> Dutch wrote:

> > > <snip>
> > > > The thing about the meat industry is that a lot the cruel practices
are
> > identified,
> > > > and can be and are being changed. If people make noise about them,
then the
> > industry
> > > > will be motivated to make these changes. No doubt there are also
ways to influence
> > the
> > > > amount of animal suffering in agriculture. Can they design

> > bins?
> > > > Can tilling be made more humane? Can they kill insects and wild oats
without
> > poisoning
> > > > all the birds? Economics.

> > >   The AR side has made these points repeatedly.

> > [..]

> > I wouldn't go out and replace commercial meat with a commercial

> > simply in an attempt to reduce suffering of animals, there is

> > that it would have this effect. That doesn't mean it wouldn't, just that
it might not.
> > One ought to rely on more solid evidence to base life-altering
decisions.

>   The issue of reducing suffering is
>   secondary for me, so the nit-picking
>   argument about how much suffering is
>   created by alternate forms of food
>   production is not the deciding factor.
>   I certainly agree that when practices
>   that _increase_ suffering can be
>   easily identified -- as many in
>   the meat industry can be -- it becomes
>   a good and important goal to reduce or
>   eliminate them, as much as possible.
>   But I am vegan

>  because
> I believe raising
>   and slaughtering animals for food violates
>   those animals' inherent rights.

>  Even if
>   veggie production created more absolute suffering,
>   I could not, ethically, replace veggies with
>   non-human animal meat, any more than I could
>   replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.

>   Rat