On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>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.

This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter. Accidents will happen, no doubt, bring
forth any facts and figures about deliberate slaughter of wildlife and
I can assure you the world would be up in arms, further, we will help
you to expose it for what it is.

As it's pure fantasy, this will of course never happen, because you
are just trying to divert attention from your deviant likes.

>> 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.

Of course it is.

> 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".

Accidental death of wildlife in arable crop production is so
insignificant that facts are unavailable, you are talking hogwash.

<snip, we don't want to tax you too much>