicting unlimited harm on a weaker being because they can't defend themselves effectively. Moreover it preys upon the gentlest animals, such as: mice, rabbits, or beagles, which are preferred for experimentation.

How much morality do you have? How many animals should be tortured to death to research a cure for you, and would it still be moral if that's all done and no cure is found? Is anyone even responsible if they promise cures if you allow torture, they do the torture, and there is no cure?

In a democratic society, depending on how you speak out, you're either part of the cruelty of animal experimentation, or you're not.

Resources:
Animal-produced foods: such as honey
Entertainment

Except in emergencies, negative reinforcement is unnecessary harm and therefore cruel.

Unfortunately, negative reinforcement is the easier one for trainers to use, when they are in private, because it's cheaper than buying treats, and although the animal might not always be interested in a treat it's always interested in avoiding pain.

For this reason, trained animals are always suspicious for cruelty in that training, especially the more unnatural the action they are expected to perform.

Cyborgification: to humanity's shame, scientists (especially military ones) have been attempting to introduce technology into animals to remote-control their movements against their will, such as to make drones out of them. This is cruel and satanic because it overrides the free will given them by their Creator, while their consciousness must involuntarily endure the experience.

Really there is no legitimate need to do this. If we need mobile sensors that small we already have robots that small: than can fly or roll or crawl however we want; even many toy robot sets for sale to children can do this. We don't need to override the freewill of living beings while they remain helpless to resist. It can also easily lead to the same thing eventually being done to humans, starting with those society deems to 'deserve it'. Example video: Singapore's Remote-Controlled Cyborg Insects
Pets-On-Demand There are two types of pet owners: people who adopt a pet because the animal needs a home, or people who adopt a pet because it fills a demand for a certain kind of pet on certain terms decided by the human. The second type tends towards cruelty, incluing: abusing pets to perform as expected, discarding pets which don't perform as expected, breeders' pet mills where designer pets are bred without concern for their happiness but for profit. The basic problem in demanded pets is that the owners want them to perform as the owners want, and the owners usually have no interest in what the animal wants, this being considered irrelevant. This is in all ways animal slavery, where the animal is not only property but must entirely submit what it wants, and its nature, to the will of the owner.
Pet Abandonment: This is where animals are left to fend for themselves. There are three types:

Forced Pet Abandonment: Unfortuantely, many Government especially rescue services force people to abandon their pets to fend for themselves if they want disaster rescue, admittance, or other vital help difficult or impossible to refuse. This is a narrow-minded blanket policy which usually serves no good and only harm, but since whoever made the policy doesn't seem to measure harm to animals, it continues.

September 23, 2023: A Venezuelan man and his pet squirrel made it to the US border. Now he's preparing to say goodbye

Unintentional Confined Abandonment: Certain mishaps including death can prevent someone from being back to care for their confined pet, unintentionally, and unless they have a backup which will kick in, the pet usually starves to death.
Wilful Wild Abandonment: This is where pets aren't left in a place they will have support, but in a remote and fiercely competitive wilde environment, which years if not a lifetime of domestication has not prepared them for They usually die of starvation, exposure, or predation, unless they are fortunate enough to be rescued by someone else.

Jan. 25, 2023: 'A three-fold increase': Parks Canada urging people to not dump unwanted pets at Rouge Park

Wilful Confined Abandonment: This is the worst possible case, where someone wilfully abandons an animal in confinement with no chance to fend for itself. It is on a level of cruelty as bad as the worst animal experimentation. Unfortunately, in a human society where animals are not recognized as having rights or even souls, and which openly endorses animal experimentation, it's not difficult to see how this cruelty can and does happen.

3/24/22: Dog Locked in Cage and Abandoned on Roadside, Found Covered in Vomit
Nov. 13, 2019: Man formally charged for abandoning pet in cage to starve to death
April 4, 2021: City of Winnipeg crew saves 11 pet rats after finding cage abandoned in ditch
July 13, 2021: Dog left to starve at abandoned doggy daycare will recover and be adopted out, says BC SPCA
January 22, 2017: Starved puppy found abandoned in cage in rain-soaked field

Rather than abandon your pet to fend for itself, compassionate people forced to separte from their pet instead surrender it, such as to a shelter, in such a way that the pet will have basic supports.

Sending live animals through the mail. It's not uncommon to send live insects through the mail, presumably because no one cares about insects. However insects are considered a higher order of life than worms, and many of them complex social, navigation, construction, and/or other habits. They have nerves and seem to feel pain. Presumably when they are sent in the mail for days, where they can sometimes be left waiting for weeks before someone checks their mailbox, without food, water, or warmth, that is cruelty. Following is such a story involving very large cockroaches: not the kind which infest houses, and do not bite, but are peaceful creatures which deserve no cruelty. They were sent in the mail, during Canadian winter to be picked up by someone who wasn't checking their mail for a month, and no one involved in the article seemed to see any cruelty in that: Toronto man finds container of cockroaches in his mailbox (4 March, 2024)
Indirect Animal Abuse. Unfortunately we've rarely considered the effect on animals, as a moral responsibility, when we do such things as: pollute their habitat (such as with our untreated sewage, organic chemicals, and heavy metals), test weapons in their habiat, destroy their habitat, and build cities in such a way that there's no room or place for wildlife (who are always seen as the invaders).

How This Has Been Going On So Long?

Indifference. As humans, we just don't seem to care to correct ourselves. After all, it took us thousands of years to see slavery as wrong, despite slaves being able to speak our language to protest, and being exactly of the same (human) biology and often even the same religion as us. With that in mind, imagine how much more difficult it is to get people to see that abusing animals is wrong.
Unpspiritual Religious Leadership. Unfortunately, too many religious teachings today come from books as interpreted by clergy who are so unspiritual that they cannot discern in their own heart that animals obviously by the same Holy Breath we do, and therefore they are more like brothers and sisters in life than property, and that therefore we neeed to afford them some level of basic rights or protections as a moral requirement before God. These clergy seem to know only what the book says, are usually highly educated in the book, and seem to have no internal ability to know when the book is wrong or deficient. Such mental people shouldn't be spiritual leaders, but as long as we have systems in place which select spiritual leaders based on mental education, we can expect this kind of result.
Animal Ritual Sacrifice Many mainstream religions support or even require animal blood (slaughter) sacrifices, as some kind of good deed, when killing obviously innocent and usually gentle beings should have been recognized as obvious cruelty and no way to please the Creator of us and them.

Perhaps the immorality of cruelty to animals is easier to see if we look at it from another spiritual perspective. Satanic witchcraft tortures and sacrifices animals (when they're not torturing and sacrificing humans). This is done to please demons. That means demons like it. That means God hates it. That means if you follow God you should be against not only animal ritual sacrifice, but also animal abuse. It also means that animal abuse sanctioned by religion is a corruption of the religion towards Devil worship. As where Christ said, "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." (Bible, KJV, Matthew 12:7... not to imply that the Bible is flawless but only that it has many good principles)
Tradition: Once any (human) social community accepts animal exploitation and/or sacrifice long enough to be an established tradition, it becomes a community-defensive motivation to defend those traditions from change using literally any kind of argument, however nonsensical. For example, certain religions insist up to today that animals feel 'no pain' if slaughtered by their ritual method. Here is such a presentation promoting ritual slaughter as completely painless on the supposed basis of science, and here and here is what ritual slaughter actually is. Want to know what's painless for animals? Not harming them.
Religious CoDepencencies: Whatever the cause, once animal exploitation becomes supported or required by the religion a person bases their eternal security on, they have a reason to be reluctant to critice that animal exploitation for fear of forfeiting that eternal security. It's a lot harder to speak up for someone else when you will be punished at all, nevermind punished by supposed eternal separation from God.

Only when People realize that cruelty to animals is a corruption of mainsream relgion, and compassion improves their relationship with their Creator, no matter what their clergy says, can People realize that they can serve God and humans and animals harmoniously. In fact, attack on any one of these three is what can destroy your spiritual security, no matter what you believe or justify to yourself, and if you don't know that your beliefs aren't grounded in adequate spiritual truth.

Concealment. This is a huge part of why animal exploitation today. Animal exploitation today is generally concealed so deeply by practitioners in developed nations so that, even if you're in the general area, or sometimes even the same building, you might not know there's a slaughterhouse or animal experimentation laboratory in the area, nevermind be permitted to see what happens within it. Our society is encouraged to intellectually support these measures but without first-hand, video, or photographic observation of what animal slaughter or experimentation is in practice. In fact, it's typically illegal to expose such thigns. Unfortunately for us, without observation on an emotional level, to actually see the cruelty and suffering, it's very difficult to recognize that this is wrong and refuse to support it anymore. That's apparently, why it's hidden from us, and seems to represent a ploy to gain our consent for cruelty we don't really understand.

If you don't think so, try asking your local slaughterhouse or animal experimentation lab for a tour sometime: like you would at any other business doing something ostensibly wonderful for society.
No Final Reckoning of the Actual-Benefit to Actual-Harm Ratio in Animal Experimentation. Animal experimentation seems to have been condoned on a promise of high and permanent benefits to humanity for a cost of temporary harm to a limited number of animals, which arguement seems to surface to defend it if ever questioned. But how much harms have been happening for how much benefits? Even if we accept the mentality that it's humans' right to pay for our benefits at animals' costs, then it would seem like a worthwhile tradeoff to get high permanent benefits for humans for temporary harms to a limited humber of animals. Even in that mentality, however, humanity has failed to follow-up to compare actual benefits to the actual harms, to see if the benefit was worth the cost in the end. It's so bad that not only have true cures not been forthcoming for major diseases despite (tremendous animal experimentation justified on promise of those cures), and not only do many animal experiments prove useless to advance our knowledge (they are not referenced later), but many animals suffer and die in experiments which, by their very design, cannot advance our knowledge. Example article: Millions of animals may be missing from scientific studies.

