"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I wouldn't call it extremely valuable.
>>
>> You're wrong. This mushy concept of "need" is central to the veg*n's
>> misconceptions about diet and ethics, and leads to this whole flawed
> idea of
>> moral correctness. Veg*ans propose that meat is not a "need", which is
> true,
>> as Rudy just demonstrated, it's a "want" like everything else. Veg*ns
> then
>> conclude that since meat is not a need, therefore it must be immoral
> to
>> consume it. It's plain that not being a need does *not* make something
>> immoral. In other words, if *you* are deciding what your "needs" are,
> then
>> you're talking about "wants". It's not a distinction one should brush
> off
>> lightly.
>
> No one's made the conclusion that it's lack of
> need means immorality.

Pay attention to vegetarian rhetoric, it is frequently argued that since we
don't *need* meat then therefore we *should not* consume it. I don't have a
quote, but I'd bet money that you have said that yourself.

> The immorality is
> seen instead in the brutal conditions and the
> killing of the animals.

That's another aspect of vegan rhetoric.