This is a none debate. Life, as we know it, requires sustenance. It doesn't matter if it is plant, animal, or insect (or whatever group of living material you devise). Until we can churn out 100% synthetic (and healthy) food sources its all about survival.

If you give into pressure groups for animals then you will only face pressure groups for plants, or insects, or fish, or whatever. Life sucks for someone or something at any given time. You are either the eater or the dinner. Someone is always going to point out the unfairness of being the food.

Quit eating then if it suits you. I'll continue to enjoy my steak, eggs, fish, and grown foods.

Of course, intentional cruelty is unacceptabl...

This is a none debate. Life, as we know it, requires sustenance. It doesn't matter if it is plant, animal, or insect (or whatever group of living material you devise). Until we can churn out 100% synthetic (and healthy) food sources its all about survival.

If you give into pressure groups for animals then you will only face pressure groups for plants, or insects, or fish, or whatever. Life sucks for someone or something at any given time. You are either the eater or the dinner. Someone is always going to point out the unfairness of being the food.

Quit eating then if it suits you. I'll continue to enjoy my steak, eggs, fish, and grown foods.

Of course, intentional cruelty is unacceptable, but you cannot expect cattle, or chickens or hogs or whatever to be brushed down like work animals or pets and get special treatment. They are food. The reality is that their existence is meant to serve as food. Sorry it sounds so harsh, but thats just how it is. It is a market and the market is required in todays world.

There are two different issues here and I think that there would be those that would try to blur the distinction in order bolster their own position (I do not imply that any person here is doing that directly, merely pointing out that there is politics on this issue). The two issues being abuse of animals and the predation of animals by humans.

I do not think that consumption can validly be argued. It seems to me to be a simple personal choice. I wonder if it would even be possible to feed the world if all meat eating were to halt - and do fish and insects fall under "meat" as they are mobile living things as well. But then, as I mentioned above, who would then "speak" for the plant world? ...

There are two different issues here and I think that there would be those that would try to blur the distinction in order bolster their own position (I do not imply that any person here is doing that directly, merely pointing out that there is politics on this issue). The two issues being abuse of animals and the predation of animals by humans.

I do not think that consumption can validly be argued. It seems to me to be a simple personal choice. I wonder if it would even be possible to feed the world if all meat eating were to halt - and do fish and insects fall under "meat" as they are mobile living things as well. But then, as I mentioned above, who would then "speak" for the plant world? They are living as well. A blender cannot possibly be fun for a fresh carrot.

Abuse is obviously a problem that should be addressed. However I think there is an underlying problem on the definition of abuse. Mass food production is simply not a nice or clean enterprise. It does deal in killing, cleaning, and preparing an animal. It's a simple fact of life that only seems horrendous because most people are not brought up around it in a "progressive" world. That is not abuse.

As for fur - yes, there are some issues that I find completely repulsive. Maybe one cannot wear fur unless they skin the animal themselves? However, wearing fur and skins of animals that have not simply been skinned and left to rot should not be an issue. The native American Indians are noted for using every bit of each animal they killed and consumed. There was no waste.

I think an argument can easily be made that animals are not "just like people". Why should people be used to measure against? Isn't it fairer to say that people are more like animals than they are willing to admit?

This is a complicated issue which cannot be accurately discussed in this forum. I just find issue against any suggestion that attempts to present simple predation as abuse.