> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle
>> >> > for
>> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> > reducing
>> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >>
>> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes*
>> >> the
>> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
>> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
>> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line,
>> >> and
>> >> sinker.
>> >
>> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
>> > unnecessarily.
>>
>> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
>> 2. All animals are sentient
>
> False.

Name one that isn't.

>> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral cost.
>> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or taking
>> that
>> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.
>
> It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
> as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
> unnecessarily."

That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and
cynical attempt to redefine your position. You have ZERO knowledge of the
probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume.

> I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> unnecessarily

No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't even
define "sentient".

> and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
> not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
> cause or support unnecessary harm.

You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or unnecessary
in this context.