"Livestock" slaughter is acceptable

VaguenessI do not believe I have been vague in my previous statement, I believe I have been very clear. We are arguing over two possible worlds, one with "Livestock" slaughter and one without. I think Con is confusing vagueness with choice, I propose that a world with a variety of methods and food sources is preferred to one with limited choice. I cannot see any point made within my arguments where "shrub and insect alternatives seem mutually exclusive" I request Con to clarify what aspects of these they are referring to as being unable to co-exist.Theme 1: ChoiceFrom Con's statements, there seems to be no consideration to the impact on people that do not want this world. I am not arguing, solely on the basis of peoples opinions but on the impact this change would have. A world that involves limiting what people can or cannot do involves a restriction in free choice. I asked for clarification of "ought to" for a reason, it is subjective and provides no clear ground for debate.The reason I brought in government enforcement goes back to the fact that even if the majority of people chose not to eat meat there would still be some that wanted to. If not by government enforcement how would this world come to fruition?Theme 2: Health Evolution Con has simply dismissed by arguments without providing any rebuttales Our bodies are not designed for a purely vegetarian diet, It is difficult to get all the beutriants we need from a vegetrain diet due to this. Heart failure/diseaseCon claims I have not given methods for reducing the Diseases yet I did provide two and gave links. My argument around "livestock" diseases being caused by cramped conditions were clearly stated. The solution is clearly to reduce the cramped conditions and this would easily be achieved with a reduction in meat consumption. Diseases cannot be eliminated only reduced, so we are talking about two different worlds, both containing diseases. If we had more pressure on the amount of plant based food we had to produce, there would be an increase in the amount of diseases from these food sources, as shown by the same reference. Disease is caused by population density not by the consumption of meat whether the population be plants or animals.To quote con, "Significantly reducing this will save hundreds of thousands of lives" I agree completely, however, eliminating it will have no benefit above this.NutrientsCon has not provided any evidence showing a vegetarian diet has a better nutritional content to that of a largely vegetarian diet. Con also has not address my points around the increase difficulty in achieving a balance diet when solely consuming non-meat products. Con also has not address my point that the majority of people fail to choose a balanced diet while we have more choice and that in limiting the choice this would actually worsen.Theme 3: EnvironmentGlobal WarmingAll animals produce CO2 whether farmed or not, so by Con's arguments we should kill all the animals on the planet including humans. Con has provided much the same argument as they have previous and not provided any details of how completely stopping livestock farming will be better than massively reducing it. Again elimination of livestock farming would not stop methane and CO2 production just reduce it, so why is this beneficial over reducing the impact of livestock farming and the scale of livestock farming.http://www.agr.gc.ca...PollutionTo address the point raised by con, I give you a breakdown of fertilizers currently used to grow crops to levels currently in demand. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu... Nitrate and ammonia pollution would only rise with crop farming increasing.From link originally supplied by con with regards to pollution http://www.nrdc.org...All the issues here can be linked to one of the following, population density, poor livestock management, isolated incidents. These kind of issues are not isolated to livestock farming either http://www.huffingtonpost.com...BiodiversityImpact caused by scale, all human activity has impact on these thing, stopping livestock farming does not stop the impact, reducing livestock reduces the impact. Game meat deliberately kept for feeding to endangered species would be livestock being slaughtered.Theme 4: "Livestock"I did not say we should ignore them but I request some sort of proposition as to how what you suggest animal voting would be achieved. Give animals a vote and they would vote to kill their predators and competitors in order to improve their own survivability. Death Slaves The meat industry seeks to sell meat not death, death is just inevitable in the process. The meat industry does not reduce life, I take you back to the 8.6 billion chickens, 239 million turkeys, 113 million pigs, and 33 million cows you mentioned, these animals would not exist if not for livestock farming,And again I ask you to tell me what would happen to these animals in a world without livestock farming? "Life in the industry thus becomes merely a means to more death" - All life is followed by death Bad Faith Claims There are methods for killing livestock do not involve pain. Rationality within animals effects this discussion how? We do not consume animals solely based on their intelligence levels but based on sustinance. Animals with the power to do so kill for the benefit of their species. (in particular mammals, group survival is a relatively recent concept in terms of evolution) If the animal within it's mind feels as free as it does in the wild, or even more due to the lack of predators, then where is the sufforage? All mammals have social structures of some form or another, I fail to see the bearing. The majority of these arguments could equally be applied to plant life and I request that Con provides good reason for killing plants over killing other lifeforms. All animals eat other living this, most living things consume other living things, why draw the line at the point that you have given, the plant/animal border? Where would the following fit in your world?http://www.livescience.com...http://news.discovery.com...http://www.sciencedaily.com... The universe operates on a grey scale while we try to make everything black and white, considering we have yet to define life itself, I don't see how we can make a clear distinction between killing of plants or animals. SummaryEverything Con has argued could be achieved by a reduction in meat consumption and an improvement in methods used. If we were to reduce meat consumption by 99% all of the issue rasied by Con would be reduced to a point where the were negligable, although at the same time the impact from crop farming would rise. With the complete removal of livestock farming. I ask Con to provide reason to go that extra 1%. I see a world with reduced meat consumption as a better world to one without it.