If we were paying the cost in suffering (rather than animals), surely we would have, at some point, followed-up to check if it was worth the cost.

If we bothered to check if the cost animals are paying for humans' suppoed benefit is worth it in terms of results, we would probably be shocked and reform the system, to ensure that only the highest quality and most necessary experiments are permitted to use animals, if any at all. We wouldn't allow animals to be harmed simply for demonstration or for untalented scientists to publish an endless series of uselesss 'papers'.

Questions We Need Answers for Concerning Animals?

Of what use are animals?

There are three perspectives from which to answer this question:

View 1: Animals are a use to us. This perspective is the one assumed in animal exploitation, ie. that animals are of no use except as they are a use to us, and this thinking supports our unlimited abuse of them.

This thinking exists to a lesser and limited extent even on the animal-compassionate side, in recognizing that animals can have a cooperative benefit with humans, such as mutual happiness or security.
View 2: Animals are a benefit to the Creator and not for us to judge. We didn't create animals, and therefore it's not for us to judge what use there is in them (this principle is taught in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve).
View 3: Animals are their own use. It takes a bit of humility to recognize that animals have their own minds, wants, and therefore goals for their lives which we are wrong to dismiss as not existing or worthless. For example, they decide what food they like to eat, they decide where they want to live and with whom, and they often have offspring that they care for.

The life goals of an animal may not matter to us, but to an animal that's the only life or goals they have.

Is life or limb ours to take?

Whichever Creator made us also gave life and limb to animals. To take His gifts from them is likely to be an offense to Him.

Do animals have a right to the Earth?

A common justification for mistreatment of wild animals is that they are on 'our' land, because we paid for it and animals did not. From this mindset any animal on 'our' land without our express permission is therefore trespassing, and therefore that supposedly gives us a right to do something to remedy that perceived wrong, such as: shooting them, trapping them, or poisoning them. Our homes are designed to prevent entry by animals except those we specifically choose as pets. Our cities are not designed to offer any food or shelter for animals. Our farm lands are managed without any designed place for animals, either.

Our society directs resentment strongly to wild animals found inside our dwellings, as though they must always be killed there, due to trespassing. To a weaker extent our society also directs resentment towards wild animals found outdoors on 'our' land, at the discretion of the landowner's perception of it they pose any kind of perceived threat or inconvience. For example, a common reaction to seeing a rat outside on 'your' land is to want to kill it because it is on 'your' land and therefore trespassing. Our society only sees animals as having a 'right' to be on land if it is a Government-ordered nature reserve. Otherwise they are just considered intruders to tolerate or not.

But is it our land? Yes, we paid for it, but did the seller, especially the first seller, pay for it? The first human to claim the land claimed it for free by simply declaring that they own it. We simply bought it from them. Did the first claimer truly own that land? They didn't create it, they didn't pay for it, but only declared it was theirs.

Does being there first, or declaring the land yours, make it yours to exclude all others? Maybe it's yours relative to other humans, because that is the concept of fairness we have between each other, but is it ours relative to animals? They were put on this Earth the same as us, and in fact our species are relative newcomers to existence here compared to many other species which existed long before us here. Are they not also indigenous to Earth? If being on the land first makes it property, weren't they there first? Don't they have some right to use the land?

Isn't it obvious that our Creator put us all here to somehow share the land: not only with other humans, but with animals?

Isn't it obvious that we should recognize some moral right of animals to use the land, and that our legal concept of land ownership needs to include some kind of animal rights also?

Do animals of a right to habitat?

Is it moral to destroy the habitat which certain animals are specifically adapted for?

Do we have the moral right to experiment on animals for our benefit?

Animals are put on Earth with us, and even before us, and we all have the breath of life. We've been experimenting on them, usually to their harm and death, because, with our technology behind us, we are stronger than them.

Should strength be a moral justification? For example, is it morally right to invade another country because you have a stronger military force? Is it morally right to enter someone else's house, and kill them, and claim their land, because you are stronger? Is it morally right to imprison and experiment on someone else because you are stronger?

Or do we experiment on animals because we are better or more valuable? Perhaps we are more valuable than animals, but that value can only be rightly judged by the Creator, who is the Owner of all life, not us. Animals don't seem to want to die, and wild animals depend on their struggle to survive, so it's obvious that they see their life as having some value. Even if it is less value than human life, it is all they have. If you are a rich man, does the fact that your wealth is greater give you the right to take all of the money away from a poor man?
Killing to Eat in Survival: It's important to note that killing an animal to eat in a survival situation is not immoral, exactly the same way as it is not immoral for an animal to kill another animal to eat to survive. But once we have other options to survive, then killing becomes unnecessary and immoral.
Cures from Animal Research: This is always defended as necessary to produce wonderful cures for humanity, except that it's cured nothing, the experiments aren't required to be designed to learn anything new, and in fact most research animals aren't even used in any published scientific studies. Our medical field, knee-deep in the blood of innocent animals, is overwhelmed not with cures but an onslaught of more and more new diseases: so much so that we are expected to mask ourselves in Public to try to stop the spread. Why not stop animal testing and end our spiritual guilt and punishment?
Taste of Meat. This is another false benefit of animal exploitation: that meat tastes so good and it's such a sacrifice to stop eating it. Even if it did taste good, your stomach should not be your god, or a reason to kill others, but even this benefit is false: on a vegan (no animal products) diet, once your body purifies, the same meat tends to taste horrible to you. Meat is a low-grade food your body gets accustomed to, but its taste is sickening to purified bodies. Following the taste of meat is keeping your body on a lower level. It's not a benefit but a slavery.
Should we be eating animals for food?

Certainly the way of the wild is that any animal may kill any other for reason of necessary food to eat. This seems to be a moral rule in Creation. By extension, we conclude that, in an unexpected survival emergency, but not otherwise as a planned way to live, it is not morally wrong to kill animals for and as food.

But wild animals generally don't kill what they don't need to eat or is not threatening them, but only kill as needed to defend or eat.

Humans do not usually need to eat animals for food; we can survive easily on a vegetarian (no animal flesh) or vegan (no animal products) diet and many millions of people around the world do so and have done so for at least thousands of years. In fact, meat is traditionally so much more expensive that up until recently it was only an occasional meal, rather than every meal, even in traditional human society. Mass production and meat subsidization has made it affordable to eat every meal, but that doesn't make it natural, moral, necessary, or even beneficial.
Are we designed to eat animals?

The fact is that the human body more closely resembles a herbivore than a carnivore, and ignoring that is ignoring the truth that we do not need to eat animals to be healthy. Our blunt teeth, our lack of a protruding snout, and the long transit time of our intestine are all features we have common with herbivores. To plan to eat meat frequently is to deny what you are.

It should be obvious, from our anatomy, that humans would be most healthy on a plant-based diet, and that eating meat is only appropriate for humans where the only other alternative is starvation. Eating meat means you defy how you are built, or you are too poor to grow or afford crops.

Though less obvious, the slightest research will reveal a horrible cost to producing and eating meat (compared to plant-based diet): in human health, in high cost to produce per calorie, in unnecessary waste of water, and in cruelty to animals.

When should adults re-evaluate what society taught us, growing up, in how to treat animals?

Exploiting animals is not something most people chose through an active decision process but passive yielding to existing social norms. It's what most people grew up with, and which our soceity has been protecting in culture, law, and religion. For example, children are given meat to eat as soon as they are ready to eat solid food, long before they are old enough to question it. Once the eating of meat is so early established in that person's life and their social settings, it takes effort to change it. Rather it's easier to refuse saying you're defending your 'right' to eat meat if you choose, as if it's something you consciously chose since you were a baby.

At what age do humans reevaluate decisions which were made for them by their parents, and their culture, such as our treatment of animals?
What if I likee the Taste of Meat?

Bearing in mind that there are many tasty things to eat on a vegetarian (no animal flesh) or vegan (no animal products) diet, please consider two things:
1. How much suffering do you consider it fair for others beings to endure to serve your taste?
2. What are you doing to your own body in eating meat, if it's designed for a vegan diet?
3. If you were to go Vegan, your taste itself may and probably will change. In contrast to fictional vegans in entertainment, who seem to always be secretly longing to eat a steak when no one is looking, for real vegans, their body becomes purified (perhaps in as little as a few weeks), so that any even accidental taste of flesh afterwards is abhorrent to them: easily enough to make them feel sick. It is not only no longer tasty, but no longer a temptation, and no longer a sacrifice.
  
  If the sacrifice of not eating meat will disappear in a few weeks of stopping, is that much of a reason to continue eating meat?
What about plants?

Plants are also living creatures but as far as we can tell, but, although biologically alive, they do not have a singular conscious spirit the way animals do. The proof of this is that most plants can be divided infinitely and each division, if carefully done, can be regrown to another full plant with no sign of deficiency. This can't be done with an animal: there's one consciousness there and although limbs might be cut away from it (and die), the consciousness can't be divided.

