[sweetheart]

> You could start by being open to the possibility that your position is not the absolute truth.

I have done that. In fact for decades I was convinced that the exploitation of animals was okay/fine/moral/necessary, etc.

The open-mindedness that you encourage was the catalyst for believing so strongly in this.

> And then maybe make arguments as to where you think the other arguments are not consistent, instead of snarky comments very close to personal insults.

That's exactly what I've done. I said the argument is silly because it is self-contradicting. And what psuedo-insult are you referring to?

[hutzlibu]

"And what psuedo-insult are you referring to? "

"The human brain is a wild thing when it can form this single thought and think it to be consistent."

How is that not an insult to my brainfunction?

"In fact for decades I was convinced that the exploitation of animals was okay/fine/moral/necessary"

And the point is, we are not talking about vegetarism here. At least I am not. I am talking about avoiding unnecessary animal suffering.

So you say eating meat is unnecessary in general. Fine, that is your opinion. My opinion is different, I believe to my body it is necessary, or at least I am better off with meat, than without.

Now you could try to change my opinion by providing me with studies saying vegan livestyle is better or as healthy (to which I would likely respond with, "yeah I know that study, those are the flaws preventing a generalisation"). But you did not do this.

And if you want to know why I believe eating meat is allright?

Because there would be no more trees, with no pretadors eating the deers and co. and I like trees as well. So nothing moraly wrong with killing and eating meat for me.

But putting the animal in miserable conditions is indeed unnecessary suffering to be avoided and not allright with me.

What exactly is not coherent in that line of thought?

[sweetheart]

> How is that not an insult to my brainfunction?

I didn't say your brain, I referred to brains in general. Mine is capable of the same dissonance. If you thought I was trying to personally insult you, then I'm sorry; I can see why you'd read it that way but that wasn't the intent. I'm insulting _everybody's_ brain function, my own included.

> I am talking about avoiding unnecessary animal suffering.

Veganism is a philosophy based solely on this principal, so by discussing animal welfare in any context, we are effectively discussing veganism and animal ethics. I say all of this because we _were_ talking about "vegetarianism", as you put it, even if you claim that we weren't.

> Now you could try to change my opinion

But I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out the dissonance for you to do what you want with. I'm not interested in trying to convince you of anything - it's your job to convince yourself.

> Conclusion: you want to know why I believe eating meat is allright? Suppressed Premise: Eating meat is okay if it keeps trees on Planet Earth > Premise B: Because there would be no more trees > Premise C: But putting the animal in miserable conditions is indeed unnecessary suffering

> What exactly is not coherent in that line of thought?

This is incoherent because premise B is untrue, and generally the conditions that animals raised for meat in violate premise 3.

[hutzlibu]

Your line of reasoning look very confused and muddy. Let's make it simple.

In the ecological cycles of this planet, animals have to eat animals for it to work. So some suffering is necessary.

So I see nothing wrong with me being an animal, that eats other animals and creates some suffering.

So where is the contradiction to avoid more suffering, wherever possible?