Originally Posted by emptym
... They are very logical to me. I think you too misunderstood DW's points. And I agree with him that you seem to (ab)use other's posts as springboards to your own thoughts. Most of what you write seems to agree with DW. Normally I wouldn't take the time to respond to such obviously incorrect posts as you two's, but I have Manton's recent laments in mind -- that those who know are being overwhelmed by those who do not. And it would be very sad if another great member of SF would be run out by such silliness.
Emptym, I agree with some of what DW says, but then he contradicts himself and entirely. I also provided him with talking points in order to try and understand what he was saying better (without which, his "argument" simply makes no sense, at all, as some of us do understand the issues, etc., including myself, but enough said). If for e.g. the problem is factory farm practices in the US (which aren't the same practices elsewhere or even at all places in the US), then the answer is better regulation and/or inspection of factory farming in the US to ensure the proper treatment of our food which in fact is regulated by law; then again, so too is speeding prohibited and are military offensives regulated, but alone doesn't necessarily mean that everyone follows the rules, which is the reason why the laws must be enforced to be effective. I totally disagree with his (or anyone else's) "point" thus and also that, to be able to eat meat and/or wear leather, one must kill and/or participate in the slaughter of an animal. Frankly, for unskilled/untrained people to do so would not only be unethical (and illegal), but also cruel and completely contrary to everything else DW said (hence, contra, among other things). I stand by what I said, and since when did responding to silliness (and calling it out as such, for what it is/was, and in a polite and respectful manner I might add, as both myself and TCK have at all times and herein conducted ourselves, despite the snark and thus ignoring it, I further add) become "silly"? Once again, to each their own as it relates to the OP's question, such that the problem if any seems to be in the enforcement of the law, not that there is no law. And to suggest that someone kill and/or participate in the process is in fact silly (not to mention illegal, and well, did I mention silly?). Indeed, if you have a problem with eating meat and wearing the fur/hide, then perhaps try a vegan diet though not the best and wearing synth (though also not the best for the environment, then again, neither are vegan diets either but that's an entirely different argument altogether). Meanwhile, it is and remains an unconverted fact that not all humans participated in the hunt. The chief and doctor etc. certainly did not back then, nor do they today (anymore than do ie. their modern counterparts, being: politicians, lawyers, bankers or doctors, etc.). Nor do all humans clean toilets for a living either before they are "entitled" to use one and flush. One has nothing to do with the other, be it cleaning a toilet to use it or digging a ditch to drive a car on the road, or killing etc. an animal to eat; and to say otherwise is not only silly, but entirely and completely devoid of logic (i.e., it just doesn't make sense, at all). As to gaining a benefit and giving back, like the chief, the doctor, etc. of today and yesterday, who all and continue to eat (food provided for by them and modern counterparts by the hunters and farmers, etc. whose job it was/is to hunt and/or farm/raise our food), the chief ruled the tribe (running the business of the tribe and giving the law, etc.), while the doctor tended to the spiritual and medical needs of the tribe. In turn, giving back (not to mention the chief, doctor, etc. give back far more to the tribe than the hunters but, then again, each of us to this day have different roles to play in society, be we a tribe or a city state, a country or a global village, as we always have). But alas, I (and TCK thus) repeat ourselves ... It has always been this way, and it would not only be inefficient but unethical and nigh impossible to change it, least of all (as also stated) there being no wild animals, farms etc. in the cities (a discussion perhaps for a different thread on a different day). That said, and back to the OP's question: to each and all their own, in accordance with their own religion and conscious. EDIT: Spoon-fed. (Normally I wouldn't take the time, but guess I did, huh?!)