Furthermore animals don't seem to have physical senses the way we do, to interpret attack or pain. They may respond on a very low spiritual level, in a way that shows connectedness to other life forms, but not in a way which shoes that a singular consciousness is contained in any one plant.

For this reason, at this time, although we would not uselessly abuse a plant, we don't pursue rights for plants anywhere near that for humans and animals.

Don't we NEED to exploit animals?

The Establishment seems to have quite a campaign to keep society convineced that we need to exploit animals to have a reasonable quality of life, and that it's always a choice between doing the harm to an animal or a human, or that morality doesn't apply when it comes to animals because a book says so.

The reality is that:

Humans almost never need to eat animals (unless the situation is so bad that it's literally eating an animal or a human or dying).
We have the technology to easily produce more than enough food with the resources we have. In fact, farmers tend to group together to limit production to maintain higher prices.
We don't need to experiment on animals.
Animals' physiology is not comparable to humans in fine detail in a reliable way, which is why when animal tests don't work out for new products, companies tend to claim that's because the tests aren't relevant to humans. For one thing, most animals make their own vitamin C, whcih trastically changes the oxidation situation. Carnivores tend to be impossible to indudce high blood cholesterol based on dietary cholesterol.

Worse, howevermuch scientists may claim they need to experiment on animals to find cures, not actually being expected to find any curse has meant a tremendous amount of animals being tortured in experiments worldwide with virtually no curse for anything being found. Most of these organizations don't even have an incentive to find a cure: organizations dedictated to one disease would be forced to shut down if they disclosed an easy cure for that disease, and medical corporations would not be able to sell ongoing treatments for diseases they quickly cured.

Moreover, humanity should have the moral fortitude to recognize that there is no real advancement on knowledge unless love comes first. We should not attempt to advance ourselves in any way by cruel experiments.
we don't need to eat animals.
Our bodies are constituted between chimpanzee and pig, neither of which animals require flesh in their diet and we don't either. We don't have a protruding snout, we have small grinding teeth, and our digestive system has a 24 hour transit time much like a herbivore. Many countries have millions of vegetarians, and a vegan diet would have been the usual diet for poor people in history most of the time, without them dying or weakening from it. These basics should lead people to understand that when you're told you cannot live on a vegan diet, that somehow you need to eat flesh, that somehow it's a lie.

Here are some quick thoughts:

You don't need animal protein, and it might easily be too much protein. Lots of people ask where you get your protein, but few ask if you're getting too much. Your body does need some protein, but relatively little, since it tends to be recycled far more than burned. It is not the normal fuel of the body, and if it is used as a fuel, it produces more toxins than the primary fuel: carbohydrate. Excess protein is harmful, although it may take a long time to show. Areas of stress include the heart (potential chest pains from eating meals with excessive protein) and kidneys (trying to get out the extra ammonia). That said, it is possible to get too much protein from vegetable sources, also, such as if you make meals of only beans: like meat, they have far greater proportaion of protein than the body needs in an overall proportion of your diet.
You not only don't need animal iron (heme) but are far better off with vegetable sources. Your body has difficulty to eliminate excess iron. It can stop excess inorganic (usually plant) iron from being absorbed, which solves the problem before it happens. It is not able to restrict the absorption of heme (usually animal iron), or other organic iron, anywhere near as well, if at all. The tendency is to get too much heme on a high meat diet but never have this problem on a vegan diet.

Nevertheless the iron has to be there and not assumed; iron deficiency is easy to happen on a vegan diet if you are only removing the meat from what would be meat-based meals, and not fortifying your nutrition properly, such as with deep green vegetables or molasses.
You don't need cholesterol in your diet, and plant-based foods lack it completely.
B12 is needed but is suspected to be obtainable from bacteria-fermented vegetables, maybe from natural water, and is a problem also for many meat-eaters. Thankfully, B12 is recycled so well and so little needed by the body that most multivitamins have much more than you need. Go find the RDA for yourself, and compare it to your vitamin pill.

Most animal products spoil easier than vegetable products.
For example, you need to be far more careful about food sanitation handling raw chicken or shellfish products than handling apples.
Processed meats can easily have strange inclussions.
Example: Analysis of Burger Market Finds Unwanted Ingredients: Rat and Human DNA
We don't need animals for heavy labour anymore.
Maybe once we did, but we don't now.
We don't need animal skins for clothing.
Maybe once we did, but we don't now.

What About Individual Animal-Based 'Foods'?

Each individual animal-based 'food' product tends to have its own unique problems, besides the general probelms such as heme and cholesterol. For example:

Pork is well known to be extremely similar to human flesh: close enough that it's been used for organ transplantation into humans. It's thought that the similarity is so similar that it's dangerous to trigger auto-immune diseases. There is also thinking that eating Pork is a partial cannibalism, in that either they are derived from us or use from them (on a molecular level we resemble more a cross between chimpanzee and pig than chimpanzee alone). There may be a good reason why some major world religions refuse to eat pork.
Fish and Shellfish. These poor creatures are forced to live in the toxic soup our pollution has made for them. That's cruel to them, but even focusing on the impact to humans who eat them is bad enough.

One of the toxins is mercury. Mercury is extremely toxic and tends to accumulate, in its dangerous organic form, as methylmercury, in both fish and humans, even biomagnifying, so that the accumulation in the tissues of the predator becomes greater than that in the tissues of the prey. Even just in the passing over the fish gills, mercury can enter and accumulate in fish.

Another, perhaps even more dangerous one, is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Move Aside Mercury, PCBs Are the Real Toxins in Fish

The establishment advice the Public receives on eating fish is alarmingly conflicting, sometimes even in the same articles (which often start out with generalities on how healthy eating fish is, while disclosing cautions lower down). On the one hand, the Public is generally encouraged to eat fish as some kind of ultimate health food. On the other hand, the Public is encouraged to limit consumption of fish, which limits, if you realize the sizes they're talking about, are pretty tight, and indicate a danger. For example:
- Mercury in fish. Notice where it talks about biomagnification.
- Mercury in Fish. This Government of Canada article starts out saying that, 'Most Canadians don't need to be concerned about mercury exposure'. Towards the end of the article it starts to set out disturbingly tight limits on how much fish (toxin) they figure you may safely consume.
- Mercury and Human Health
- The Canadian government advises limiting consumption of fresh/frozen tuna, shark, swordfish, escolar, marlin, and orange roughy to 150g per week for most adults but 150g per month for pregnant/breastfeeding women. That's approximately a third of a pound.
- The Mayo clinic, here, states that, 'The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends fish as part of a healthy diet for most people. But people in some groups should limit how much fish they eat.'
- Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada posted a 2021 article which opens claiming that people have heard that 'fish is a super-healthy choice', while much lower down in the article mentioning that some fish have a government consumption advisory.
- Governments post specific fishing advisories about exactly how much to limit consumption of fish based on location species and size fished (such as here for Ontario), but no such advisory exists at the grocery store when buying fish there.
- The Healthline article, 12 Best Types of Fish to Eat, talks about fish as 'Fish is a healthy, high-protein food, especially important for its omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential fats that our bodies don’t produce on their own' and that 'The American Heart Association (AHA)Trusted Source recommends eating fish at least 2 times a week', while only lower down mentioning toxins.
Shellfish is even more dangerous due to tendencies to harbour disease-causing agents and 'marine biotoxins'. The Canadian government posts an article, Shellfish food safety, which starts out strongly portraying shellfish as 'nutritious' to 'enjoy', while shortly thereafter strongly warning about the dangers of doing so. It's so important to read the whole article!

Of course, since humans have no actual need to eat fish or shellfish, it should have been obvious that it makes more sense to avoid the dangers of eating fish and shellfish completely rather than just limiting the danger. They also apparently expect you to keep careful track of how many grams you are eating each week. Presumably the Establishment doesn't want to say that 'they're toxic don't eat them', to not harm the fishing industry; presumably they'd rather harm you.

Can 'Carnivorous' Animals also eat Vegan Diets?

It is our preliminary experience and some reading that, as long as those few animals which require a nutrient which plants lack have that nutrient supplemented, all animals do far better on a plant-based diet than an animal one. This may not make sense to many people, since they see certain animals as 'natural' predators, but in the Garden of Eden all animals ate a kind of vegan diet (but it's said that the types of plants avaiable were much more diverse than now and may have provided the missing nutrients).

Less death in the diet should mean more life for the eater.

In particular:

Felines absolutely require a molecule called taurine, which is not found in plants but is found in flesh, eggs, and dairy (felines aer lactose-intolerant, though). It is depleted (but not usually erradicated) in cooking. If this is adequately supplemented, felines do fine on a vegan diet. Notable is that there are some luxury plant-based dog foods which have taurine and cats seem to do fine on them. Providing typees of milk produts which are made to be more digestible to cats (they are lactose intolerant) is also a way to deliver taurine to them.
There is at least one species of spider which eats fruit.
Dogs do not require flesh and are observed to live longer on a vegan diet. Article July 08, 2022: New study finds vegan diet dogs may live longer

Moreover, with a plant-based diet, you can rest more assured that your pet is eating what you think they're eating. For example, if the food says it has peas and potato in it, it probably does: they're not so expensive as to be an incentive to lie about. In comparison, with flesh-based pet foods, do you really think that, after giving prime cuts to be sold in grocery stores and restaurants as they appear, and poor cuts sold to humans as ground meat, and the worst cuts made into sausages for humans, what kind of 'meat' do you think ends up in pet food? If it was anywhere close to a respectable piece of meat they could have sold it on the human market for much more money. Probably you don't want to know what's in it and that's fair, but is it loving and responsible to feed your pet what you don't want to know about? What is that doing to the health of your trusting pet?

