: Excuses are for people who aren't willing to look at the truth about the actions they take. That's it.: Killing is killing. That's it. If you participate in a killing, you are a killer. If you buy or consume products that are a result of killing, then you are endorsing that killing, indeed, you are funding killing -- you are creating a market for killing. That's it. No excuses.
I take it you don't use money at all then. Where do you draw the line with 'products that are a result of killing'? Is it just meat or leather? What about products that are made on machines greased with animal fat? What about non-meat products made by companies who also sell meat products? What about non-physical products, such as financial products, sold by companies such as banks that support other companies that make meat products?
The problem with your dogmatic utopianism is that it forces you into hypocrisy if you want to take part in society at all. You can't take part in society without interacting in some way with other parts that themselves interact with things you abhor. First off, and hardest to deal with - you can't hold the view you do and use money, without being a hypocrite. That's a bit strong, so I'll explain.
Perhaps you don't use money. If not, you have my full respect and jealousy - I'd love to know how to do that.
But if you do...
If you do use money ever, under any circumstances, by your own arguments, you are endorsing capitalism, the system that ensures that human weaknesses are reinforced rather than eradicated, and that markets for meat and murder are perpetuated. If you endorse capitalism, you endorse all markets, including things far worse than the slaughter of animals for food. There are people who are paid to kill people or torture other people, and participation in capitalism, by your arguments, endorses and supports this.
If, however, you take a slightly more relaxed attitude, one that is less dogmatic and less utopian; if you accept that there are bad things in the world and that some of them are not going to change in our lifetimes; if you accept that this is not an excuse for not trying to change the things that can be changed, then it is possible to participate in society, warts and all, and to try to do some good in it.
: What's the problem then? No matter how you rationalize it, it is still what it is: action that endorses killing. If your religion, whatever it is, abhors killing, then you are violating your religion if you participate / endorse killing. I don't care which religion it is. But then again, what is religion really?
Well, the religion of my people (I am not myself especially pious in the standard sense of it) takes a sophisticated view that is capable of both abhoring killing in general and sanctioning it in the case of meat eating. There are nasty things in Judaism about killing that I don't like (we are capable of behaving just as badly as any other people, and have done, from Biblical times to the present day, though I'm not going to give you the references - ask your local neighbourhood anti-semite) and there are good things in Judaism about killing I do like, like the saying about 'when a Jew says he is going hunting for pleasure he lies'.
: If you believe in the Golden Rule, which most religions adhere to, why would you do unto another that which you would not want to have done to you? (i.e. kill another being or endorse that killing).
The Golden Rule is great, but the world is just a little bit more complicated than that. Sorry to point out the obvious, but it seems necessary.
: Stop lying to yourself. "Oh, we'll never be able to stop people from killing animals for food". Yeah, that's right, as long as you continue to eat meat. You only have yourself to answer for. If you live a righteous life then you can be an example for others. If you make excuses for your behavior, then you do not live an honest life.
Anyone who claims to live an honest life is lying. I make no such claim, and distrust all those I hear. Look at the empirical evidence! It's not as if there's a shortage.
: One thing is definite. You are being dishonest when you make excuses. We all know killing is wrong (in almost 99.999% of cases).
Ah, so you're not *so* dogmatic after all. I am fascinated by this 0.001% of cases where even you say that killing is justified. Whatever can you mean? You have severely contradicted everything else you have said.
:People have to come up with elaborate excuses and theories about other species just to outrun their own guilty consciences (i.e. "animals don't have souls" or whatever your justification du jour is).
Here's my justification du jour - humans kill because humans are animals too. Lions kill, wasps and bees kill, dogs and wolves kill, sharks and spiders kill. So do we. I don't like it, but I'm prepared to accept that it is the case, it has always been the case, and that it would be fairly astonishing if it ever stopped being the case.
: Here's a clue: If somebody has to argue their point that emphatically, they themselves know there's something wrong with their position.
There is a difference between arguing consistently without contradicting yourself, and between arguing emphatically without proving your point. If you think you have found a flaw in my argument, please point it out, as I have pointed out what I believe to be the flaws in yours. That's what this debating room is all about.
Saying that 'arguing emphatically means there is something wrong with your position' has some rather unfortunate consequences. Here's one. Civil rights leaders in the US have always argued their point emphatically, for obvious, and to my mind wholly justifiable reasons. Are you saying there is something wrong with their arguments, just because they were emphatic? I am sure you aren't...
Peace.
Wayne
None.
