[Eisenstein]

> But really, the question I guess I'm asking is why do you place humans on the center to begin with?

You don't? Please tell me that you are not advocating reallocating half of all hospital funds to animal shelters in order to equalize the balance between us and domesticated animals.

> It seems you're really hammering on the concept of domestication, but why?

Because it explains the value system. We domesticated animals to eat them. Pigs ate the food scraps we couldn't and we ate them. I'm not sure what is unclear to you about this setup.

> Why is for example a domesticated pig less worthy of living than a domesticated dog, or a domesticated plant or a human?

Everything has life worthy of living. My question to you is why you don't cry over the single celled organism holocaust every time you wash your hands? Are their lives not worthy? We compartmentalize and prioritize -- you do it just as much as I do, you just feel like judging me for being honest about what mine are.

[jerojero]

I thought I was clear in saying that life in itself might not be enough?

Why would you say something "everything has life worthy of living" why? I actually disagree with this statement. Animals like pigs or dogs or humans are not just living beings, they also have complex mental processes. Did you know pigs are very much aware of deaths in their close families? These are complex animals that feel both physical and emotional pain. I'm sorry you think domestication has turned pigs into walking meat but that's simply not the case. So it's not difficult to justify the ending of lives of bacteria as opposed to pigs, but it is much more difficult to justify the ending of the lives of pigs as opposed to humans.

And I think you really haven't been able to justify your human exceptionalism, instead you simply attack me as if I'm supposed to convince you that this is not the case simply because you "feel" that it's right. And that's my point, you have a dogmatic belief that you're not willing to even challenge.

Obviously I get the instinct of human exceptionalism, but instinct does not make for good reason. Should we allocate half of our hospital resources to animal shelters? I mean, how about we stop eating meat instead? How about we stop the mass consumerism we are trapped in? We don't have to sacrifice the well being of humans to improve the well being of animals. Well, we might have to sacrifice some comfort, because the way we live is simply unsustainable.

[Eisenstein]

> Why would you say something "everything has life worthy of living" why?

I'm confused. You qualify some life as exceptional and other life as not. Because of 'complexity'? How is one thing different from another?

> So it's not difficult to justify the ending of lives of bacteria as opposed to pigs, but it is much more difficult to justify the ending of the lives of pigs as opposed to humans.

According to what? Because they have emotions and care about family? How do you know? You anthropomorphize an animal and use that to justify your stance -- and complain about human centric thinking.

> And I think you really haven't been able to justify your human exceptionalism

I never even attempted to do so. I said it is innate to humans to do that. You just did it without even realizing it by ascribing human qualities to pigs to justify why they should be treated better than other animals.

> instead you simply attack me as if I'm supposed to convince you that this is not the case simply because you "feel" that it's right.

Oh please. I haven't been emotional even a tiny bit here and I haven't attacked anyone. You feel attacked, but if you re-read this entire conversation what is being attacked is a push to see that there is no absolute moral decision one can make about animal life and food without contradiction on many levels. I happen to pick the dubious morality accepted by the vast vast majority of human society throughout recorded history and I acknowledge that it is flawed, and I have no qualms picking my own species comfort over those lower in the food chain which have been adapted by us for utilitarian purpose.

> Obviously I get the instinct of human exceptionalism, but instinct does not make for good reason.

No, but it doesn't have to, because you can't escape it. It is innate.

Look, I don't agree with industrially processing animal life to be a mass commodity but I can't separate 'killing a whole lot of them at once centrally' with 'killing a few in disparate locations'. But I will defend eating meat against vague philosophical word salads that do nothing but claim the same thing I am but with a different set of qualifications for what is and is not worthy of our empathy for reasons just as dubious as mine. At least I admit it.