[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The problem with most vegetarian's arguments, including the ones presented on this forum, is that they assume that omnivores such as myself care about these arguments.

Then why bother following this thread`s argument, looking in on it, or even posting for that matter? I have to wonder if your questions below are rhetorical in nature.

1) "Eating meat is murder, animals suffer, the process/handling/farming is wrong." And? So? I used to live in a farming community, and I have been to many butcher shops. I also have hunted and fished. None of that bothers me.

The fact that it doesn`t bother you, why is that relative to the argument that exploiting animals that lead to suffering or death is wrong? Whether something is right or wrong is less dependent upon the person viewing or performing the act and more dependent upon the target of that act.

A person killing another person for their own reasons may not be bothered by their actions -- does that then make it right? According to your reasoning it does.

Everything living eventually dies.

Yes, but why should a life be taken when it is not necessary?

There are many omnivorous and carnivorous species in this world that kill other animals. Why should we be different?

Because we ARE different. We have the ability to choose or to control ourselves. Animals are captive to their passions.

2) "Eating meat is unhealthy" No, actually it isn't. Or, yes it is. You cannot say that eating one particular type of diet over another is better or worse, because the devil is in the details. I submit that the vegetarian who eats nothing but celery and tofu is just as if not more unhealthy than the person who eats nothing but burgers.

Do you know what a "reductionist" is? Your argument/example is one of "reductionism."

Can you show any case studies where a vegetarian or even a flesh eater eats only one or two different foods? Reality is the better state to ground an argument in.

Diet is such an incredibly personal and varied decision that you really can't make an argument for one broad sweeping thing over another.

Sure you can. I am in the process of doing that and it is done all the time by vegetarians and animal rightists. An argument is simply an attempt at persuasion -- independent of success or failure in terms of a debate partner or the audience moving on the spectrum. But, it is not too hard to find a vegetarian who will admit to being exposed to arguments that evenually made them change their diets. Why do you think that is not the case with a number of people who have become vegetarians?

Something being personal or not is irrelevant to making arguments. Religion, too, is such a personal decision but yet Thomas Paine argued quite effectively against it. Many cite him for their decision to becoming Free Thinkers. So, again: Why do you think personal decisions cannot be argued against for change?

3) Eating meat is an "energy sink"[indent]And? So? Human existance is an energy sink, should we all kill ourselves?

Only if one is neurotic or a reductionist on the point.

I`ll save the rest of your post to answer later.