This criticism is usually expressed in the time-honoured phrase, "You murdering scum!"

The act of "murder" involves one human killing another human intentionally and illegally. The following acts are not murder: killing someone by accident; killing someone legally (in self-defense, for example); and killing someone who has four legs, grunts and looks like a pig.

Even if one buys into the Lunatic Fringe line of thinking that pigs and humans should be afforded the same legal protections, the fact is that at present they aren't. "Murder" is a legal concept, and one cannot accuse a pig farmer of murder if killing pigs is legal.

Of course, should the day ever come when animals are given the same rights and responsibilities as humans, our courts will be packed with murder cases against lions, tigers and bacteria. But we'll cross that ridiculous bridge if and when we come to it.

2) "Animal users are torturers."

The act of "torture" involves the intentional inflicting on another being of a large degree of physical or mental pain for an ulterior motive. In the case of torture by one human of another, common motives include:

• to gain information from the victim
• to force the victim to change behavior
• to cause pain for its own sake, either as a form of revenge or because the perpetrator is a sadist
• to study the victim's threshhold or response to pain.

Despite frequent claims by the Lunatic Fringe that animal users subject animals to pain, the above motives are rarely if ever found in cases of animal cruelty.

Torture as a means of gaining information: This simply does not work with animals.

Torture as a means of changing an animal's behavior: Fundamental to the concept of torture is the application of a large amount of pain, sufficient to cause the victim severe distress and perhaps cause it to behave in a way that is entirely against its will. It does not refer to the application of small amounts of pain, which is why we do not call parents who spank their children "torturers". Likewise, when a dairy farmer applies an electric prod to hurry his cows home, this is not torture.

Torture as a means of revenge or sadism: Humans who pour scalding water on the cat after it's peed on the shag carpet, or who pull the legs off spiders, are guilty of torture. However, they are no more likely to be found among animal-user communities than in the general populace.

Torture to study the victim's response to pain: Ah ha! Here's a tricky one. It's true that some medical research involves intentionally inflicting pain or distress on animals to study their response. Does this constitute "torture"? Technically speaking, I think it does. But then we must remember that "torture" is a pejorative word with an emotional as well as a purely descriptive element. Is it reasonable to talk about "massacres" in slaughterhouses, or, for that matter, each time we spray mosquitoes or pesticides on a field? Of course it isn't. Saying that a researcher "tortures" lab rats is as daft as saying a farmer commits "genocide" each time he "slaughters" the rats in his barn.

3) "Would you like to be milked every day?"

Animal users are frequently asked if they would like to suffer the same fates as the animals in their charge. Depending on the phrasing used, the response will vary slightly, but the question is invariably pointless.

On a superficial level, one can dispense with these questions by drawing comparisons. Yes, dairy farmers do make their cows work for a living, but a lot of humans work harder and under less pleasant conditions. Yes, fur trappers do tear the skins from the backs of animals, but the animals are dead, so it doesn't matter. Humans let themselves be eaten by worms or consumed by fire, once they're dead. And yes, humans do kill animals by electrocution, gassing or whatever, but compared with some of the options available in nature - for animals and humans alike - they are surely among the most humane ways to die.

On a more profound level, animal rightists refuse to acknowledge the crucial role of dominion in every aspect of nature. Whether it be within a single species, or between two or more species, the dominion of one animal over another is central to the concept of evolution based on competition. It is simply nonsensical to expect a livestock farmer to change places with his livestock, just as it is nonsensical to ask the winning team in the Super Bowl to relinquish its trophy, or a child to flunk an exam so someone else can get a scholarship.

So the answer is no. A dairy farmer does not want to be milked. A cattle rancher does not want to be barbecued. And in case you haven't figured it out yet, the fox with its jaws around the neck of a rabbit does not want to be eaten by the rabbit.

4) "They skin them alive!"

This is an old favourite that won't die, so to speak. According to animal rights mythology, hunters of seals, kangaroos, rabbits, you name it, habitually skin their prey while they are still alive. Obviously this practice, if it were to occur, would be extremely cruel, and deserving of society's condemnation.

One of the earliest known examples of this myth was in 1964, when film provided by the International Fund for Animal Welfare of a seal being skinned alive was screened on television in Canada (See "Saving Society from Animal 'Snuff' Films," Fur Commission USA, Dec. 15, 1998.) Following a public outcry and investigation, a man in the film confessed in court that he had been paid to commit acts of cruelty. IFAW founder Brian Davies also later stated under oath that he had never actually seen a seal being skinned alive. Yet IFAW's propaganda continues to claim that this happens.

Now ask yourself, why would anyone want to skin an animal that is still alive? According to the animal rights mythology, it saves time or bullets or both. Common sense, on the other hand, tells us that skinning any animal - let alone a seal, which packs a nasty bite, or a kangaroo, which can knock you out - is best done when the animal is dead, not when it is wriggling around and totally uncooperative. And if saving bullets is your thing, well heh, if you're carrying a skinning knife, you just cut the animal's throat.

If you're still not convinced, consider this. If an animal is being skinned alive, it's heart - obviously - is still pumping. This would result in the pelt being covered in blood. This would make it worthless for use in fur clothing, because washing it in water, in particular fresh water, would damage it. Once a pelt has been fleshed, it must be protected by curing of any form - drying, tanning, salting, etc.

5) "Animal users are just motivated by greed!"

Well, duh! Farmers, fishermen and the like are hardly the wealthiest people on the planet, but like all of us, they need money to survive. It's like when anti-globalization groups attack corporations for being motivated by "profit", as if that were a crime. Ninety-nine percent of corporations, from multinationals right down to the guy polishing shoes on the street corner, are motivated by profit.

The human desire to make more money than we spend is not a sin, especially when we earn that money through hard work. Rather, it is simple common sense.