04-07-2015, 04:50 PM
I just can't get behind the idea that those who consume are the same as those who torture and kill. It doesn't make sense in the arrangement of time. How, in time, does an action in the future (eating meat) 'produce' an action in the past (killing the animal)? You say there is demand, and so supply meets the demand, but there's a reason there's demand, and I highly doubt it's just that nobody cares about the animals.
In my mind, it is wasteful and disgraceful to not make use of the parts of the animal after it has been killed, even if it was killed in injustice. How is it a service to the animal not to make some positive charge of its death rather than just wallowing in and perpetuating more negativity?
It isn't, in my mind, the demand for meat that produce factory farming, cruelty and torture, it is the demand for convenience which is a whole other demon.
In my mind, it is wasteful and disgraceful to not make use of the parts of the animal after it has been killed, even if it was killed in injustice. How is it a service to the animal not to make some positive charge of its death rather than just wallowing in and perpetuating more negativity?
It isn't, in my mind, the demand for meat that produce factory farming, cruelty and torture, it is the demand for convenience which is a whole other demon.