> Using emotionally charged words and videos rather than basing your arguments on facts

I've shared a lot of facts and information that is reviewed by a wider group and deemed as sound - you can call it 'peer reviewed'.

In terms of emotionally charged words, which words were those? Do you mean 'oppressed', 'enslaved' etc? Those words are appropriate to describe what is happening to factory farm animals. Those words were also used by a humans that experienced similar conditions, i.e. Alex Hershaft - a holocaust survivor. But maybe you think factory farms equals happy animal farms you see in children's books, but just at a larger scale. If so - again - I would encourage you to watch the documentary Earthlings (which is well researched and has won several awards) or do your own research of what factory farms are - there are plenty of videos about this online.

You didn't provide any facts or links to research to backup your arguments, e.g. you stated that cows' ancestors chose their evolutionary path - so the way I understood it - you basically said that cows, because they were easy to capture and easy to domesticate, chose evolutionary to become our food source. I asked for references that go into detail how this works, because I don't think that's how evolution works. But maybe I misunderstood you.

Most humans in general don't like to see other beings in pain - we have empathy and have the ability to be compassionate. I think your opinion about factory farms being beautiful would change after you've seen the documentary.

> some cherry-picked sample of people you consider great thinkers and Star Trek

The few names I shared are recognized as great thinkers by other experts or academia in general.

And what is wrong with Star Trek? We are inspired by science fiction and sci-fi ideas can become science fact (and have already). Star Trek in particular imagines a world where pain and suffering is greatly reduced - for both humans and animals. What is wrong with trying to achieve that goal? We have the option today not to kill animals for food anymore without having to jeopardize our health or survival.

So why in your view should we continue killing sentient & innocent beings, which science confirmed are capable of pain and regards as intelligent (pigs have been described as 3-4 year old humans cognitively) when it's not necessary anymore for our survival.

> implying that any of my arguments are just an excuse for wanting to continue eating meat

Sorry - I can see why you think that - I think I was slightly upset that you described me as presumptuous - which to me is a charged statement. I think I just can't understand why intelligent people like yourself think that animals living in factory farms is a beautiful thing. There is nothing beautiful about factory farms. Even my meat eater friends agree with that and they buy meat from more ethical sources. In hindsight I should have waited a bit before I replied.

> Calling me a troll

I didn't call you a troll. After reading your statement about how beautiful our relationship is with factory farm animals - I didn't know whether you were serious, hence the question whether I was being trolled - since trolling occurs often on forums. Apologies if you think I did call you a troll.

> Veganism vs non-veganism just comes down to moral preferences. Can you rank these preferences in order for yourself?

I have trouble understanding what you mean with moral preferences. The way I understand it, morality are emergent values / principles that over time we as a society agree are either good or bad and some of those values have been coded into law.

For example, we as a society have agreed that enslaving other humans is bad. I can't go and say my moral preference is to have slaves and then proceed to enslave people for my benefit. Of course slavery still exists today - but it would land me in jail if I would get caught enslaving other people.

But I think your order makes sense. How we differ is that I see various solutions for some of your options and I try to choose a solution which creates the least damage (to people, environment, animals, etc) - in particular:

> 1. My own personal health and that of those closest to me

It has been medically proven that humans can lead a healthy life without having to consume meat. I've posted a link before, maybe you haven't seen it or maybe you thought it wasn't credible enough. A summary is here in case you haven't read it:

"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage."

> 2. The health and success of humans as species

Our health and success depends on a healthy environment. The UN did a report a few years ago about our impact on the environment. I've shared the link before, but a summary is basically that the UN urges to reduce our meat consumption heavily or adopt a meat free diet. So if all humans on this planet would adpot your values, it would mean the success of the human species would be in jeopardy. It bascially means we can't feed 7.6 Billion people with animal meat without destroying the environment. Maybe in the future with lab meat - but that future is not here yet.

> 3. A diverse ecosystem and the continued evolutionary success of animals with a diverse range of evolutionary strategies

I wouldn't consider the billions of animals that are kept in factory farms part of the ecosystem. I wouldn't call being bred to lead a miserable life and then to be consumed a success either.

> I don't ignore the realities of factory farming in order to shelter myself, I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.

So are you saying that oppressing & killing animals is OK - even though we don't have to anymore to ensure our survival? That's how I understood your statement.

In summary - my thinking pattern is pretty simple (all backed up with references I previously supplied - not going to paste them here again - post is too long already)

- Can animals suffer? Yes, just like us, animals try to avoid pain & suffering.

- Factory farms equals cruelty, suffering, pain, death and desctruction to the environment (our life ground).

- Do I as a human need meat to survive and to be healthy? Science says no and millions of humans who culturally don't consume meat are also evidence for this.

- Do I have access to alternative food sources that allows me to thrive? Yes.

- Is it more efficient to just directly consume plant food, rather than feeding plant food to animals and then eating the animal? Yes.

- "But bacon tastes so good!!!" Is it morally justifiable to kill sentient beings just to satisfy my taste pleasure? No, the costs are just too high.

- "Hmmm, plant-based food is actually very tasty and there is so much variety and my blood work is excellent"

To me it's just logical not to eat meat anymore. And to use sci-fi references again - Spock and Yoda would agree with that.

Edit: typos and formatting.