What our Relationship with Animals Should Be Like:

At minimum, animals should be recognized as having some kind of rights, both to their own existence, and to habitat on this planet, because:

They are alive and aware much like us, with biology which is far more similar to us than different, and reaction to stimuli which is far more similar to us than different. According to the Bible, they share the same 'breath of life' we do.
They are indigenous inhabitants of Earth just like us.
They were here long before us, humans being a reliatively new species on this planet.
The only reason we've been abusing them is that our technology makes us stronger and they have no way to file a legal complaint in our courts. Unfortunately that's not a moral reason to abuse anyone, and we should question and stop ourselves.

Better, humans should realize that our dominance of the planet is a responsibility to take care of it and its inhabitants, however weak, rather than to trash it and abuse its inhabitants. Humans were not supposed to be a blight to the planet, because we are able to use our ingenuity to make life here even kinder than the wild condition for not only humans, but our animal subjects. It is especially important for humans to protect wild habitat, and plant things which animals like or depend on but cannot plant themselves. Examples of this kind of love in practice:

January 6, 2023: Prince Edward Island bald eagle receives rare surgery, heads to new home in Halifax
Every Day This Man Drives Hours In Drought To Provide Water To Thirsty Wild Animals
Orleans police officer rescues injured owl
September 8, 2021: When, where and how to plant milkweed to save the monarch butterfly

Why Animal Compassion?

Opposing animal abuse opposes human abuse in multiple ways:

Animal compassion principles help prevent genocide in humans. Genocide is often perpetrated on a portrayal of the targeted Peoples as 'animals', which argument cannot be used to justify killing if we recognize animals' right to life.
Animal compassion principles work against abortion because abortion uses the animal term, 'fetus', to refer to the preborn child to strip that child of human rights. If we recognize animal rights, such as a right to life, the child would still at least have those protections even under an animal classification.
Those who abuse animals often abuse people also, and serial killers often start on crulty to animals. Emotionally hardening yourself to be cruel to one enables you to use that same emotional hardness to be cruel to the other one. Similarly, it's common for boys in animal-cruel cultures to be taught how to be cruel to animals rather than compassionate, as a sign of a perverted concept of manhood based on cruelty rather than love. An example article: Those Who Are Cruel to Animals Are Often Also Cruel to People

Animal compassion helps preserve wildlife which are hunted often not out of any need for food but out of a desire to show cruelty and dominance over powerful animals as an expression of perverted manhood.
Animal compassion greatly improves your connection to nature especially the animal world. You are no longer battling it but have found peace with it.
A cruelty-free plant-based diet has enormous benefits on literally every level (once you adjust your nutrition such as maintaining INORGANIC iron sources). Try it.
Animal compassion is considered a good deed before God and must work to your good at the Last Judgment. For example: 10 Animal-Friendly Quotes From Pope Francis’ Encyclical That You Might Have Missed
If we are compassionate to weaker beings than us, we deserve compassionate treatment, in turn, from stronger beings than us. On the other hand, if we abuse beings weaker than us, then we deserve to be abused by beings stronger than us. Even if we are the most capable beings on Earth, we're not the most capable in existence.
Animals are sentient beings. They have a significant intelligence with a measurable IQ rating, and are trainable to increase it.

Animal biology works far more like ours than not, especially at a cellular level, despite differences in overall shape. For example, we have 90% genetic similarity to cats and 85% genetic similarity to mice.
Animals experience pain. We know that animals seem to have the subjective experiences of pain in a similar way as we do, as judged from their outward behaviour and inner biology. Pain management is a major component of veterinary medicine.

Pain is a subjective experience and thus can be denied by the cruel. For example, Descartes would actually dissect animals alive just to supposedly prove the point that if we ourselves cannot feel something, we can deny that another being feels it, even to attritute their physical reaction to the pain stimulous as merely the automatic responses of an unconscious being.

However that line of thinking must be stopped because it could also be applied to humans, since no one can prove the subjective experience of pain in another person.

When a being has nerves suitable to feel pain with, and a stimulous which we know will fire those nerves is applied, there is no logical or even scientific reason to doubt that pain exists. A behavioural reaction of aversion to the stimulous from the animal only adds to this, not takes away from it.

As evidence from a non-medial source, animal trainers know that animals feel pain which is why they commmonly use pain to train animals (much cheaper and more reliable than rewarding with treats). If there was no pain, such training could not be successful to change animal behaviour, often in ways distant from their nature.

We also know that many animal senses are more (not less) sensitive than ours (apparently because they depend on their physical senses more for survial than we do: for example, some rely on their nose to find food anywhere whereas we only need to go to the local grocery store).

Some related articles are:

Most humans do not need to rely on animal products to live. We have exploited animals as food, even when plant foods are available, with no more justification than saying we like the taste and it's our choice. This condemns the related animals to an entire life of cruelty, from birth to violent death, most of them not even seeing the sunshine. More intelligent approaches to defend this path have been scare tactics about the supposed 'dangers' of a vegetarian or vegan diet, even though there are many millions of such people for centuries, and even tough Daniel proved in the Bible that humans are no weaker for just eating vegetables. It also ignores the environment damage of industrial livestock production, the tendency to produce super diseases there, the tendency to pollute our waterways (which has killed humans), and the improvement in spirituality of a non-violent diet. There is also derivative cruelty in this industry, especially that when profit is the goal and an animal's only value is seen as being a certain amount of food, farmers are extremely reluctant to pay for anesthetic for necessary medical procedures for these animals. For example, castrations, beak partial amputation, and horn removal are typically done without any anesthetic. Neither is there any anesthetic for slaughter. And though it might seem that religious laws for not consuming the blood of an animal might have originally been intended to reduce cruelty, slaugher designed to maximize bloodletting is usuallyt he most cruel. Nevertheless, there are some limits to the cruelty, albeit extremely low, in that it's no profitable to pursue more cruelty than necessary to raise and kill these animals in the most cost-effective manner.
Industrial uses of animals tend to be extremely cruel, because the use, such as for profit, tends to favour cruelty. The profit incentive is to give the animals not a moment of happiness or a single ray of sunlight their entire lives, but raise them only to be slaughtered, and keep them in the cheapest and most cramped conditions, and use physical force to control them as the cheapest method. There is no emotional hesitation to separate mothers from offspring as soon as profitable to do so. It is not cost-effective to give them medical attention to treat any condition, so they tend to be left to suffer with it until slaughter. Any other medical interventions, such as de-horning or castration, are typically done without anaesthetic to save on costs there also.
Benefits don't justify cruelty. This is why we should not have allowed ourselves to condone cruelty for any promised medical benefits, which has been even more foolish as those benefits (eg. cures of diseases) have generally not emerged. We have exploited animals in medical experiments of unlimited cruelty, usually by saying it's necessary to find cures to save many more human lives. The reality is that we've been using animals for medical experimentation since medical research began, but we haven't been curing much. There is no cure for diabetes, cancer, or just about any of the other promises used to justify animal research. The reality is that the research can be so cruel it's worse than our worst horror our entertainment industry can imagine for that genre, and we actually learn far less than we pretend. Sometimes this research is done for no more 'scientific' a purpose than to hear the animals scream.
Bees ‘scream’ as they are slaughtered by Murder Hornets, study says

