Now I must agree with you with reading his follow up to your question.... but I get his point to a point.
Wow... is it really that outré?
Seems clear as interstellar vacuum to me. Killing (put whatever weasel words you want there) has ethical ramifications regardless of what you are killing. Sometimes those ramifications are slight (e.g. killing a bacterium), sometimes they are substantial (killing a human), sometimes they are gigantic (killing a genus), but the ramifications are always there.
Accepting ramifications and making an informed choice is honest. Trying to evade the responsibility while enjoying the benefits is hypocritical.
This thread began with someone not understanding people who didn't want to process their own meat. We have covered (pretty thouroughly) the various reasons why someone might legitimately want to eat meat but not process that meat themselves. We discussed many cases where that desire is reasonable and rational.
I am now attempting to point out where the actual dividing line between acceptable/understandable and unacceptable/bizarre sits - not between wanting to process or not, but between accepting the responsibility for your actions and not. In a sane world it would go without saying that this is my opinion only, but I'll offer that disclaimer anyway.
Seems as straightforward as anything could possibly be...to me.
Last edited: