View Single Post
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

brad beattie wrote:
> |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.


*Nature* is entirely dependent upon death of individual animals. Without
death there is no life. In order for you and so many of our species to
live an urban existence, it is necessary for large scale farming to
occur. That means machinery is required. Animal deaths are part and
parcel of your own existence whether you choose to eat them or not.

> The consumption of meat requires that animals are killed.


Actually, it doesn't. It may be deemed inhumane to remove a leg of lamb,
beef, or pork at a time, but animals could continue to live if we didn't
make use of their entire bodies at once. Economy dictates the scale of
use of each animal every bit as much as your urban existence requires
large-scale, intensive grain and vegetable production.

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


Abstention under any circumstance is a *personal* issue. The area where
I have the largest disagreement with you and other veg-ns is forcing
others to live according to the dictates of your weak conscience. I say
that as someone who doesn't eat meat, too.

If you're sincere about minimizing harm, you'll stop purchasing food and
instead grow all of your own.

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


You don't make a strong case for abstaining from animal foods in the
first place, so your second point is moot. Your next sentence, though,
points out the obvious: food is NEEDED (i.e., necessary) for survival.

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


Sustenance versus nourishment versus satiety versus contentment: the
four are not the same. I don't know you or anything about you, but my
guess is that you're not wispish thin. You could "survive" on far less
than you actually consume, but you probably over-indulge just like
others in developed nations (including me). The amount of death and harm
to animals AND farmers is commensurate with the food you purchase. Add
to that workplace accidents, accidents, and pollution from storage and
transportation of your purchased food. Your food is laden with
suffering, again, in proportion to the amount you purchase and consume.

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


No, you can grow your own or buy directly from small-scale farms.

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


Not if I'm hungrier, faster, and a better hunter than you are.

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


Sorry, but neither are plant-based foods if one's not disposed to eating
them. You're not even clouding the issue with your illogic. The issue
wasn't what's *necessary*. At least you admit animals die in the
production of your food; that still doesn't set you on any higher plane
than meat eaters.