Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty.

"I believe it is inaccurate to jump to "endorsing cruelty" when one purchases a burger, or to a greater extent any animal product. The first problem is with the word cruelty. Animals around the world are mistreated on farms and in factory-style environments. Animals around the world are treated with care and compassion throughout the harvesting process of their needed parts. One cannot automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment." Con Hmmm, what Con is stating is that animals on most small local farms are not mistreated. I beg to differ. I think this qualifies as animal cruelty "All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a "rape rack."" humanemyth.org "Many male calves are not considered "useful" since they cannot produce milk, and are immediately slaughtered, even with their umbilical cords still attached." Jennie Richards humanedecisions.com Based on the evidence above, one can automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment. "One can counterbalance their unnecessary consumption of animal products by doing so infrequently and minimizing their carbon footprint in other areas of their life. " Con The topic is about animal cruelty, the environmental is off-topic. "It is too assuming to posit that the purchase of animal products is accompanied by the desire for animals to be harmed. One cannot know the situation or motivation of the consumer based on their purchase choice alone. One cannot know the frequency of the purchases, nor the quantity, nor the necessity involved." Con I would assume that most people like animals and the intent is the opposite. The purchaser does not want the animal to be harmed. Yet, how is intent relevant? The money the purchaser is the same regardless of intent. If you buy 1/4 pound of hamburger of one hundred pounds you are supporting the meat market thus endorsing the meat market, therefore endorsing the practices of the meat market, which means you are endorsing animal cruelty. Ultimately the results of the purchase means more cows will be mistreated and slaughtered. As for necessity, there is none. Hamburgers are expensive, plenty of people live happy and healthful vegan lives. If you were really in dire straits say on a desert island there would be nobody to purchase the hamburger from. If you were poor, there is cheaper alternatives. About the only situation that makes any sense would be a diabetic who desperately needed sugar, and a hamburger was the only choice. Then the diabetic would be acting out of self-survival. That would be the only exception. "It may, in many cases, perhaps even most, be fair to say that one endorses animal cruelty (or the mechanisms that purport such things) by way of their purchases. However, it is not a given." Con Yes, it is. A cow has to be slaughtered for that burger to be created. By buying a burger you are endorsing the meat industry which in turn is endorsing animal cruelty. If nobody buys any burgers less cows will be slaughtered. If nobody bought any cow meat the industry would turn belly-up due to no demand. http://www.humanemyth.org... http://www.humanedecisions.com...