Spiritually speaking, research which is based on cruelty like this is surely cursed and cannot come to good: there is no long-term profit in cruelty.
We don't need fur. We need compassion. The fur industry is also unnecessary with our modern textile manufacturing ability; it cannot be argued that we need animal skins, and trapping is extremely cruel however it's dressed up. When, then, do we continue this cruelty? No reason. Although fur coats are unpopular now, fur is added to many clothing items as a trim in ways that the consumer might not even notice, much less want. As with other argricultural animals, is against profit incentive to raise these animals with much space or compassion, or to kill them in a compassionate manner. Many are skinned alive and left to die.
We have rendered many animal species extinct, whether by direct slaughter (such as the dodo bird) or by habitat destruction, or both. Should we not at least hesitate to do what harm we cannot undo? Since only a small number of animals are seen as useful for humans, there has been little real attention on protecting the rest: certainly not because we recognize some kind of right to life in them.
We have confined them to small cages for our convenience and space management, not their fulfillment or sanity. Many agricultural animals, such as pigs, are not even allowed enough space to turn around.
We teach our children to eat them, even though children naturally tend to see animals as friends.
We tamper with their genetics and dignity. Only the Creator should be tampering with the code of life.
We presume to actually own living animals as 'livestock'. None of us are the source of life, so we should not presume to own life. The Creator is the sole owner of life.
We presume to own the kind of animals we have genetically altered. Only the Creator can own life, and it is a violation of His/Her design to perform direct genetic manipulation on animals.
Animals are indigenous co-inhabitants of our planet. It is not morally right for one species to enslave all the others, and destroy their habitat, just because we have achieved dominance. Our existence didn't have to be a war but should have been a cooperation.
Disregard for animals and their habitat is the main reason we have allowed our planet to be destroyed. Otherwise we would have had to protect the life-supporting ability of the land, water, and air for their use at least.
We are responsible for whatever cruelty we directly participate in. Whether we do the slaughtering the cow or ordering the beef, for example, either way we are responsible for how it's done. We should be interested to watch related videos, for example, which only someone who doesn't order beef has any moral right to refuse to be informed about.
Our responsibility for cruelty doesn't change because of whether we recognize it as cruelty or not.
It's not right that we destroy animal habitat worldwide. Animals have a natural right to this planet and its use.
Your teachings of the religion you choose to follow don't exempt you from culpability for cruelty. We need to stop playing the religious exemption card, and in many cases that's exactly what it is, as religious animal use tends to attrat 'exemptions' from Government to do things more cruel because their religion says it's OK. The main reason cruelty to animals has gone on almost totally unabated is only that the most popular world religions have set no limit on it, seeing no moral issue in the matter, especially not recognizing any kind of rights for these other beings we share the planet with. Once your religion is built that way, and you choose to believe your religion is complete and infallible, you close your mind to allowing animals any kind of rights to compassionate treatment. When the cruelty should be obvious, we should be questioning the infallibiltiy or completeness of spiritual teachings which we won't allow to be improved just because that would mean that what we believed before was wrong. In other words, the biggest reason animals continue to suffer our cruelty today is that our most popular religions refuse to admit a mistake concerning animal treatment.
If we ever want humanity to get where we want to go, in terms of peace on earth and our spiritual enlightenment, we can no longer afford to ignore the cruelty we are doing to the other Earthlings we share our planet with. In fact, it may be precisely to deny us that enlightenment, by keeping the cruelty going, that Government, mainstream media, and industry have so strongly encouraged the continuance of animal exploitation, promoting it strongly in our culture, and making laws which forbid anyone from taking video inside a slaughterhouse or animal research facility.
A path of animal compassion is a major opportunity for personal self-improvement you won't want to miss if you like to better yourself.
Animals have capacity to love and show mercy. Examples:

2023 Oct 24: Este video te sorprenderá

The approach we could have taken towards these co-inhabitants of Earth, and presumably the relationship the Creator intended between humans and animals, is a friendly one. Along these lines, it's worth considering how many times animals have helped humans, for example:

If we exploit animals, because they are weaker, then it gives any species more advanced than us a moral right to exploit us. This justification has actually come up in alleged encounters with malevolent extraterrestrials. However if we are compassionate to beings weaker than us, it morally demands that we deserve to be dealt with compassionately by beings higher than us.
If we want to improve ourselves and our society, or want to stop cruelty in this world, ending animal exploitation is an essential issue. In terms of spiritual atmosphere, there is little or no difference between deliberate cruelty to humans or to animals. Furthermore, those who are cruel to animals tend to be cruel to people; for example most serial killers started out being cruel to animals.
Our failure to make the stopping of animal cruelty a priority is one of the main reasons we are failing as a civilization and caretakers of our planet despite our technological advancements.
We show our progress as a society best in how we treat beings we have the least incentive to treat well.
We need to change which incentive we focus on.

It's easy to treat God with respect, once you believe in Him, for He is all-powerful and your life is in His hand.

It's not very difficult to treat other people with respect, where all are equal before the Law: we all have rights or none of us do.

But there is little physical or mental incentive for us to treat anmals well but only or mainly morality. Our incentive is to exploit them for our benefit, and that's what humanity has been doing, for the most part, up to now

The incentive is spiritual: improvement of ourselves, protection of our planet, and innocence of cruelty. These should be among our highest priorities.
our society arbitrarily classifies animals according to our use for them: 'pets', 'wild', 'food' or 'research'. Morally we have no right to make the distinction; biologically there is no distinction. Based on this distinction, we demand pets be treated with compassion, even with maxims such as, "There are no bad dogs only bad owners", while endorsing unlimited cruelty to the animals we designate as 'food' or 'research', in which no animal is seen as 'good' or personified at all.

Do animals have a soul aka consciousness? Of course they do. Biologically and behaviourally they are far more similar to humans than different, the main difference being related to our increased intelligence due to the high ratio of our brain size to our body weight. But intelligence has no bearing on consciousness, so this issue must be put aside. They have eyes, they have mouths, they seem to have emotions, and they react to simple stimuli not very different to humans. In fact, many adult animals are shown to have intelligence equal to human children, and some have been taught to paint or even communicate with us with sign language. They truly are our little brothers and sisters in life.

Is there a consequence for cruelty to beings of lower intellect? Yes there is, because if we are cruel to them:

we would have to answer to any Creator of both them and us for that cruelty. Whoever made them probably won't be happy about us abusing them.
we would justify beings more intelligent than humans to be cruel to humans. Specifically, when we treat animals with cruelty, because we are more powerful, we prove that we deserve to be treated with cruelty by anyone more powerful than us. Science fiction and even some alleged extraterrestrial communication sometimes show extraterrestrials criticizing our abuse of animals as well as using it as justification to abuse us themselves.
we similarly would set a precedent that whichever species rules this planet is right to torment and destroy the other species
we would be sowing cruelty in the universe, which we can expect to one day reap

We should be connecting the animals to the animal products in our minds. For example, animal flesh for consumption is normally presented not as the animal but as the finished meat product. Even the names of the product are often different from the name of the animal, eg. cattle versus beef, or pigs versus pork. Advertising which does show the animal will show it as happy not suffering. Animal slaughter and medical animal experimentation are done strictly behind closed doors, in unmarked locations, and it is typically illegal to expose the truth of what happens there. It's not easy to feel compassion for a hamburger, and with the animal associated with it kept out of sight, animal compassion becmoes a distant and seemingly unrelated topic even at a dinner table of meat.

Groomed for Cruelty

Animal exploitation is not a conscious choice most people make but rather one they tend to be born into. Children have an natural inclination to view animals as friends, and this is supported by animal characters in child-targetted entertainment. However, as the child grows, more and more children are encouraged to accept the exploitation of animals, usually starting with view animals as something to eat. In adulthood, the grooming continues as meat products are normally presented as separate from being a living animal as possible, while animal treatment discussions tend to be philosophical, while there are typically laws in place to prevent people from exposing the practical cruelties of of this exploitation.

In particular, the social concept of manhood in our society is not only strength but strength with a slant towards cruelty; compassionate men are seen as weak and less masculine.

If we are born into a lifestyle of cruelty, at some age we should rethink whether or not cruelty is the lifestyle we actually want to live.

What are the moral failures supporting animal exploitation?

A circular evasion of moral responsibiltiy that considers anything legal as also moral, even though we make the laws arbitrarily.
An attitude that it is the right of stronger beings to exploit weaker ones.
An attitude that animals, no matter how innocent, and who are biologically very similar to huamns, have no soul. Not being recognized as having status under most major religions, and therefore outside of our religious moral codes, that mentally leaves us with no framework to deem them worthy of any kind of compassion or limits of exploitation.
An attitude that humans who are cruel to no intermal limit, and who seem to have no connection to any other being, have souls.
A failure to recognize that animal exploitation is simiply a socially accepted form of unnecessary and extreme suffering perpetrated by humanity.
A failure to think about how we will answer to animals for our mistreatment of animals as their language ability grows.

Benefits of Animal Compassion

Moral Innocence. When you stop being cruel to animals, or being a direct cause of that cruelty (such as in ordering meat to eat), you are no longer morally responsible for any moree cruelty. As for the past, the Creator looks favourably on those who repent for what wrong they have done.

If not, your moral guilt might result in exactly what you did to innocent animals being done to you in the Afterlife by the Creator's justice. On the other hand, the cruelty might come back to you in this life.

When you are compassionate to weaker beings, those deeds can always be used as a moral argument of why you should be treated compassionately in your any enounter with any higher being than you. For example, if a powerful extraterrestrial asks you to give them one reason why they shouldn't throw you in a blender, you can simply say because you are compassionate to weaker beings on your planet which gives you a moral right to expect compassionate treatment from higher beings than you. Maybe it won't save you physically, but morality is universal and eternal, and the argument will be valid on a moral level in any court of this universe for eternity.
Better health. Cruelty doesn't make anyone healthy, but compassion does.
Better connection to the world around you. It's amazing how much your connection to animals and the environment improves when your intent is more peaceful.
Less Expense. Except for government agriculture subsidies, meat should cost approximately ten times what plant-based food does, per calorie. Maybe the subsidies have altered the situation, but otherwise you should be saving money on a plant-based diet.
Cruelty-free products. Do you really want to put into your stomach or on your face products which used the torture of animals to develop them?
Peace on Earth

Most of the cruelty on Earth is cruelty to animals, so stopping it would go a long way towards making our world a peaceful one.

Do you want to live in a world where humans and animals live in a cooperative peace, or where we are mortal enemies? We can literally choose to make this world like Heaven or like Hell, but it's a choice which is made by each of us every day, not only in what we do, but what we support. Please consider these videos:

Pennance. You can atone for some of the wrongs you did by being extra kind in the future: more compassionate than you are legally required to be. This produces a better end result than some other kinds of atonement, such as self-flagellation.

Examples of Compassion for Animals:

Some people choose to notice the suffering of these weaker beings and show them kindness, despite the cruelty of others. For example:

Eyes (Award Winning Short Documentary)

Animal Compassion Argument Summary:

(Perhaps not a proper summary as there may be an idea in here which was not expounded above).

