> > it is inelegant of you to suggest that it is. Simply put -
> > is a convenient scource of protein, that happens to have some
> > vitamins in one package that must be garnered in more
> > convoluted ways via plant matter. People do not eat meat
> > because they have to, but because they want to.[/u]
> Exactly, it's a life choice.
As is bullfighting - what kind of specious reasoning is that?
> > Well what you meant is a logical fallacy - Our inability to
> > recognise fear or pain or mental anguish in an animal we
> > slaughter does not indicate an absence of torture. Maybe in a
> > tabloid headline - not to a person who requires a little
> > reason. There is as much evidence to say that dust mites live
> > in a state of perpetual ecstacy as there is to say that
> > slaughtered animals don't undergo torture.
> It's not a fallacy. Bull fihtinh is for entertainment, to see
> an animal die in a horrbiel way, it has nothing to do with food
> preparation, it is a fallacy for you to say they are
> comparable. They aare not.
> Intent and method are different.
By that reasoning, as long as I don't intend to torture someone I won't be torturing them - as long as I do it in a method that is acceptable to your sensibilities and because it is more convenient to me than an alternative - a 'life choice' as you put it?
'When I despair I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it-always.'