Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing.Even if perfection is infeasible, we should still try to get as close to perfection as we can. Avoiding meat altogether avoids the inevitable accidents that occur when butchering animals. It is closer to perfection from an ethical perspective.You see, this is why you aren't learning, and remain ignorant on some of the finer points of farming. You ignore people who know better than you, while simultaneously trying to rationalise a perfect solution fallacy. Why don't you just be honest with yourself and everyone else and admit that your choice to abstain from meat is based upon a personal preference, you felt uneasy eating mammals and birds and that is the heart of your position. In other words your position is based on a feeling, an emotional choice, with rational justification coming after the fact.I can make decisions, I just acknowledge that I am taking a best guess in some cases. The universe is too complex for us to know for sure what the best course of action is in any situation. The best we can do is make approximations and educated guesses.You're still defending a position where you apparently wish to avoid responsibility for these choices. Your argument reflects a lack of desire to commit to choices which may involve pain but with high gains. In other words you don't appear to be fully detached from these sorts of rational choices.Did you not see this sentence: "If populations are consuming less than 10%, they should not increase that level of intake." In other words, "If you're consuming 5%, don't increase." "If you're consuming 0%, don't increase." I don't see how you can read that in any other way than "Less is better."Because I don't think of foods as distinct types but instead as related proteins, lipids, sugars and steroids. Besides that, the following supports my original contention:In developing countries, however, where energy intake for some population groups may be inadequate, energy expenditure is high and body fat stores are low (BMI <18.5 kg/m2). The amount and quality of fat supply has to be considered keeping in mind the need to meet energy requirements. Specific sources of saturated fat, such as coconut and palm oil, provide low-cost energy and may be an important source of energy for the poor.I don't know why saturated fat causes heart disease, and I'm not sure the exact chain of causation has been conclusively proven. As this site says: "The full story about saturated fat and heart disease is very complex and much of it remains a mystery." However, the fact that we don't fully understand the process doesn't change the data: saturated fat leads to heart disease.The study indicates a rising chance of heart disease with a rising level of saturated fat. I suggest that you bear in mind that without the relationship fully ascertained, we do not know if the behaviour of saturated fats on the body is due to phenotypes common among the population, relationships between the saturated fats and other foods in the person's diet, and so forth. You are also missing the bigger picture that a large portion of people in the developing world use saturated fats as part of their energy source without ill effect. This is also supported by the sources you use, which specify a gradually rising risk if heart disease, as well as a note that people in developing nations have a metabolism geared towards using fats rather than storing them.First, you're using hyperbolic language to make my suggestion sound more extreme than it actually is. When you use the term "force" in such a broad sense, anything that influences others to take a desired action could be seen as "forcing" them. Does that mean we do away with traffic lights? You're taking refuge in a reductio ad absurdum argument. Come back to this point with a proper rebuttal.Second, I'm nudging people toward behaving ethically. Ethics are based on logical principles and have nothing to do with my personal values.I don't care how you try to rationalise away your need to force your values on others. It doesn't change the fact of the matter.As long as those rules serve the common good, then what's the problem? I see the value in personal liberty, but I also see value in laying down rules that promote the well being of society. There are many areas where self-interest just doesn't work. Government has an important role to play in those situations. I think the soft paternalistic approach is a good compromise.It's actually really simple to figure out: you can't force people to be moral or good towards each other or animals. How people treat each other in their daily lives is shaped by culture, not government. If you can't distinguish the two then I suggest you try experiencing more of the world, live among different governments and cultures and pay attention to how the most restrictive and regulated governments don't follow with the most compassionate or well-aimed citizens.But really, it's even simpler than that. Everyone has an idea what the common good is. There are probably hundreds of different ideologies based around some perceived notion of what a common good is, and how to achieve it. Your attempts to justify meddling with other people's affairs for the common good is really about pushing your view of the common good upon others with different ideas about how best to achieve it.This really says to me that you're simply young and inexperienced. You probably live amongst a group of people who share values very similar to your own, and you just haven't paid attention to the views of others. You lack experience with diversity of viewpoints.Your constant patronizing is getting old.It wouldn't be old if you were less arrogant and learned from others.Exactly, this debate is about what that ethic should entail.No, with you this is about creating an ethic which is not common to anyone except your group. A common ethic implies values shared by everyone, or at least values that everyone can agree upon.That's not extending the metaphor, that's breaking it. I was referring to the uncontrolled inferno found in a burning house, which serves no useful purpose. Let me be more explicit: We want to have the ability to respond to negative circumstances in a productive manner; but we do not want those negative circumstances themselves.To which I already explained that I believe you conflate undesirability, which pain and hardship always are, with badness. Pain and hardship are undesirable but necessary. Pain is undesirable for obvious reasons but it helps us survive. Hardship is undesirable but it builds our character.I think this is just wishful thinking. We try to rationalize suffering that we cannot avoid to make ourselves feel better. But in any case, given the option, I think the vast majority of people would choose to avoid suffering in all cases.Which would lead to a society of soft, ineffectual people who have no appreciation for the fragile nature of life.