|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If livestock are deserving of life, then first they must be born; but the number of livestock born and, thus, the extent to which all potential livestock collectively get life as they deserve is proportional to the demand for meat which, in turn, is proportional to the consumption of meat by the consumer market. Ergo, if you believe that animals' lives should not be denied, then you are obligated to maximize your consumption of their flesh and, a fortiori, you should oppose vegetarianism at every turn. |
haha, the syllogism follows suit, but I still do not trust the terms. 
True, there would be a demand for more livestock to be birthed as the demand for meat goes up, but being a stamped and boneless Poultry #87907325b, jammed in a cage that is filled to the brim with your own species and feces, then ground into a thin paste after being milked for all of your reproductive worth hardly seems a "life" in any humanist sense. And the demand, itself, is what I would protest first. The less of this process we carry on with, the better. I know I am skating the line of personification, assigning "life goals" to a chicken. Fuck, I don't even have life goals, myself, so why don't you eat me? 
It just seems to me that once you start justifying the unnecessary processing of any animal, you might as well not stop with humans. Beef holocaust, yo.
___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|