Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
Pretty much the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Of course you caused it to die. Do you think that the food industry produces a fixed number of animals each year and if people don't eat them then they just rot..? No, you demand more meat, so the supply increases, so they kill more animals. It's entirely your fault.
Some veggie/vegan Buddhists make the same argument, but it's no more valid now than it was in 600 BC India/Nepal. If someone goes into the meat business with the hope and expectation of profit, that's his decision. How he interprets the market data and what action he takes in light of it is also his decision. When one of his employees throws a bolt through a cow's skull, the businessman is indirectly responsible. When his buddy Joe Blow comes to him and says, "Find me a good cow for my big BBQ," and the businessman finds a cow and tells his employee, "Kill that cow for Joe Blow," and the employee lowers the bolt and says, "Say hello to Joe Blow for me," Joe Blow is indirectly responsible.

To say the lady who walks into a supermarket, sees some steaks and thinks, "That looks good for dinner," just killed 7% of a cow is ludicrous. Which cow did she kill? To turn the situation around, what would she have to do to save a cow? If she never eats meat again, will she be able to point to a single cow anywhere in the world that she had saved?

To save a cow, she would have to form the intention of saving a cow, find an imperiled cow, and take actions that secure it from harm.

Likewise, if some guy forms the intention of killing a cow, would we consider him a reasonable person if he goes to the supermarket, buys a steak, and declares his goal accomplished?

Refraining from meat so as not to contribute to the demand is laudable, for the intention. If you wish to spare a single animal from harm, you'll need a different plan of action.