Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ 24 Mar 2016 14:41)
...this is never a justification .
The truth is that anti-meaters as a rule place greater moral value on larger animals than smaller ones , cute ones over not so cute ones but to me it's a glaring contradiction to accept the slaughter of rabbits just because it's unintentional . And really now , how unintentional is it in actuality . The farmer , when he fires up the harvester , knows full well what is going to happen . The truth is that the slaughter of smaller mammals is more acceptable than the slaughter of cows and a large part of that is because it goes unseen .
Sorry man, but that like saying it's intentional when you step into a vehicle and get into an accident. You knew it could happen, so if it happens it was by design.
This just isn't true.
And no, the torture/murder of small animals is as grave as the torture/murder of large animals. The size of the animal doesn't matter. Or it's cuteness.
A more factual (imo) way to calculate the amount of suffering is how intelligent the suffering being is, perhaps. It's conceivable that, for example, a primate suffers more from harsh treatement than a rat. But a rat probably suffers more than an ostrich.
Quote (Voyaging @ 24 Mar 2016 18:58)
This is just not true at all, the ethical vegan places value on minimizing animal suffering, as I've already said earlier in the thread which you must have missed, vegan diets produce overwhelmingly less suffering than meat-based diets. Vegan products in general produce far less suffering per calorie. I don't know why you are making these claims when you've clearly never even attempted to calculate the difference.
Also, this.