The basic idea of our animal-compassionate argument is:

All life comes from the same source, the Creator, and shares many similarities. The first is that the genetic and protein coding systems in all living cells, of all kingdoms of life, remarkably, operate on the same rules in all biological life we know of, even though inclusion of many other molecules or translations is mathematically and chemically possible.
All life is sacred. Life belongs to the Creator, and no one should think that they truly own it. It is actually a fault of our system of law that humans are presumed to own animals and even to patent genetically modified animals as their own property.
Animal life is more sacred than plant life. Although our science of biology regards plant, animal, and even bacterial life with equal value, we derive from spiritual principles and observations that animal life is the most sacred because it is indivisible: an animal has one indivisible decision-center, but a plant can be propagated without limit from cuttings. Animal life therefore seems to have (an indivisible) spirit (as evidence by the indivisible decision-making feature) which puts it well above other life in moral importance (in our opinion).
We should not kill or harm any living animal without a moral need to do so. Otherwise we are abusing living things. It's important to note that there are many things we need to do, such as plow a field, where animals are bound to get hurt, but we cannot reasonably avoid it, at least not with our present technology.
Although many of our exploitations of animals might have been necessary for our survival at one time, many of them are no longer necessary and therefore represent unnecessary cruelty.
Our unnecessary exploitations of animals have an amazing tendency to not produce the benefits argued in their support. For example, we have way more disease and outbreaks of disease now, despite our knowledge and technology, than before we started widespread experimentation on animals. Similarly, eating animal flesh is usually much less healthy for us than vegan options, and shortens our life expectancy. Our failure to benefit makes sense when we consider spiritual principles, especially that cruelty cannot come to good.
Choosing and promoting compassionate options, where available, is an excellent way to improve ourselves, other humans, the plight of animals, and the world around us. World peace is a process, and begins with compassion. We need to stop the unnecessary bloodshed and torment which we are responsible for.

Resistance to Animal Compassion:

If animal compasssion is so wonderful and obvious a need, why aren't we all doing it? Suspects include:

Religion. Religion is what our society relies on to just right and wrong, and popular religion has sold out to not only endorse animal exploitation as moral, but even as required, and furthermore persecuting anyone compassionate of animals as though being against God. They also typically teach that their was are handed down directly from God and totally inerrant.

Many people who would like to be compassionate but are not provided with any accommodation in their religion, and are pressured to give up God if they give up meat.

Rest assured that the Creator does not want His/Her creation abused, and the path of compassion is always His/Her path and pleasing to Him/Her, and He/She accepts your compassionate lifestyle. If your religion attacks compassion, it has been corrupted, if there was any truth to it in the first place.

Realize that no religion can be correct because all religion is a model by humans to approach God, but is not God. Models have flaws and are supposed to be upgraded, and models can easily be corrupted by those publishing the books, and it can be very difficult to find the original book.Even if you can find the original book, no finite book can contain God's infinite wisdom and instruction.

It's tough for religious leaders to link your choice of diet to your choice of religion, effectively requiring you to make two paradigm shifts in your life instead of one. It's against their worldly incentive to allow members to think and act for themselves apart from the control of that clergy. It's for their worldly incentive to make your transition to something outside their teaching as difficult as possible, as well as to discourage anyone else from listening to or even respecting you. For example, it once happened that a vegan was sitting at a communal Church at a meal, and when two other people at that table heard that he was a vegetarian (which issue often comes up when everyone's plates are on the table), one whispered a reminder to the other that one of their ministers already taught them that vegetarianism was the work of demons. They didn't ask the man anything about it, so he didn't have any opportunity to defend his position (as you often have to do when trying to do good in an evil society), but he heard the whisper.

However tough it is, the path of compassion, more than the choice of any religion, is a surer path to find God, and if you don't know that, you don't know God.

If you need a concept of religion which is compassionate to animals, please see this site for a good read: The Gospel of the Holy Twelve.
Selfishness. This is simply the attitude that the person doesn't care and they will choose what they like, for their own pleasure only, as long as they have freedom to do so. This attitude has been extremely common and unfortunate.

Meatless Diets

The cruelty of using animals for food is usually unnecessary, assuming we have plant-based options, which we almost always do in modern society. The notion that we need to eat animals to be strong is wrong. Our bodies actually recycle proteins and don't need that much of it; in fact excess protein is quite toxic to our bodies. Our bodies are of an ape type; we do well on a vegan diet, especially fruit, and we should stop admitting that we not only don't need to eat animals in a stable modern society, but it's actually LESS healthy for us to do so.

There are a few kinds of meatless diets, but the main two are:

Vegetarian: this is a diet of not eating any kind of animal tissue, but may consume dairy products or eggs or honey. This diet only reduces the health and cruelty problems, since industrial milk, egg, and honey production are usually very cruel (maybe more than producing meat) and the first two are strongly linked to the meat industry.
Vegan: This diet avoids all products of animal origin, including any kind of animal tissue, eggs, dairy products, and honey. You can expect the most health and spiritual benefits with this diet. Beware that it is possible for health to deteriorate on a vegan diet if it is based on vegan junk food (such as potato chips). There are ways to easily fortify two nutrients you might need: iron (inorganic, such as plant-sourced) and B12.

The other diets are generally more specific inclusions or exclusions. For example, a lacto-vegetarian diet is vegan except permits dairy products.

One of the simplest and most important things you can do in this life to improve yourself and the planet around you is to eat a vegetarian (no animal flesh) or vegan (no animal products) diet. This one act improves the planetary state in many issues at once, and you can do it for no financial cost (actually you should be saving money) and no effort (a matter of choice not work).

The personal metaphysical benefit of a plant-based diet is staggering. No longer would you be eating the molecules of an animal tormented all its life and incorporating those molecules into your own (do molecules have a memory?). No longer are you morally responsible for the cruelty of meat, either. On a spiritual level, you should be able to feel a change in you, a good one, for both of these reasons.

Regarding the choice between vegetarian (no animal flesh) or vegan (no animal products) diets, please be aware that the eggs and dairy products permitted on a vegetarian diet tend to have similar level of cruelty (to raising meat if not worse: more of a lifetime cruelty rather than milder abuse ending in one day of slaughter) and many siilar health concerns. Don't expect a huge change in your body or spirit just going vegetarian, although that is still a superior path to meat.

Specifically on Milk

The milk industry is related to the meat industry, slaughtering most males at a young age, keeping females continually pregnant, until they are eventually slaughtered also. It's a similar level of cruelty as goes into meat production, if not more. Sample video: THE MILK SYSTEM

Specifically on Eggs

Industrial egg production tends to be one of the most cruel forms of animal product production, as the male chicks are usually killed immediately, and the females (hens) are typically cramped in small cages life-long and unsanitary conditions, to serve the profit incentive.

Following are example articles on some of the personal benefits, including problems you can expect to avoid, on a vegan diet:

Article: Why You Should Be a Vegetarian

What about Foie Gras?

This is arguably the most cruel form of animal product consuption because the geese are force-fed by metal tupes, nearly and sometimes actually to bursting, to make their liver diseased and enlarged to produce this product from it. Foie gras is actually a paste made of diseased goose liver.

Veganism and the Subconscious

The real reason most people do things is often subconscious. The subconscious reason for eating meat is that we want to be a higher level of being, in two ways: 1. We want to be seen as the top of the food chain. We see carnivores as the highest form of life in the ecosystem, because that’s how we draw our food pyramids: many prey on the bottom and a few carnivores at the top.

Actually it’s a failure of visual interpretation: we chould have easily drawn these pyramids upside-down, in which case the predators would be at the bottom. Which being is a higher form is a question of artwork preference and should not be followed for this reason alone. 2. We want to be seen as strong and aggressive because these are the qualities we worship. Carnivores are also typically faster, stronger, and more aggressive than their prey, as they need to be to survive. We don’t want to hint that we are like rabbits or sheep but like lions. We don’t, for example, want to be mocked in society as eating ‘rabbit food’, as has been common.

That’s a failure of spiritual interpretation: in the satanic mindset, strength is worshipped and the strongest is the most valuable. In the divine mindset, however, the most noble form of life is the one which is the most peaceful. This is apparently why the most powerful being in existence, the Holy Spirit, directly showed (not through a prophet’s interpreatation but directly observable manifestation) the dove as His/Her symbol: the most peaceful animal we know of. Those who try to dominate others are seen as lower forms of life and those who can get along peacefully with others, and not harming them, especially in a cooperative way, are seen as higher forms of life. Looking at it this way, if you eat meat you are degrading yourself as an uncooperative being, symbolically.

Assuming you have options, eating meat instead of a plant-based diet also makes you very much an others-uncooperative being in practice, because although you could have opted for plant-based foods and be healthily nourished, you unnecessarily insisted to have an animal slain to prop up your own pride.

An extension of this is the social pressure on males to eat flesh or be seen as less manly or not heterosexual. For males, we want to show that we are masculine, eating lion food not ‘rabbit food’ and not ‘soy boys’ as society has degraded vegan men. Our society has tried to teach boys that the mark of a man is cruelty and not being a wimp about dishing it out. A man is not supposed to hesitate to kill animals for compassionate reasons, or be seen as a wimp or effeminate. This pressure has been very real. The automatic connection between compassion and weakness, in measuring a man, has been especially disturbing.

