Empathy refers more generally to our ability to take the perspective of and feel the emotions of another living being. Compassion is when those feelings and thoughts include the desire to help. (Can be substituted for Altruism). Ethical Consistency is being logically consistent within a belief. Primarily regarding the consistency of the justification being used. — chatterbears

I can empathize with a dog or a cat. But admittedly I do not feel much empathy for cows -- they strike me as stupid stinky brutes who are the way they are because we have domesticated them. I wouldn't contend that they don't feel pain. But I don't feel a deep sense of empathy for them. I feel even less empathy for fish. They aren't even vertabrates. I really don't know what it's like to be a fish.

If compassion is defined in terms of empathy, with the additional feeling of goodwill towards the other beings well being, then i similarly wouldn't feel much compassion for a cow since I don't feel much empathy for a cow.

Ethical consistency seems to apply if I were to believe "Do not needlessly harm" -- but if I didn't even believe that, then ethical consistency wouldn't come into play.

It seems to me that you believe cows feel pain, therefore we should not needlessly harm them (and similar reasoning for other animals). I know what pain feels like. I wouldn't disagree that cows feel pain. But I don't empathize with cows. I do not feel like a cow and I am uncertain when it comes to thinking about their perspective -- what it is like to be a cow. I know I would not want to be treated like a cow. I could go so far as to say that I do find current methods of factory farming to be egregious in that they cause needless pain, even to creatures I do not feel much empathy for.

So I would support legislation that would make such methods illegal. That seems to me to be the right way of things. Much pain is being caused where much pain does not need to be caused. I don't feel their pain or even feel much compassion for the creatures, but I do think that simply causing needless pain is something worth avoiding.

But if cows could be raised humanely and killed without pain? I don't have a problem with that. Though I don't know if I hold to your moral trifecta, either.

I never condone or support the exploitation of animals. Therefore I am not a speciesist. But if you want to redefine the term 'speciesism' to mean that anyone who holds the position that humans are of higher value than animals, this is not the same term. But as I stated before, even though I do think Humans are more valuable, I do not think they should exploit animals and/or cause needless suffering. — chatterbears

You have already said that, in exceptional circumstances, you do "condone or support the exploitation of animals" so you are speciesist. My point was that the speciesist argument is not helpful since it applies to both carnivores and vegetarians alike.

I do not assign higher value to humans solely on the basis of being a different species. — chatterbears

Does this mean that you assign a higher value to humans partly on the basis of being a different species? Because this is still speciesism. Out of curiosity, what other methods do you employ to assign higher value to humans over other animals?

Flawed moral argumentation. — chatterbears

Indeed, I don't hold with deontology since I value myself over and above many other individuals.

Free-range, organic, grass-fed, cage-free, are all irrelevant to the treatment of the animals. — chatterbears

If it were possible to eliminate all suffering from the supply chain, would you then condone meat eating?

Where do you stand on laboratory grown meat? What about eating insects?

Well, you would either need to attempt to show why this (not difficult) or any other premise is wrong. — jastopher

This was supposed to be an example of the basic premises you mention. Basic premises are presumably ones that aren't supported; just accepted or not. Or did you mean something else?

You are causing environmental damage (to the earth), health damage (to yourself) and physical pain (to the animals), when you decide to eat meat — chatterbears

Except for possible health damage (which is debatable, and even then not an ethical concern), this is wrong. Buying meat from a supermarket doesn't cause environmental damage to the environment, and nor does it cause physical pain to animals. The fact that the money I spend eventually finds its away back to the farmers doesn't pass any responsibility that they have for their actions on to me.

You're playing far too fast and loose with the term "cause" here.

This was supposed to be an example of the basic premises you mention. Basic premises are presumably ones that aren't supported; just accepted or not. Or did you mean something else? — Michael

For example, I can accept that animals suffer and that we should attempt to minimise suffering whenever possible without needing to recur to ever more convoluted metaphysics. This is not to say that there is no interesting debate to be had over basic premises and axioms, but that if you want to go forward, then going backwards is perverse.

But if cows could be raised humanely and killed without pain? I don't have a problem with that. Though I don't know if I hold to your moral trifecta, either. — Moliere

Cows are just one animal in the factory farming industry. Pigs are much more intelligent, even more so than dogs. The moral trifecta isn't necessary to lead to veganism, although I would hold the view that it is impossible to hold all 3 of those qualities as true, without being a Vegan.

