This is very relevant today. People are being divided from those around them for their political views and opinions. It is sad to know how many relationships are harmed due to the lack of respect for anther persons opinion.

The idea of a person putting on a mask or saying they still believe in something is very touchy. It makes me think of how many people may be doing just this in order to live an easier life.

This is very important for Derek to recognize. Others can relate when accountability is brought up. Some choose to be held accountable to recognize mistakes, creating room for change and growth.

This sentence, although it is subtle, really stuck out to me. It shows us how people like Derek and ourselves are going through the same things. Battles with out past selves can take time to overcome. I think this is important to mention, it helps readers to understand that they are not alone when facing these types of mental battles.

I think a lot of people can relate to this sentence. Our ideas change over time and it is very difficult to look back on the things we used to believe in.

I will admit, I had no idea that other countries raise and slaughter their animals differently. It embarrassing to know that there are ways that are more humane and respectful, yet we are still using the most inhumane and unmoral methods.

I agree that it takes willingness in order to try something new.

I feel like this happens all of the time. We are so focused on one thing that we do not understand or even refuse to understand the whole thing. A person needs to be accepting of the different ideas, then you can accept the idea of understanding.

He mentions this a bit in a previous paragraph. Will we look back on this and regret or just laugh about it in disbelief that we let it happen? Will there be a time where we look back on this? As we are developing as a society we are finding new ways to end and not contribute to the issue of animal cruelty, but will it ever fully end?

Every living thing will try to avoid pain. But avoiding pain is not the only thing an animal should be focused on. Animals are here for more than one reason, not to just roll around in the dirt. All of them somehow contribute to our ways of living.

Education should not entitle a person to treat others differently. Nonhumans is a strange topic to consider. Yes, animals should have certain rights but at the same time we have no idea what other animals are fully capable of.

This is a very controversial idea, but I understand what he means. We are not physically equal or identical, but morally we should all be treated equally.

This makes me wonder if people have converted due to a fear of what would happen if they did not, or convert because they would be making a difference?

I feel like this ties back to the "out of sight out of thought". If a person wants to continue eating meat it is recommend that they do not read the book. Meaning that there is information within the book that may change their perspective on eating meat.

Unfortunately the term "out of sight out of thought" happens way too often.

I never really payed attention to this even though it is happening all around us. I never thought about it directly correlating with me even though it does.

I do not think this should be subjected as a liberal movement. It just seems morally wrong to endanger animals or condone animal cruelty, this seems wrong to throw into politics. It is important that the author makes it clear that this issue has now been broadened across all ideological lines.

I think this is a very neat idea. It does not seem morally right to test products on animals or force them to be harmed for human enjoyment. I had no idea countries were doing this.

It is a bit strange to compare animals to other minority groups. Many people view animals as a source of food, shelter or clothing. But comparing animal lives to human lives seems to be a little different.

It is interesting why this is mentioned. It has taken time for minority groups to gain rights and to be treated fairly. What about the rights of the animals?

I have never considered the power behind this word until Pollan broke it down. Humans are viewed as superior to anything else.

It is interesting how we have been treating animals so cruel, yet animal cruelty is not yet a subject of the past. I think Pollan is hinting at how we should treat this as a form of discrimination. Animals facing cruelty should be a topic of the past, yet we are still faced with it today.

I feel like Michael Pollen is putting himself in this position to further understand Peter singer's "Animal Liberation". But then I went back a noticed how Pollen writes, "The first time opened..." His use of metaphors hold power by showing how he is reading a book about animal liberation yet he is eating a steak. This made me wonder, will his ideas on eating the steak change as he reads further into the book?