Quote Originally Posted by Somii View Post
I didn't assert that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Look again. Also, I know that if I were to stop buying meat, it would be very unlikely for the production of meat to drop. If, however, a substantial amount of people were to stop buying meat, then your supply-demand argument may be used to effect, and thus, relevant in response.
You said that animal slaughtering was an inevitable action.

Quote Originally Posted by Somii
We're immoral meat eaters, because we're eating meat that originated from animals that suffered from immoral practices, caused by other humans? (...) One could say that another human's inevitable actions are out of their personal control as that of a winter storm that will continue anyway, and that they're just picking up the results.
See? I bolded it for you in case you have a hard time finding it.
And if I am somehow mistaken, then please explain what you meant by "another human's inevitable actions" if not animal slaughtering.


I'm not trying to persuade you to do anything. You don't have to stop buying meat, because you're right, it won't affect much compared to the millions of people who still eat meat.
In theory, though, if someone were to stop buying a product that they regularly bought, then over time the lack of sales to that person would show up, therefore causing that much less meat to be bought by the meat reseller (Wal-Mart, etc), and causing the slaughterhouses to have that much more surplus, which would cause that much less cows to be slaughtered the next time around. Even if you only eat one cow's worth of meat in two years, that's one less cow that has to be slaughtered. Over time, you will have made an impact, however small.
You are right, though, that a large amount of people (yes, they are single individuals like yourself) would be required to make a substantial difference in the meat industry.

Quote Originally Posted by Somii
No, I'm not. Check your reasoning.
My reasoning is in check, thank you.
1. You said morality is a joke (don't make me quote it).
2. Therefore, according to you, anything concerning morals is a joke in terms of its morality, and is not a serious matter.
3. Killing your mother is immoral. (derived from generally accepted morals)
4. Based on (2), the immorality of killing your mother is a joke, and the idea of it isn't wrong at all to you.

If you don't take morals seriously, then any action is acceptable to you. Therefore, you condone rape and manslaughter.

Go ahead and contradict me if you'd like. Based on what I've shown, you condone all immoral actions. That, or you're just getting defensive and denying logic.

Quote Originally Posted by Somii
In relevance to animals getting slaughtered by humans, if not by our farms, then simply by ourselves.
What? That sentence was worded strangely.
Anyway, I don't see how that relates to the amount of cows that are slaughtered every day to keep up with the amount of meat that is consumed. It wouldn't matter if farms slaughtered cows en masse, or if individuals raised their own cows and killed them. That's a whole lot of unnecessary killing.
That is, of course, considering we are able to sustain ourselves with fruits and vegetables only. To be honest, I don't know how much farmland that would require.

I can foresee someone thinking that if everybody raised their own cows, then they could wait for it to naturally die and eat it's meat right after it dies. If people were to do that, then eating meat would be completely morally acceptable. However I don't know how safe it would be to eat an already-dead cow, or what the quality of the meat would be. In any case, the reality of the current situation is that most people don't raise their own cows, and they largely rely on butchers for their meat. Until that changes, eating meat perpetuates immorality.