The only thing you need to lead yourself to Veganism is logical consistency. Ask yourself, "If I raised a cow humanely and killed it without pain, would I accept this same treatment for myself?" And whatever trait you use to justify the dismissal of that belief, would you accept the treatment if that trait was present in yourself? I'll give an example of what you might say.

' I am not okay with humans being raised humanely and killed without pain, because humans are smarter than animals ' - The trait you would be using here is "humans are smarter". So to lead to your logically consistent conclusion, would you allow that treatment for a human that is NOT smarter than the average human? Something similar to a severely autistic person, or a mentally handicapped person. Since those two types of people would have similar intelligence levels of a cow, is now okay to raise them humanely and kill them without pain? If you say no, then your position is inconsistent.

Veganism is the logically consistent conclusion you would reach, no matter what your subjective ethics consist of. The only thing that wouldn't lead to Veganism, is someone who lacked empathy for both animals AND humans. But that person should not be viewed as someone we should take advice from on how to build a healthy and thriving society.

so you are speciesist — jastopher

This is completely false, because I even stated that I would kill a severely autistic human to save a starving human child. So this is not speciesism, because I am not exploiting based on species. There's two different moral dilemmas.

1. Would you kill a severe mentally handicapped person to save a child?
2. Would you kill an animal to save a child?

Both answers are yes. Therefore I am not engaged into speciesism. But just to point out, both of these scenarios are by FORCE. These are situations that leave you with no choice, unless you allow the child to die. The child is put into a situation where it needs to survive off another living being. But in our situation, on a daily basis, we are not put in a situation where our lives are threatened. We do not need to contribute to factory farms, nor do we need meat for our survival. So the moral dilemma is irrelevant.

If it were possible to eliminate all suffering from the supply chain, would you then condone meat eating? — jastopher

No, because an animal would still be getting killed, which doesn't allow the animal to live its natural life. That is the same as me asking you, "If we could raise humans humanely, but kill them without pain when they turn 20 years old, would you then condone that treatment?" - No. If you wouldn't be OK with that treatment for yourself or your own species, why would it be OK for you to treat another species in the same way?

Where do you stand on laboratory grown meat? What about eating insects? — jastopher

If lab meat involves no pain or suffering, I have no issue with it. Eating insects is similar to eating animals. Why do it when it is not needed or necessary? Unless your survival rests on the diet of insects (or meat), there's no reason to do so.

Buying meat from a supermarket doesn't cause environmental damage to the environment, and nor does it cause physical pain to animals. The fact that the money I spend eventually finds its away back to the farmers doesn't pass any responsibility that they have for their actions on to me. — Michael

I guess I'll post my google doc again: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Click on the 'Environment' tab, and see the research for yourself. Factory farms, often confining thousands of animals, are major culprits in climate change. These mega-farms create huge amounts of manure that pollute the soil, water, and air. Animal factories also waste grain, water, fuel, and other resources.

As stated before, something you still haven't grasped, is the idea of supply and demand. These factory farmers SUPPLY you with what you DEMAND from them. If you (and everyone else) STOPS demanding what they are supplying, they will go out of business. And if they go out of business, the harm to animals and to the environment will cease to exist.

"If I raised a cow humanely and killed it without pain, would I accept this same treatment for myself?" — chatterbears

No.

I am not okay with humans being raised humanely and killed without pain, because humans are smarter than animals ' - The trait you would be using here is "humans are smarter". So to lead to your logically consistent conclusion, would you allow that treatment for a human that is NOT smarter than the average human? Something similar to a severely autistic person, or a mentally handicapped person. Since those two types of people would have similar intelligence levels of a cow, is now okay to raise them humanely and kill them without pain? If you say no, then your position is inconsistent. — chatterbears

I wouldn't use intelligence as the basis. Intelligence is merely a tool, and to be better with a tool can inspire admiration for craftsmanship, but it is no basis for moral feeling.

I would just say that a cow is not human, and I empathize with humans but not with cows. I empathize with humans and not with pigs. I empathize with humans and not with fish. I don't think there is a single trait that separates us. We are all, after all, animals.

But if empathy is the basis for considering other beings moral agents, and compassion is a subset of empathy, then by your own trifecta, since I do not feel much empathy for these things, I wouldn't be logically inconsistent.

