Rating: 
Summary: Appaling.
Review: "Reviewer: A reader from Boston
I just want to register my support for this book. I think that animals should be freely killed, eaten, and processed into useful products for humans. We need many more books like this one in our day."That was a review from another reader. They gave it 5 stars by the way. I hope he finds these useful products to be what they are- unneeded. Meat is full of cholesterol, saturated fat, meat eaters are altogether unhealthier than non-meateaters. It is disgusting, their arrogance towards other living creatures. You have no right to use, exploit, torture or kill another animal for your own benefit.
Rating:
Summary: Appaling.
Review: "Reviewer: A reader from Boston
I just want to register my support for this book. I think that animals should be freely killed, eaten, and processed into useful products for humans. We need many more books like this one in our day." That was a review from another reader. They gave it 5 stars by the way. I hope he finds these useful products to be what they are- unneeded. Meat is full of cholesterol, saturated fat, meat eaters are altogether unhealthier than non-meateaters. It is disgusting, their arrogance towards other living creatures. You have no right to use, exploit, torture or kill another animal for your own benefit.
Rating:
Summary: He stinks
Review: Facsism and self-interested lordship over sentient creatures is all this [author] is intersted in.
Rating:
Summary: academic profiteering
Review: Here is another attempt at academic self-promotion on the backs of animals.
Do we need another (poorly conceived) argument to spend millions of taxpayers dollars annually on irrelevant and cruel tests and programs, or more reasons to perpetuate cruelty on this planet? No.
I won't even mention the bad writing...("whilst?").
Shame on Routledge for publishing this.
Rating:
Summary: Can't I rate it zero stars?
Review: I can only find one point for this book and that is so the ignorant people have someone to relate to. No where in the author's incoherent ramblings did I find anything that even resembled a reasonable excuse for the mindless animal torturing to continue. This book, in my opinion is poorly reasearched and little is explained. I think it was a waste of time and money.
Rating:
Summary: What is this man thinking?
Review: I cannot believe anyone can support murder like Leaky does!
Rating: 
Summary: We need many more books like this
Review: I just want to register my support for this book. I think that animals should be freely killed, eaten, and processed into useful products for humans. We need many more books like this one in our day.
Rating: 
Summary: A for effort, F for acheivement
Review: I rate this book as two stars rather than one because the author has at least made an effort at producing a philosophical justification for his pro-exploitative position, however incoherently this is argued. The author considers that it is the presence of language that give humans sufficient self awareness to have moral rights, and that all animals lack this awareness. The authors arguments are however incoherent, rambling and very hard to understand even for a reader such as myself with some understanding of philosophy. The author displays woeful ignorance not only of recent studies into the philosophy of mind, but in modern linguistics - surprising for somebody whose arguments stand or fall on linguistic premises. The presence of language-less human adults (as recounted by Steven Pinker in "how the mind works")counters Leahey's arguments. Such humans presumably can be expoited at will according to Leahey's logic. Yet once these people had been taught language, all had a great deal to say about their experiences as languageless humans, and all showed that they had a high level of self awareness. His arguments are not only rambling and incoherent, but often contradict themselves. When arguing for the continuation of fox hunting for example, the author uses the argument both that foxes are vermin that should be wiped out, and that hunting helps in the conservation of foxes! He is obviously confused. If you want a book that will provide a well reasoned argument to continue with exploitative practices regarding animals, then I suggest you look elsewhere. In my opinion the philosophical case for animal liberation has been won. The best arguments against liberation come from Michael Fox and Roger Frey. And it should be noted that even these arguments failed to convince their authors as they later came over to the animal liberation side.
Rating:
Summary: Badly written and poorly researched
Review: Incoherent ramblings. I didn't learn anything other than those whose lives depend on animal slavery will do anything to protect their vested interests.
Rating:
Summary: AWFUL
Review: Just another book to perpetuate the myth that humans are somehow more important than animals. Good book if you're ignorant.
| 
