Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty.

Endorse "to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something)" merriam-webster "Let me use just one example to prove this is incorrect. If I am a researcher and I'm working on creating synthetic meat, I'm going to need real meat to study alongside it. To assume my purchase is just for consumption is wrong. There is no way to know intent based on purchase alone" Con It doesn't matter what the meat is used for, its still fueling the economy of the meat industry thus endorsing animal cruelty. Also other people will notice you buying meat and may follow suit. "I never said anything about small local farms. What I said is that it is not true that every single animal to have ever been bred, fed and slaughtered were mistreated or abused." Con "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." wikipedia. For the hamburger to end up on the table a cow must be slaughtered. Slaughtering a cow counts as a human inflicting harm upon the cow. "Cows can be impregnated, well fed, given free room to graze and slaughtered humanely and quickly." Con This seems more like a theoretical situation than reality. Since the profit motive is at work. I also question the premise of slaughtering an animal for meat humanely. I don't think it can be done. Think of the death penalty. The lethal injection is considered the least painful way of death. Yet, a prisoner acted like he felt pain. "lethal injection can cause excruciating pain. Since the first lethal injection on December 7, 1982, over 1,000 prisoners in the USA have been executed by this method and it has all but replaced other methods of execution." amnestyusa.org We haven't found a humane way to execute humans despite putting a higher value on human life than animal life. Then, we have not found a humane way to slaughter a cow. "Another scenario: I'm a meat inspector. I buy a burger because I dislike the meat industry and I'm convinced a certain company has infected meat. I inspect the meat and get proof, leading to a full shut down of a factory farming company. Is my purchase of the burger ultimately encouraging animal cruelty? Of course not. Quite literally the opposite in this scenario." Con You seem to be nitpicking. You already admitted that most of the time a person is fueling the economy of the meat industry by purchasing meat. Just as easily the meat could have passed inspection. Now that I think of it the meat inspector is endorsing animal cruelty more than most with this action. If there was no meat inspector, the meat wouldn't pass inspection and the meat industry would take a major publicity hit when people got sick. "By admitting there are exceptions, you yourself are providing a contrary argument to your entire premise. You did not argue that one is "probably" or "most of the time" endorsing animal cruelty. You argued that purchasing a burger is endorsing animal cruelty, period. It seems quite obvious that you've already contradicted your argument." Con One exception that in this case the diabetic is acting within self-survival does not disprove the rule. In fact if anything the exception helps prove the rule. "Exception that proves the rule" Wikipedia I conclude that there is only one scenario that doesn't endorse animal cruelty when purchasing a hamburger. That is the diabetic who's about to fall into a diabetic coma from lack of sugar, and this scenario only helps prove the rule. Remember non-verbal communication is powerful. By purchasing a hamburger you are non-verbally communicating "I approve of animal cruelty." http://www.merriam-webster.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...