AU SUJET DE L' ARTICLE PRECEDENT "" L' ENIGME DE LA SOUFFRANCE ANIMALE"" ....

 FREE FROM HARM  A DE NOMBREUX ELEMENTS

TOUT A FAIT D' ACCORD AVEC SHERRY COB, AUTEUR DE L' ARTICLE .....IL Y A ENCORE ET TOUJOURS LES SOUFFRANCES DE L' ELEVAGE, VACHE SEPAREE DE SON VEAU, BROYAGE DES POUSSINS, MUTILATIONS CASTRATION, LIMAGE DE BEC.... ETC..

BIEN SUR... MÊME SI (ET JE DOUTE QUE CELUI PUISSE ÊTRE POSSIBLE) L' ANIMAL TUE N' A NI CONSCIENCE NI DOULEURS, FRAYEUR, ANGOISSE, PRESCIENCE ET  CELA DEVIENT IL NORMAL DE LE FAIRE????
 NON!!!! 
 A LIRE DANS SA TOTALITE ET VOIR LES PHOTOS...

he following is a response to the recent NY Times opinion piece by Rhys Southan, “The Enigma of Animal Suffering,” in which he concludes: “Exploitation is harmful only when the exploited are able to notice it and resent it.”
Some people outside the animal rights movement agree that inflicting suffering on animals is wrong, but challenge the notion that killing animals in order to exploit them is necessarily morally objectionable. Their premise is that if one could kill an animal for consumption without inflicting any distress or pain upon that animal, then the killing would not violate the interests of the animal. This is actually a position held by Peter Singer, the Princeton philosopher who authored Animal Liberation. Singer rejects the view that killing farmed animals is wrong, provided that the killing is truly painless.