1) Pollutant.MrFalconfly said:Snipity]sniplSHaDoW-FoXl said:snip
"I am 98% sure that Denmark is about as non-polluting as one can be and still have sustainable (as in provides enough food both for the citizens of the country and for export) farming. Whatever other countries do, we can't be held responsible for. And if there are places to be improved, you can be damned sure someone is working on getting said improvements implemented.
It's not only about the numerical value, but the per capita, and the types of pollutant. And Denmark has the US (not to mention multiple EU countries) beat."
It wouldn't matter whether Denmark is the least polluting world or the most when we're talking about the incorporation of an industry that doesn't have any merit to begin with. It's kind of like editing. Whether it's two thousand words of fifty thousand it just makes sense to cut out excess; even more so when the joy it brings is disproportionate to the suffering.
"2) Mass starvation.
Well in this case, there'd be a noticeable deficit in the food on the market for the planet. If all countries were to eliminate all farming cattle, and swine we wouldn't be making enough food for everybody on the planet, let alone for someone to stuff themselves."
So we have enough food to feed people and cows which people use to feed themselves anyway but we wouldn't have enough if we cut out feeding billions of cows?
"3) "Ooh people can't control themselves because junkfood is being offered everywhere.
Sorry but if people are this spineless, I will not be held accountable for their actions (especially considering that this seem to be another US issue that is portrayed to be a global one)."
Still a matter of fact that it plays a part towards this problem in a very powerful nation that influences how other places of the world function at least to some degree.
4) Circle of life.
No one said their death was noble. Only that it was natural.
Are you sure?
"For something beautiful to live, something else had to die."
That's an appeal to nature. We're not defined by how either animals or the natural world functions. We're defined by how we choose to function. Privilege allows us to live in ways which completely defy that expectation. Besides, even as an appeal to nature the argument doesn't exactly work when I've been criticizing factory-farming; an industry which is by no means natural.
"5) No one has to kill
So what you're proposing is "kill and eat" restaurants? Where you get to see, and then kill, and then prepare your own food? Personally I think that'd be a great idea. People would then know what made the food taste so well."
I'm really not sure how you got that out of what I said. I'm saying that people who have no need to kill shouldn't.
"But as you say, it's a choice. And I choose to eat refined versions of what my ancestors ate. Meat and two veg (Or in the case of this evening it was mulligatawny soup. Gotta love some good chicken)."
It's never much of a good idea to follow the tradition's of people that are inherently less educated, intelligent, and never even had the least of an idea on how our modern society should and can be run.