The truth is, another concept of masculinity is compassion not attached to weakness. Men most confident in their masculinity don’t need to be cruel to other beings as an external support for their manhood. They are so strong that they can afford to be kind without feeling threatened in their image. They are so strong that controlling their power, especially to not harm the innocent, is their focus, and when they are compassionate, they show they control it very well in just that right way.

Myths about Veganism:

Myth: You give up most taste of your food.

Actually salt, spices, and most condiments are vegan, and these are what give our food taste, so you shouldn't miss much.
Furthermore your body will purify on a vegan diet to such a degree that meat will taste horrible to you, even to make you physically sick. You'll quickly not miss it.
Vegans tend to eat a wider variety of vegetables than they ever did before, now that vegetables, rather than meat, become the focus of the food.
Taste shouldn't justify cruelty.

Myth: A vegan diet is too limited in food choices.

Technically that's true, because to give up eating animals is more mathematically limited compared to a diet of eating anything that can fit on a plate. Nevertheless there is still so much variety of fruits and vegetables, and so many ways to prepare them, that the limitation of not eating meat should not be any significant limitation to food variety. For example, there are said to be over 120,000 known varieties of rice. You might not have realized that when eating meat, but when your focus shifts to fruits & vegetables, you start to realize that what you previously just called 'rice' is actually a whole world of options. In this way, you might find yourself conscious of more options on a vegan diet than you were aware of on a meat diet.

Admittedly, you might find limited food choices in some restaurants in a society where even the donut shop has a steak sandwich and most advertising and menus are dominated with meat items. Still, you shouldn't let others narrow your options to control what you eat, and you only need one thing on the menu not every thing.
Myth: A vegan diet is unnatural for us. No, our grinding teeth, short snout, long transit time through our intestine, and vulnerability to dietary cholesterol all suggest we were built for a plant-based diet.
Myth: A vegan diet is unhealthy. Since the healthiest food is fruits and vegetables, it is difficult to see how shifting your diet to eat more of them is bad. Gladiators of ancient Rome typically ate a vegan diet, as did Alexander the Great's armies. Daniel of the Bible proved that men were no less strong eating only vegetables.
Myth: A vegan diet weakens your body. All diets weaken your body until you balance them. It depends on your determination. You should be eating a balance of grains > vegetables & fruits > legumes. If you feel weak you should try to find out why quickly and before any serious harm; this knowledge of which nutrients your body most depends on is invaluable in any case. Whatever the problem is, the solution is probably that easy once you find it. For example:

Beware that a vegan diet doesn't alone ensure adequate nutrition, due to the existence of processed foods. A healthy diet assumes whole foods in variety and nutritional supplements where diet may be weak in any nutrients which supply cannot be easily corrected within the diet at that time. It is possible to ruin your health eating junk food and no supplementation on a viet which is technically vegan. The 'vegan' diet promoted on this page is actually meant as the the whole-foods version of veganism.
Be moderate with protein: both too low and too high can be harmful, and that it's plant-based isn't enough to save you. This problem also exists on a meat diet, but if you've been brainwashed to think that a vegan diet needs deliberate protein fortification you're wrong and could get hurt. It needs protein, but not an avalanche of artificial high-protein foods to compensate for a protein deficiency which isn't there. Legumes should be a part of your diet somewhere, but really if you're eating a varied whole-foods diet, you shouldn't need to worry about your protein content (just like the other animals on the planet eating whole-food diets don't need to measure their protein intake).
Watch your iron. One person felt weak on a vegan diet, tried to find out why, and felt 100% strong simply taking a little molasses (rich in inorganic iron) with coffee at breakfast. Remember to fortify with inorganic iron, not organic iron, the latter being dangerous and is one of the advantages of escaping the meat diet (note that organic/inorganic in this context is not a reference to source but to molecular structure having carbon (organic) or not (inorganic)). The basic idea is that the human body has a difficult time elminating excess iron, which can be extremely damaging if it accumulates, and which the human body can regulate the uptake of iron, to just what it needs, only if the iron is inorganic (like from plants). With organic iron (like in meat and many iron supplements) you're basically screwed, and only blood loss can compensate for the excess iron.
Be aware about B12. They say vegans need extra B12 supplementation, and fortuantely, if true, that need is so extremely small that most any multivitamin taken occasionally should take care of it: or one concentrated B12 pill a month. But really B12 is theoretically everyone's problem, not just vegans'.

Unfortunately too many people have quickly given up the vegan diet, without fighting for solutions, because they felt weird and didn't want to learn what micronutrient they had too much or too little of.

Myth: A meat diet is way better for humans than a plant-based diet. No it's not. You can live healthily on a plant-based diet, but a meat diet has many dangers, for humans, especially if that meat is raw. That's one reason why you need to be more meticulous in food safety practices in a meat kitchen than a vegetable one. Think about how many successful human societies are vegetarian, compared to how many eat only meat.
Myth: Animal slaughter and meat processing are done without risk of bacterial contamination. That's naive, partly beacause they have bacteria in their intestines at time of slaughter, partly because the animals are usually ripped open, partly because of how many animals are slaughtered per hour, and partly because it's against the profit incentive to stop or slow the production line for a cleanup or throwout. Some related articles:

April 17, 2019: It’s legal for your meat to have trace amounts of fecal matter. A group of doctors want to change that
August 20, 2013: Chicken "Fecal Soup" Contamination
January 21, 2011: The Straight Poop on Meat

Myth: You need animal protein to build muscle. No you don't. All protein comes from plants, and there's plenty of protein available from plant sources directly, as this article explains: Fitness Trainer Steve Pilot Explains How to Build Muscle on a Vegan Diet. What's more, there is a little-discussed but very real danger of too much protein, since the excess nitrogen is toxic.
Myth: Spinach is prone to E.coli contamination. Beware that although plant foods, at least raw plant foods, tend to go bad far slower than their meat conterparts, and although you don't have to keep bleaching your kitchen preparing raw vegetables like you do if you're preparing raw chicken, basic food safety principles still apply even for fruits, vegetables, and grains. Once they are cooked they can go bad as fast as any other cooked food. Even if raw, if you put them in a plastic bag and leave them out long enough, they will go bad, and this is exactly what the mainstream news has again and again reported to the Public as health alerts: not that any red meat, chicken, or fish for sale has gone bad (even thought they go bad rapidly), but that spinach sealed in a plastic bag has gone bad (apparently left out of refridgeration too long). This creates a disproportionate fear of salads and false perception of safety of meat, simply by a shift in reporting. Also note that leafy greens bunched too tightly and kept too moist have a tendency to start going bad in the middle because of the high moisture and low oxygen there. All of this is our own carelessness, rather than an inherent fault with these foods.

Actually the abusive relationship of humans with animals only helps animal-related disease develop which are a threat to humans, as this article explains: Monkeypox Is the Result of Our Cruel Relationship With Animals

Still-Moving Meat:

One of the strangest phenomenons with meat-eating is how most meat eaters react with horror if the meat is still moving, as though it might still be alive, for example:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGtL8DT/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGtN9JU/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGD3mX/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGkvp8/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGMmrR/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGFQqM/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGG84h5/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGNbEr/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGG8hcr/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGAvFV/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGrao2/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGkhTd/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGDMqK/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGG5gUW/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGFJDJ/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGuPT6/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGPhxr/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGGa1L9/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGtDpSN/
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMGt4GHu/

Beyond random motion, in some cases the meat seems to struggle, or moves to avoid destructive stimuli (like being partially dipped in hot liquid).

Typically 'experts' quickly rush in to reassure patrons the that this movement cannot possibly be an indication of life even though it obviously is, especially the reaction, and especially since it was definitely once alive it might still be somehow. The difficulty to believe is that it doesn't fit their model: since the meat is usually severed from vital organs by that point, and since the basic biological model is no possibility of consciousness without a central nervous system or higher animal life without a beating heart, any severed higher animal flesh still moving is defined by the model as unconscious and dead.

But all models of real world things are wrong because they oversimplify something, it this case ignoring that life comes from spirit even more than head or heart; in particular it is known in biology that some forms, such as headless chickens and octopus arms, are able to survive for a long time after the connection to the head has been severed. Even nerves firing or muscle tissue contracting is still a sign of life at least on a cellular level.

If it was fully dead it would have to completely stop moving on its own power, so if it hasn't stopped moving, it must still be alive on some level. Declaring it dead only because it should be dead by your understanding is denialist and it shouldn't become more convincing if the denier is more educated It's like saying time travel is impossible because we know no way to do it.

Nevertheless, the denial that it may still be alive on some level isn't the strangest part of this, since that denial is expedient and expected based on incentive. The strangest part of all this is why the flesh still being alive bothers those who intended to consume it, as though it's wrong somehow. What's wrong?

What's wrong is that the animal doesn't want to let go and die, but is still obviously fighting to live even when it should be dead, and maybe you thought it didn't mind being violently killed for you to eat it. Maybe you realize that if you knew that the animal wanted to live that much you could have let it live and eaten something else just fine. What's wrong is that the animal seems to object to your actions, and has spiritually become ypur accuser before God, because that's who it complains to, just as it might ask God for food while alive, or just how Abel's blood cried out to God after his death.

As a clear example of this principle, St. Martin of Tours, a highly spiritual Christian, once stopped eating a cooked fish during a meal, not because it moved, but because he could feel that the spirit of the fish was angry with him for consuming its flesh. The undertone here was that he wasn't so out of other food options that he needed to eat this fish to survive, and the spirit-form of the fish (which could have more knowledge and intellect than its flesh form) knew that this was only a luxury form the man. The anger seems to be that it is wrong to take the life of another being for your luxury (no survival need).

