Advocating Vegetarianism Is Not A Solution To Animal Cruelty in Slaughter Houses

hello Kevin. as a vegetarian, i will happily take up the arguments of my own cause. I understand your confusion. I agree that tougher standards need to be pushed for in animal slaughtering - that would be a good first step. But first, I want to establish why someone ought to be a vegetarian. it may seem a little off-topic at first, but as i make my point, i think you'll understand why/how it works. To be brief, there are three main reasons to advocate vegetarianism. 1. killing animals is morally wrong. if we can help it, we should not end life. pretty basic. 2. the way in which animals are killed (varying of course by country) is morally repugnant and cruel. Animals ought to be treated better because they have nervous systems and are capable of suffering. 3. raising animals take up a huge amount of resources - food, energy, water. raising animals producing huge environmental waste products - feces, remains from processing, (sometimes dirtying water, etc. as a side note, which creates tons of environmental problems) and also (don't laugh just yet) animal farts and burps. believe it or not, animal farts and burps are the number one cause of global warming gases - more environmentally damaging than cars or buildings. 4. vegetarianism is healthier because animals are the primary source of saturated fats, which most doctors agree is bad for you. Ignore reason four, it doesn't really pertain to this debate, (I encourage you, of course, to pick up a copy of the book "The Way We Eat, why our food choices matter" and learn more about all these problems). How would one subjectively respond to reasons 1-3? Not eating meat is not necessarily the answer, with that I am with you, but not *purchasig* meat is essential. By not purchasing meat, we do not contribute to the problem - by buying meat, one is literally putting money into the hands of those that encourage the problems i offer in 1-3 and telling them "take this money, and keep doing what you are doing. then I'll buy more from you, etc." Thus, vegetarianism is not necessarily about not eating meat, but rather it concerns boycotting an industry that is corrupt, cruel, and harmful to society. In this way, vegetarianism is in fact an effective method of pushing for higher standards and discouraging the industry. For example: If many people suddenly stopped buying pork because they thought the way in which pigs are castrated before being slaughtered (without sedative, etc) the industry would take notice because "wtf? where'd the money go?" they would listen to the activists, and the objections, and they would seriously need to consider giving a little so that they could continue to sell meat. In this way, the vegetarians (those boycotting pork) have stopped the inhumane treatment at least a little bit, despite the fact that many other people ate meat anyway. To respond to your case more directly - you're right of course there will always be meat eaters. but the question is, can we educate enough of them that their human reason shines through and make progressively more and more of them realize that by eating meat they are promoting an industry which is unjust. You really need to warrant this argument more - it is your case's greatest weakness. without showing how vegetarians will never get enough recruits to make an impact, your argument doesn't support itself. good question though!