On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.
>
> >> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.
>
> >> >It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"
>
> >> * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.
>
> >> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?
>
> >> * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >> a person horribly sick. So cook it.
>
> >> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to..
> >> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.
>
> >> * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.
>
> >> >OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.
>
> >> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>
> >Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.
>
> * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> products.

But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
grounded in any evidence.

Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.

I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.