A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet

[Monica]

And in order to answer your question, I would have to explain why I keep meat in my diet rather than, as you suggest, eliminating it altogether.

You seem to have taken the question personally, when it wasn't intended that way. This is a discussion. As I said, my question was a general, philosophical question in the context of discussion.

If you choose not to answer, that's fine. But any answer needn't be based on your own personal choices. If you have been keeping up with these threads over the past 3 years, then you'll know that I have consistently avoided discussing anyone's personal choices, preferring instead to stick to philosophical ideas and concepts.

And no matter what my reasons, you would, if in the mood for further conversation, seek to counter or negate any reason I might offer.

No, actually I wouldn't. In that scenario, in which you offered your reasons for your own personal choices, rather than discussing in general terms as I had requested, I'd ignore those comments, as I've consistently done each and every time others did that.

It's not my place to judge, invalidate, or shoot down others' choices. I haven't done that in these threads so I wouldn't do it to you.

If, however, you avoided discussing your own personal choices and instead continued an impersonal, general discussion, then of course I'd likely respond to your comments. (Which of course is acceptable, being that this is, after all, a discussion.)

Do you see the difference?

In your valid perception, eating animal body complex is a categorical non-necessity and absolute moral wrong and thusly cannot, no matter the reasoning, be justified. (Excepting cases of self-defense or survival.)

This is accurate, with the added note that there might be some rare, unusual cases of medical need due to extreme conditions, which I'd classify under 'survival.'

You would, if interested in the energy investiture, put forth great, solid reasons to substantiate your point of view as the ascendent.

I'm a little uncomfortable with your choice of term ascendent as though we're having a competition.

I would acknowledge them and their validity, but I would remain unmoved because I see things differently

OK, your mind is made up. I get that. But you seem to think I have a mission to change you. I don't. So, I don't really understand why you are explaining to me why your mind is made up. shrug It's just a "friendly conversation" after all.

Your question doesn't quite acknowledge what I had already put forth. The National Geographic article I quoted makes clear that I don't desire to avoid the death of the animal for food. I just desire to support a more humane system that reflects my own ethics; ethics that were given the catalyst to evolve thanks in part to this thread.

Then that is the source of our miscommunication, because I'm not really interested in what you personally desire. No offense, but I'm simply not interested in that. As I've stated many times in these discussions, I'm interested only in philosophical discussion, not in analyzing other people's choices.

The crux of my whole position is that it is okay, acceptable, and ethical to eat animal meat *provided* the animal is able to live a relatively natural life and does not needlessly/excessively suffer in the process of death.

In a strictly philosophical context, if you care to answer, I ask this: I noticed you chose the term "eat animal meat" rather than "kill an animal." This indicates to me a disconnect between killing an animal and eating an animal.

I have zero interest in what people eat. My interest is only in the topic of killing.

So, again philosophically, are you saying that it's "ok, acceptable and ethical" to kill a higher 2D entity who can think, feel pain and emotions, when it's totally unnecessary, but just to satisfy a personal desire?

Again, not directed at you personally. This is a philosophical question.