Fred wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Fred" > wrote
>>> K wrote:
>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>
>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
>> to watch.
>>
> yes, because it's too horrific.

So is open heart surgery, but no one suggests that it's the work of
psychopaths.


>> Why don't they give people tours of
>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
>> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
>> consumer choices.
>>
> It's minimal.

It is not. You do not "minimize" - not even close.


> I do what I can.

I don't think you do anything even to start to reduce it, let alone
"minimize" it. I don't think you have any idea how many animals die in
the course of producing what you consume. You're committing a fallacy:
you think that because you don't consume animal parts, that
*automatically* equates to "minimizing" the deaths you do cause. But
that's patently false.


> Nobody's perfect.

You aren't even good at all as far as not killing animals goes.


>
>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>> vegetarians
>>> around.
>> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
>> more would simply starve.
>
> True, but that's an unrelated concept.

No, it's perfectly related. Unless you produce everything you consume,
you aren't minimizing the death toll.