Veganism is the logically consistent conclusion you would reach, no matter what your subjective ethics consist of — chatterbears

That is one whopper of a statement. Were I a Cartesian, of the old school variety, then animals would simply be biological machines. They would not have a soul, but would be meat-machines reproducing themselves and would feel nothing at all.

I don't think that, of course. I said I think it's reasonable to think that animals feel pain. But this statement seems to indicate that you haven't explored much of what is possible in terms of subjective ethical commitments.

Are you actually interested in knowing how others think about their ethical lives?

That is the same as me asking you, "If we could raise humans humanely, but kill them without pain when they turn 20 years old, would you then condone that treatment? — chatterbears

It's not the same because I am an avowed speciesist so I don't have a problem in placing my needs and wants before those of animals.

1. Would you kill a severe mentally handicapped person to save a child?
2. Would you kill an animal to save a child?

Both answers are yes. Therefore I am not engaged into speciesism. — chatterbears

In the first case you engaged in ableism and in the second case you are engaged in speciesism.

If it were possible to eliminate all suffering from the supply chain, would you then condone meat eating?
— jastopher
No, because an animal would still be getting killed, which doesn't allow the animal to live its natural life. — chatterbears

I'm not even going to get into to your use of 'natural', but it's conceivable that euthanising with zero suffering an animal is preferable to all sorts of horrific 'natural' ways of dying.

Eating insects is similar to eating animals. Why do it when it is not needed or necessary? Unless your survival rests on the diet of insects (or meat), there's no reason to do so. — chatterbears

Yet more speciesism.

Look, I have no arguments against vegetarianism, but I still maintain some meat can be reared and consumed ethically.

It doesn’t follow from any of that that I am responsible for what other people do. I’m only responsible for buying meat from a supermarket.

Not only is it fallacious, it's also just a cheap ploy so as not to have to seriously consider their arguments. — NKBJ

But I have even presented reasonable arguments for veganism. So it can’t be that.

A cult is an extremist social script that isolates its members from more general society. And I was talking about the philosophy limiting script that CB was using. To the degree it said focus on a feeling, it was trying to limit rounded debate on the issue. It was simply an attempt to convert.

I’m not against veganism or animal rights. Clearly I keep closely informed on these issues. One reason is that I’m interested in how every generation finds its passionate social causes. Society does keep evolving with a certain pattern.

You seem to be under the impression that my humanness in the event of desperation or survival is the fundamental factor in my decision to eat meat when needing to. This, however, is false, because any living thing considers itself to be the center of its world, whether it be a cow, pig, bird, or human. Simply because I put myself first in instances of survival or desperation doesn't mean that the mere fact that I am human is reason for my decision.

One reason is that I’m interested in how every generation finds its passionate social causes. — apokrisis

Veganism is annoying to the older generation. What is the source of that?

A prime principle of earlier generations was not to be fussy at the dinner table. Finish everything on your plate. Don’t be faddy. Eat what everyone else eats.

So there is a context of what was socially functional in an earlier era.

Then came the era of processed junk food, factory farming, instant meals and self indulgent diets as a socialised right. The effects of that have been generally disasterous for both individual health and the environment.

The next turn of the wheel would have to be better adapted to the realities. So veganism might be a large part of that. It might be a practical necessity. Or cloned meat could deliver the same general health and environmental outcomes. That is what would be up for moral debate. And philosophy would aim to be ahead of the curve on that score.

But what I objected to in the OP was the narrow focus on sentience and sufferering. That in itself is a symptom of a social dysfunction. It speaks to an egocentrism that isn’t in fact willing to see the self as a product of society. And this leads to moral arguments that lack that pragmatic balance at their heart.

I would just say that a cow is not human, and I empathize with humans but not with cows. I empathize with humans and not with pigs. I empathize with humans and not with fish. I don't think there is a single trait that separates us. We are all, after all, animals.

But if empathy is the basis for considering other beings moral agents, and compassion is a subset of empathy, then by your own trifecta, since I do not feel much empathy for these things, I wouldn't be logically inconsistent. — Moliere

I think the OP would include sympathy with empathy. Humans cannot empathize fully with pigs, but we can sympathize with them. And it is because we consider every other animal to be just a smelly brute that millions upon millions of animals are slaughtered every year without any regard for their status as living things.

