Meh, it's an argument of semantics and not worth debating. But check the definition of murder, and just because you feel justification for it doesn't make it so.

And I actually respect that some people believe that eating meat is part of nature and if someone were willing to kill and eat their own pig/cow/whatever then they are not doing anything in conflict with what their beliefs are. But cognitive dissonance that the meat industry provides by keeping it all under wraps and those that pretend the ham sandwich is the same as the veggie without any thought or, worse, pretending that fact is not fact is what bothers me. If each person had to make a conscious decision to kill an animal every time they chose to eat meat, there'd certainly be less consumption of it.

I'm not arguing against that, or sending your 80 cents a day or giving a homeless guy some change or even your entire paycheck. I'm just saying that won't solve the problem of world hunger.

Again, I started 17 years ago. This really isn't true. Beans, veggies, fruit, nuts, yogurt, tofu - these have all been around for a whole lot longer than 20 years

No I'm entirely talking about what 'I' should do.

That's has nothing to do with my ethical choices. Think about supporting a ban on battery eggs, that would be a decent analogy.

I think I should pretty much act in the best way for animal welfare. I fail a fair bit btw.

You think it hasn't got easier to find a satisfactory alternative on a menu in the last 20 years? maybe i'm getting old and 20 years isn't as long ago as I feel it is, make it 40 years

There are certainly better and more variety of choices, yes. But I never went hungry for a lack of options (or God forbid, asking for a simple modification to get what I wanted).

He does have a point though. It is up to those that care to make it easier because, sadly, willful ignorance is easy in our culture. Same argument for the obesity in our culture - it's too easy to make the wrong choices because many people just don't take it upon themselves to be accountable.

"Failure" implies actually trying for a different outcome.

It can do, I do a fair bit of that as well.

There's a gap between how people do act and how they think they should act. I was mostly referring to that.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...ood-your-hands

good lord, that's so dumb it's hard to get very far in. disappointed with ifls for publishing something that stupid

You missed the singing mice then.

Yes, vegetarian agriculture kills animals too, but I imagine that article is overstating it a wee bit.

to be fair, it is mentioned that the article is basically only valid for australia, so maybe it's more accurate than if it was applied to America. But still, yes, to support any large number of humans, some animals are probably going to be pushed off of arable land.

seems like the author is committing the lottery/school funding switcheroo where he pretends the same land wouldn't be used for growing crops to feed to animals.

We can't even kill people humanely, just look at all the high profile executions recently. With animals where the driving factor is price, there are way more ****ups leading to painful deaths. If there were videocameras on slaughterhouses I bet a lot of people would reconsider eating meat.

And thus, the real question is where do we draw the line? A cow is not a human, a fish is now a cow and a mosquito is not a fish. Do you oppose the wholesale slaughter of mosquitos? Termites? What about actual parasites infesting your body? Absolutely no one opposes any killing of animals, so how can anyone justifiably claim a superior moral position based on someone else drawing a totally arbitrary line in a different place than they do? There is no objective morality here, just beliefs. Personally, I draw the line at sentience... Not that we necessarily can measure that well. I can totally understand someone drawing the line at mammals in general and even birds. I cannot, however, comprehend anyone who won't eat fish or anything lower down the chart. There's simply no reason to believe that such creatures have lives that "matter".

I care more about a human fetus than I care about the suffering of a random fish.

Sentience isn't the only thing, capacity to feel pain is hugely important. Maybe a fishes life doesn't matter in a philosophical sense, but using that to justify inflicting suffering is nonsensical. It isn't the end of the fishes life that is important, but the time it was living and the sensations it felt. Plants are life too, but no one feels bad about killing or eating them because there is no suffering involved.

I have a super hypocritical history on this because i eat meat but i do not think eating cows helps people, cows, society, or the environment.

You've never heard of fruitarianism?

I'd rather kill
1) Cow so I can eat it
2) Chicken so I can eat it
3) Kitten because jesus christ I'm not killing a grizzly
4) puppy so I can eat it'

Assuming someone else is killing,
Cow, chicken, grizzly, and puppy (so tender!)

I have no doubt that fish have the capacity to feel pain, and again, I can choose to eat something that inflicts suffering (however insignificant you may feel that it is), or, with little to no effort on my part, make the choice that doesn't. Everyone keeps addressing it as if it's some Herculean effort to not eat the fish; it really isn't. And the damage caused by fishing is arguably worse to the environment than farming practices on land, but no one cares because it's the ocean.

Sustaining human life is always going to be a tradeoff; as the human population grows, virtually all other life suffers. Maybe that cannot be completely eliminated, but that doesn't mean we can't make decisions to reduce that impact.

Me too Every time I try to go vegetarian (which should be easy, given 1/2 of the people living here don't eat meat) I fail. I end up feeling sick, blah blah blah. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak and spongey.

You get sick because you aren't eating properly. Happened to me when I went vegetarian the first time.

Kill:

1. A spider. It's a lot easier to clean up.
2. Indifferent
3. A grizzly bear. I like live cuddly kittens. A grizzly bear mount would be pretty cool too.
4. A grey wolf. I hate wolves and would not like too see them reintroduced to areas from which they have been long eradicated.

Eat:

1. A cow. Spiders don't seem like they would be very good eats, but admittedly I've never tried one.
2. Depends upon the animal and what I'm in the mood for, could go either way.
3. Bear tastes better than cat.
4. Wolf. See above.

How many slaughterhouse employees are sadistic killers? Like, what percent hate their lives and just keep their head down, and what percent are getting off by killing animals for a living?

Most are going to be non sadists. Many suffer psychological damage.