"brad beattie" > wrote in message
...
> ----- 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. 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.
=======================
No, there is not. Again, thye death and suffering of animals is part and
parcel with crop production.
That you continue to support a western, consumer oriented mass production of
crops justs means you
*must* kill even more animals. Now, if your goal truly were to
eliminate/reduce animal death and suffering,
you'd replace 100s of 1000s of those crop produced calories with the death
of just 1 animal. A grass-fed cow, or game.
Yet you won't, precisly because saving animals is not your gola, or any
usenet vegans goal.



>
> Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?
> Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. This is why I will eat
> in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food;
==================
Possibly even more than many meat-eaters diets.


this is
> unavoidable. If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
> you for food, I will. For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
> isn't.
================
far more necessary than brocolli. You cannot live without meat, or some
supplement to replace it. That supliment also causes animal death and
suffering to produce. Animals lose either way with your so-called
compasionate diet, killer.


>
> (bradbeattie)at(alumni.uwaterloo.ca)
>
>
>