One of the earliest things I struggled with as a kid with regard to animals was when learning about the Holocaust. The talk of the Jews and others being rounded up and sent on "cattle cars" was always distressing - is distressing - but I started to wonder why it was wrong for humans to be crammed in there but right for cattle? Why was it wrong to treat humans like cattle but also wrong to treat cattle like humans? It's surreal, really. Humans are lauded and put on a pedestal of deserving more dignity and respect when they themselves don't seem to deserve much when they kill 70 million of themselves during WW2.

I think the OP would include sympathy with empathy. Humans cannot empathize fully with pigs, but we can sympathize with them. And it is because we consider every other animal to be just a smelly brute that millions upon millions of animals are slaughtered every year without any regard for their status as living things.

One of the earliest things I struggled with as a kid with regard to animals was when learning about the Holocaust. The talk of the Jews and others being rounded up and sent on "cattle cars" was always distressing - is distressing - but I started to wonder why it was wrong for humans to be crammed in there but right for cattle? Why was it wrong to treat humans like cattle but also wrong to treat cattle like humans? — Buxtebuddha

The OP does not say it includes sympathy with empathy. I'll wait to hear from him. And he's defining these terms in very specific ways that seems to me to miss much of how people think about moral problems and reasoning.

The Holocaust is an event full of evil. It's not something that's hard to learn about just as a child, but is something which is still hard to learn about. It is unequivocally evil, from my perspective.

As for why it is wrong or right -- I am just using the OP's moral trifecta at this point. I am telling him, point blank, that these are not feelings I have for cows, pigs, or fish. I do have empathy for some animals. I think it is most likely that these empathic feelings are simply due to being brought up in the society I am living in.

For me I don't feel empathy for cows, but I can understand that they go through pain as we currently do things. I don't know the exact specifications which I would say, "Hey, we're doing good now that cows don't go through pain". I'm willing to hear it out. Maybe carting them around in trains is bad. I know that our current practices cause unnecessary pain. I know that the reason for this is that meat is cheaper, but I'm fine with meat becoming more expensive to halt unnecessary pain in spite of not feeling empathy with the animals that are killed.

The hypothetical I was referring to is where your point was presumably leading, which was food production whereby humans were turned into food which would have an appealing taste. If it wasn't leading to that, then it was leading nowhere. — Sapientia

When someone is in a "vegetative" state does that mean that vegetarians can eat them?

Some of the most brilliant minds throughout history have also claimed things which are just silly, like that water is the source of all things, that air is the source of all things, that women have more teeth than men, that the pineal gland is the principal seat of the soul, that to be is to be perceived, that this is the best of all possible worlds, and that God exists.

Yeah, at best, they've shown inconsistency in the case of someone accepting all of their presuppositions, which isn't the same as showing meat eaters to be inconsistent, or showing you or I or anyone else here to be inconsistent.

I have questioned from the outset this controversial notion of farmyard animals deserving a comparable degree of empathy and compassion to that with regard to our fellow humans. It's comparable, for me, in at least a minimal sense, but it's arguable whether that's sufficient to justify some sort of equality in treatment.

Full disclosure upfront: I am a proud vegan, so clearly I am biased to one side in this debate.

Second disclosure: this is the only post I will ever write on this thread, so feel free to dissect and criticize it as you wish. My intent is not to start a new argument, but to offer new ideas for consideration in these pre-existing arguments. Then you can reject or incorporate my ideas into your arguments as you see fit. I will also make some general comments about where I think this debate has landed after multiple rounds of arguments.

I have followed this thread quite closely and I've been impressed with some of the ideas presented, from both sides. I wanted to add my own thoughts on this debate, focusing on an angle that has not received much attention: the wider social, economic, and ecological relations that mediate and influence our food choices. I think it's important to consider this component of the debate because it can substantially alter the answer to the original question.

Is it wrong to eat animals? I would say it depends on a wide array of factors, and I don't think that this position commits me entirely to moral relativism. The reason why is because some of these factors are determined by biophysical and ecological realities, hence they do not depend on social preference. I am fully supportive of the San in the Kalahari hunting gazelles or the Inuit in Canada hunting seals. These are communities that live in very forbidding ecozones, making an exclusively plant-based diet quite difficult to achieve. The San still obtained most of their calories from fruits and vegetables gathered by women, but meat was clearly an indispensable part of their diet as well.