The theory that moving especially struggling meat indicates a life which didn't want to be taken leads to two reasons someone might stop eating meat outside of survival situations: because it is wrong to take the life of another being for your luxury, and because even if it isn't, you don't need the the spiritual anger of the beings you eat getting into you.

Plant-Based Mock Meats:

These are attempts to use culinary skill and food technology to create from plants what resembles meat as closely as possible. While some of these products are made by mixing natural ingredients, the ones which taste, look, and texture most similar to meat tend to be the most highly processed lab creations.

The closer they get to meat the more they should disturb those who made the choice to turn away from meat because they represent what we've made a deliberate choice to get away from, because they are unnecessary, and because we lose control of the ingredients. For example:

Climate Change-based Meat-eating Restrictions:

Many acivists seem resentful about the right to eat meat being under attack by globalists.

What the globalists are promoting is something twisted, and not the same as an unprocessed plant-based diet. What they're promoting is bizarre solutions like synthetic and even human meat (cannibalism) as a solution to their manufactured crisis of climate change.

We endorse a vegan diet for the right reasons (animal compassion and more) using the right solution (unprocessed plant-based foods). We do not endorse eating human meat or bizarre lab-grown things which you can't trust the ingredients or health implications of.

Anti-Human Veganism?

Unfortunately, in abstaining from eating animals, the vegan movement didn't mention abstaining from eating human flesh.

The correct interpretation is the biological one: that the 'animal' kingdom inclues humans, and therefore veganism should exclude flesh from the entire animal kingdom including humans.

There is no way we should love animals but hate humans. Anti-human veganism may exist but it is not moral and not endorsed by us. We encourage pro-human veganism.

Vegan Self-Defense:

Unfortunately the vegan diet has been unfairly attacked in all sorts of ridiculous ways by those who don't interfere with your free choice if you're doing something bad, but try to steer you off of the path if you're trying to do something good which they're not. The following cartoon sums it up perfectly:

You can start by sharing fact-based information, and see if they are interested in the truth. Here is an example resource: Every Argument Against Veganism DEBUNKED

Avoid the company of those who understand your good purpose and are firmly set against it. Differentiate this from those who need time to process it.

What about fake-meat subistutes?

Plant-based simulations of traditional meat dishes makes opting for plant-based food easy, and it is an interesting novelty, but we don't encourage laboratory-made foods; we advocate natural whole foods. This is for three reasons:

It's not good to appear to be eating meat if you advocate a vegan diet.
It's not very pleasant for someone who is animal compassionate to eat something, even plant-based, which looks like an animal bodypart or is made to simulate animal taste. The only pleansantness of the experience is to go in appreciating that anyone can get a similar experience to the meat product without any cruelty.
You can't be too sure what they put in it. It's better not to have to 'trust the science'.

What about the New World Order (NWO)?

Admittedly, globalists influences seem to be directing the population to eat plant-based and artificial foods, supposedly to benefit the environment and be more sustainable.

Those who resist the NWO have interpreted eating meat as their 'right', even to defend, as though anything which serves the NWO must be evil.

It's critical to note that the vegan movement is not the same as the globalist 'climate change' anti-meat movement, which has caused veganism to suffer resistance as though it's an attempt to enslave humanity.

The vegan movement is for humanity realizing that we can live and eat well without exploiting animals (presumably even more healthy and cheaper if it were not for artificial Government subsidies for meat), and teaches that we should have enough compassion to choose that option. It is a restricted lifestyle but the restriction is a moral one: to abstain from actions which cause direct harm to innocent beings. The movement is generally towards an ideal of eating wholesome organic plant foods: grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables.

The 'climate change' movement isn't towards getting you to eat organic vegetables or ending cruelty. Rather it is focused on keeping humanity as a participant in cruelty but in increasingly degrading ways, espeically from Biblically 'clean' foods to Biblically or spiritually 'unclean' foods, such as:

Bugs

Worms: What Are The Health Benefits of Mealworms?
Reprocessed Shit. Wait until you're entirely dependent on Government for this one to come out.
Each Other (Cannibalism) Quote by Prince Philip: “Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

Certainly an authoritarian attack on traditional livestock has begun (in the name of climate changee) and will result in less supply of traditional meats.

A traditional, plant-based whole-food vegan diet is the correct offramp away from globalist food profanity. When you realize that you don't need to worry AT ALL about protein, when you're eating whole plant-based foods, you DON'T NEED a protein substitute if livestocks fail to provide meat. If there is no steak you don't need to reach for bugs, because you know you don't need to eat either one of those. You can't be controlled into eating shit out of fear of not getting enough protein.

The morality of your actions depends more on why you do something than what you do. You can go vegan now for love of animals, or else you might be coerced to go bug-eating later out of Government-related meat shortages (such as them closing thousands of farms to 'fight climate change' in the Netherlands) or perhaps fear of Government punishments. If the world were to go vegan before being forced to eat bugs, the globalists would have no ground to insist people eat bugs instead of meat since no one would be eating meat. In fact the real premise of these novel meat substitutes is that people won't stop eating meat without something comparable in its place. It is the insistence to eat meat, in fact, which gives the globalists power.

What do We Propose for Animal Treatment?

We propose a strong but not extreme animal rights culture where animals are never permitted to be exploited except:

Experimentation is permitted if it will directly AND certainly save a human life, AND there is no other option but harming animal or human life. In this model, eating a dog if your are starving almost to death is permitted, but experimenting on dogs isn't permitted unless your experiment will certainly and directly save human life (which is a rare case; no more of this sacrificing animals for a theoretical human benefit which never materializes). As another example, if for some reason you must de-mine a field and have no means of doing so but sending in humans or animals to walk around, you send in animals.
Animals are permitted in working relationships with humans, so long as they receive supports, rest, and recreation, appropriate to their type, and are provided a peaceful retirement in their old age (not slaughtered for meat), similar in spirit to that afforded to human workers.
Animals are permitted to be kept as pets and in zoos so long as their space is broad enough to cause them no stress of confinement, their supports are adequate to their type, they are not harassed or isolated, they are not forced into unnatural actions for their type (such as in circuses), and they are free to pursue thingss natural to them. Fear-based animal training is forbidden (except to ward animals off from danger in an emergency).

Ideally, zoos can be an oasis of care for species under threat of extinction, and help people to experience different life froms conveniently.

Similarly, having pets offers animals full integration into our society, often with mutual benefits, many of which you might not expect. At the minimum, there is an entertainment value in interacting with your own pets, rather than having to watch YouTube for recorded experiences with other people's pets.
Animals which are diseased in a way which cannot be cured, and animals which attack humans without reasonable provocation, may be euthanized. However animals which are deliberately and seriously provoked should be exempt from penalty for defending themselves.

Human Safety with Animals

It's important not to be naive with animals but realistic, in terms of their potential to do harm. The reality is that animals have free will, but are generally no more intelligent than human children, and unlike human children, have no instruction in morality whatsoever (that we know of, unless a human has taught them). Like children, they can become frustrated over some insignificant thing, such as a missed treat. Unlike children, many of them are physically capable of doing serious harm to the human body. If you wouldn't trust an (educated) child with a dangerous tool, you should definitely not trust an untrained animal who is physically potentially dangerous. For example, there are many dog owners who are shocked that the untrained dog who is so nice to them is not so nice to everyone else.

Wild animals are even more potentially dangerous than pet animals and if they do strike often strike much faster and fiercer. Even if you inocently try to pet them you should understand that they are not be used to that and are likely to react in some form of protest which could eaily mean your harm.

Animals deserve basic rights from us, as sentient beings based on the same fundamental life force we are, but that must not mean that we expose ourselves or other humans unnecessarily to harm from them. We should be compassionate in a guarded way, loving them without assuming they understand our moral code or even love us back. Where feasible, we should give animals feedback on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, at the earliest stages, so that they can develop.

Back to Homepage

Animal Exploitation: A Test of Human Compassion Played Out on Weaker Beings

What's this About?:

What's the Threat?

Preparing Your Perception:

Emotional Understanding:

Moral Standing

What are the truths we need to view this issue correctly?

Human Prejudice against Animals:

Perspective:

Importance: Why is Animal Rights a Necessary Issue to Understand?

What's different about animals?

The Problem:

The Components of the Problem:

How This Has Been Going On So Long?

Questions We Need Answers for Concerning Animals?

Of what use are animals?

Is life or limb ours to take?

Do animals have a right to the Earth?

Do animals of a right to habitat?

Do we have the moral right to experiment on animals for our benefit?

Should we be eating animals for food?

Are we designed to eat animals?

When should adults re-evaluate what society taught us, growing up, in how to treat animals?

What if I likee the Taste of Meat?

What about plants?

Don't we NEED to exploit animals?

Humans almost never need to eat animals (unless the situation is so bad that it's literally eating an animal or a human or dying).

We don't need to experiment on animals.

we don't need to eat animals.

Most animal products spoil easier than vegetable products.

Processed meats can easily have strange inclussions.

We don't need animals for heavy labour anymore.

We don't need animal skins for clothing.

What About Individual Animal-Based 'Foods'?

Can 'Carnivorous' Animals also eat Vegan Diets?