On Mar 2, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
> 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.

Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
in a decade.