They also experience life more viscerally than spinach. What's your point. Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. Also bacon is tasty.
My point is that the person above me suggested it's also unethical to eat plants because they are also living organisms. I'm pointing out the mistreatment of animals (obviously) is far less ethical than mistreatment of plants.
> Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
If you're suggesting it's better to exist than not exist, it depends. I'd rather not have existed at all rather than exist in a torturous and hopeless existence.
> Keep your moral proscriptions to your self.
You don't know me. I eat more meat than most people. It's just that people are in my opinion overly dismissive of the ethical problems with eating meat and it's hard to discuss these ethics because a lot of people are overly dismissive or retort with silly counterpoints such as "plants are also living organisms".
But less life will probably have to die in order to sate you if you're a vegan, if you add up the food that the livestock would have to eat (most of the calories that a herbivore animal will eat will not be translated into calories for the animal that is going to eat that herbivore; last I saw only 10% of the calories consumed carries over to the next animal).
Unless the livestock is grass-fed or something... I don't think anyone is that concerned with the life of grass.