"ant and dec" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "ant and dec" > wrote
>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I don't have a problem with hypocrisy, I make a rule not to eat
>>>>>> anything smarter than a pig,
>>>>>
>>>>> How convenient for you, and inconvenient for the pig. Why have you
>>>>> drawn this seemingly arbitrary line at pigs?
>>> I'd like you to answer this point.
>>
>> We all draw the line somewhere. Why do you believe that it is all right
>> to destroy animal populations in order to grow vegetables, fruit, grain,
>> cotton..?

Where is the response to this reply?

>> [..]
>>
>>>> Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig
>>>> could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their
>>>> loving families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing
>>>> pain-killers.
>>> This line of thinking is very often pulled apart as being complete BS.
>>> by both camps. I see some have already pointed this out.
>>
>> Why is it complete BS?
>
> You've already stated why.

Where's the content in that reply?

>>When animals die in crop fields they are often cruelly dismembered or else
>>are poisoned and die slowly of internal hemorrhaging. Why is that all
>>right and a bolt through the brain is not?
>
> Animals are dismembered, but there is no one deriving any pleasure (being
> cruel) from it.

Are you claiming that death and suffering to animals is acceptable as long
as no cruelty is involved? Most slaughterhouse deaths are not cruel.

> One is easily avoided.

Are you saying that morality hinges on "ease"?

[..]
>>
>>
>>> I think you're blurring the realms of hypothesis and reality under the
>>> pretense of a "joke".
>>
>> I think you are blurring human rights and our relationship with the rest
>> of the animal kingdom under the pretense of "morality".
>
> Yes we have a moral responsibility to the rest of the animal kingdom.

That is not the same as blurring human rights and our relationship with the
rest of the animal kingdom under the pretense of "morality".

[..]
>>
>>> You claim to observe this moral superiority, yet you can't give any
>>> examples? I think it's a figment of your imagination.
>>
>> You are in denial. Every time a veg*n announces that they don't eat meat,
>> wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously at a piece of meat,
>
> "wrinkle their nose sanctimoniously"!

Echo

>>agonize rudely about some microscopic bit of animal cells in some
>>condiment,
>
> "agonize rudely"!

Echo

>>refer to statements like "Meat is Murder", or bring up issues like
>>"slaughterhouses" or "factory farming" in discussion,
>
> What's wrong with bring-up issues like "slaughterhouses" or "factory
> farming" in a discussion?

It comes down to the motives. Veg*ns derive satisfaction from the discomfort
of others.

>>they are implicitly setting themselves up as moral paragons. In fact
>>another way vegans describe themselves is "Ethical Vegetarians". If you
>>are "ethical" then what am I?
>
> We have different ethics. "If you are "ethical" then what am I?"

Echo

>> [..]
>>
>>> If mankind
>>>> was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and socially
>>>> cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or not meat was
>>>> a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was doesn't
>>>> make an ought.
>>> I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution. You and I are
>>> fortunate to have a choice of what we eat. Perhaps more should think
>>> about their choices, in particular what impact those choices have,
>>> rather than blindly follow customs and practice.
>>
>> The practise of abstaining from all animal products in food is no less
>> blindly following custom than any other choice. Perhaps vegetarians
>> should spend more time look closely at the impact of their own food
>> choices instead of just peering self-righteously at the choices others
>> make.
>
> "peering self-righteously"!

Echo

> I was all inclusive in my statement, yet you have misread it; possibly
> purposly to pull out a dietary sub-set of vegetarians.
>
>>
>>
>
> This post typifies your modus operandi.
>
> You seem to have labeled me as a ve*gan, and have then go on to seemingly
> purposely misinterpret my posts adding inflammatory words of no value
> except to demonstrate your dislike.
>
> From what I've seen so far your posts rarely add value.

And your non-responses and parroting of my remarks adds value?