Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Ok, it's hypothetically true that animals can be raised in good conditions and killed humanely. That would be ok. I doubt things work so picturesquely in the real world, but I will admit it's theoretically possible.It's not hypothetical. I suggest you try living in a farming community, or small town with nearby farms.What are you basing that on? You seem to be just throwing out guesses without any supporting evidence. It's well established that saturated fat and cholesteral cause heart problems, and meat has lots of both. Just put two and two together.Saturated fat is a type of lipid which is shared in many food sources. It is a form of energy storage, because breaking the hydrogen bonds in a lipid chain releases biochemical energy. Cholesterol is a steroid which is a critical component used in cellular membranes. Both of these compounds are common among foods, not just meat. Heart disease is caused by elevated levels of saturated fats. It's the same with cholesterol.In other words, when you have a cursory understanding of these foods and their role in health, I will grant that it can easily appear that meat simply leads to heart disease. However when you break these foods down into their constituent parts the argument is less meaningful.This is like saying, "The problem isn't playing with knives, the problem is abstaining from band-aids." If you don't cut yourself in the first place, you won't need a band-aid. If you don't eat meat, you won't have a problem that needs to be fixed.You need to have a more balanced image of the body. It's a very complicated pool of chain reactions, input and output. Eating meat provides a very dense amount of energy, this is why it is so easy to over-eat it and hurt your health. Like any high-energy food source, in the past they were difficult to come by, often with the trade off being energy lost in the pursuit. In our modern culture this is no longer the case, one can eat high-energy foods very easily, they are everywhere. Soybeans contain phytoestrogens which may reduce cholesterol levels, which is surmised as the cause of its positive effects for cardiovascular health, if this is the case it would mean that one should include this form of protein in their diet for better health. It isn't a strong argument for not eating meat, however.Basically, your argument for not eating meat, due to heart disease, is comparable to advocating the avoidance of carbohydrates because they can cause insulin resistance, leading to diabetes. The issue isn't eating meat, or carbohydrates, you simply need a more balanced diet.Individuals choosing to abstain from factory farmed and high-fat meats would clearly be a good first step. Beyond that I would call for a tax on high-fat meats and animal welfare laws which prevent the abuses seen in factory farms. Beyond that, abstaining from all meat except fish seems to me like a good idea, although I will admit this question is considerably less clear.I actually agree with you on your points regarding abstaining from factory farmed meats, and animal welfare laws preventing the abuses in factory farms (I would consider the lack of space per animal, and poor hygiene among these abuses).However, taxing high-fat meats isn't the duty of government. Laws don't exist to coerce people into choosing healthy food choices. More explicitly, such a tax is imposing your values and tastes upon others, which isn't the duty of law.Obviously pain is an important indicator. When I talk about eliminating pain, I'm talking about eliminating the things that cause pain, not suggesting we anesthetize ourselves.There is a clear disharmony in our values here. What exactly do you consider unnecessary pain?Living a pain-full life is also "merely existing".I agree, but my argument wasn't about living in only one or the other, but about respecting that pain is a necessary part of life that often cannot be avoid, and in many cases ought not be avoided.Not true. You seem to be forgetting that most of the time people feel neutral. Both happiness and sadness have meaning relative to our neutral state.I think you mean we have periods of disinterest, ennui, boredom, and apathy. I was making the argument that if we could only feel happiness it would be merely existing without sadness (or even neutral as you called it, which is a mixture of the aforementioned feelings). I was making an argument for why we need to have a rich measure of experiences rather than just striving for happiness.