Dear Editor,

Being a vegetarian myself, I agree with having a meatless diet. Choosing to not eat meat was one of the best decisions I have made. I am now feeling stronger, healthier and happier after a year and a half without meat.

But the letter to the editor in Tuesday's paper was absolutely ludicrous.

Arguing that the "entertainment" people get by eating meat is equivalent to the entertainment a person gets from killing a defenseless animal is like saying a policeman shooting a criminal involved in a hostage situation is equivalent to a serial killer shooting a random person on the street.

While I completely agree that animal cruelty is wrong, not every factory is like the ones portrayed in films like Food Inc. There are definitely a select few who do it the wrong way, but for the most part, a large percentage of the 10 billion land animals who suffered like the cat are probably killed ethically. This is partially due to groups like PETA becoming more prevalent with their watchdog activities. Saying that every factory makes their animals suffer is an ignorant statement.

Furthermore, did Lance Durden pick up the cat and eat it in order to sustain his life? No? Because that's what the millions of meat eaters are doing around the world when they consume animals that are killed.

The letter to the editor also stated that the consumption of meat is justified on "pleasure, amusement and convenience." Through my experience, it takes a lot of effort to replace the protein and iron you would normally get from meat into my vegetarian diet. In fact, meat is really healthy for you in the right amounts. I would absolutely agree it's convenient, especially since it helps you live. I would agree even more that you get pleasure from it, just like you would get pleasure from using the restroom after holding your bladder for a long time or finally crashing and sleeping after staying up all night. But when it comes to amusement, I haven't necessarily seen people laughing at their hamburger as they ate it. You could argue that people play with their food, but most of the time that's probably in lieu of being bored or feeling awkward, not a frequent act you do to relieve stress and have a good time.

Whether you believe what Durden did is right or wrong, claiming that eating meat is equivalent to watching a cat get torn to pieces is outrageous.

The slaughter of animals for consumption is regulated and performed by people who have been working in that business for a long time.

The commanded killing of an animal by a biology professor, whose job it is to teach students (not kill animals), is pointless and unnatural.

Rachel Mulder

Sophomore

Chemistry

Warner Robins, GA