| > 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. |
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?