brad beattie wrote:
> ----- Message Text -----
> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>
> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.

> The
> consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
> minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
> validity to abstaining from eating meat.

Nope. The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the
same small level as human death and injury. If it
isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if
you're going to claim to be "ethical".

>
> Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?

Not just valid, but necessary.

> Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive.

There is no requirement for you to survive, and
certainly not at some given level of comfort. Get off
your ****ing fat ass and grow vegetables that don't
cause animals to die.

> This is why I will eat
> in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; this is
> unavoidable.

That's a lie. You could grow it yourself, or hire
"ethical" farmers to grow it to your specification.

You're too enamored of your phony self image as a "more
ethical" person due to not eating meat.

> If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
> you for food, I will.

Oh, I have no doubt. You are a thoroughly unethical
person.

> For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
> isn't.

There is no such thing as "necessity". You lose.