We obviously don't live in those worlds. We live in an integrated system of global capitalism, where goods and commodities are exchanged for financial profit and where a small minority of the human population controls the vast majority of surplus wealth. This is the fundamental economic system that lurks behind, in front, and everywhere around that original question. I will argue that eating animals, in the context of modern capitalism, is an objectively bad idea for a number of related reasons. Our moral considerations cannot be fully divorced from these biophysical and ecological factors, hence any moral judgment on whether we should eat animals needs to somehow account for them. The basis for this claim is that the quest for a moral life represents both a social and a philosophical enterprise. In other words, morality is inextricably bound to social relations, and those social relations are themselves coevolving with economic and ecological conditions. Hence we cannot fully analyze the moral dimension of whether to eat animals apart from these conditions.

For your consideration, I present the following three points:

1) Because farm animals are bred for capitalist profit, they are subject to the same dynamics of waste and overproduction that characterize other parts of the global supply chain. Global capitalism slaughters roughly 60 billion animals a year. One estimate says that 12 billion of those animals end up dying for nothing: their meat simply gets thrown away. Others are simply considered useless and slaughtered with no intent for consumption. Male chicks are usually tossed into the grinders on their very first day of life.

2) Eating meat from the capitalist food industry has a negative impact on health. Numerous studies point to vegans and vegetarians having longer life expectancy than meat-eaters (see this and this for some major ones that came out recently). Other studies show that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, beans, and nuts will yield the best health outcomes over the long run. The World Health organization has classified red meat and processed meat as likely carcinogenic (see here). Being vegan is not just the default choice when you want to avoid eating meat while still surviving. It's a way to thrive and contribute positively to your health.

3) The global agricultural and land use industry is responsible for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN, a huge fraction of which come from raising livestock. These emissions include the biological products of farm animals as well as emissions from logistics, transportation, and other activities that require a large amount of mechanical work. Changing consumption patterns is an important component of making this industry less energy-intensive, though certainly not the only one. Concerted public pressure and state action would also help, but these will probably take a long time to materialize.

In conclusion, it's not simply eating animals that represents the biggest moral problem today. Rather it's an evil economic system that kills so many animals for pure profit, with no intent to actually feed the poor and the hungry around the world. Participating in this system willingly, when its damaging effects are so clear, is what constitutes an immoral offense. Being vegan can represent a small act of revolt against an otherwise corrupt system that seems to be indifferent to the concerns of living things, including human beings, outside of their relationship to the market and their level of wealth.

In following this thread, it has occurred to me that the arguments of the anti-vegan camp, especially from Michael and jastopher, are reducible to the following position:

I will hold any philosophical belief necessary to justify my current methods of energy consumption, or those methods of consumption widely prevalent in society.

For me, the most revealing comment of the entire debate was the following from jastopher, after considering several of the ethical responses available on this issue:

"I like utilitarianism since it permits me to continue to eat meat...."

And that's fundamentally what this entire debate has come down to. It's no longer an argument about who has the best reasons for the ideal moral stance. Instead it's become an exercise for finding any excuses necessary to justify existing lifestyles, lest we have too much pesky radicalism. Better to invent spurious reasons to justify the current state of the world than contemplate any meaningful change to improve our lives. Casual centrism reigns supreme. All the beautiful normative ideals have devolved into the brutal descriptive reality: humans have power over animals, so we can do with them as we please. Might makes right.

What a glorious philosophy!

It puts the ball in your court and calls into question what exactly it is about humans which causes many of us to unthinkingly assume that they're untouchable, that it would be out of the question under any circumstance. — Sapientia

There is nothing inherently untouchable about what is "human." But that's the one of the points I've been trying to get across. Belonging to a group means nothing on it's own.
The untouchability of a disabled person shows us that intelligence is not the reason we avoid causing suffering--we avoid causing suffering on the basis of the ability to suffer. Since disabled people can suffer, it is wrong for me to cause it. Since cats can suffer, it is wrong for me to cause it. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.

Yours is a terrible analogy. — Michael

Seems that way to you only because you seem to be resisting understanding the basics of causality.

But let's say you're right about not being directly responsible for the animal's death by buying meat (which I still disagree, with, but I'm willing to hypothesis), then aiding and abetting an immoral act is still immoral. Supporting, helping, promoting, enabling....whatever lingo you want to use, in relation to an immoral act, it is all also immoral.

To the degree it said focus on a feeling, it was trying to limit rounded debate on the issue. It was simply an attempt to convert. — apokrisis

Those are two different statements. The latter does not follow from the former. Faulty logic (if that were the case here, which it is not) does not equal an attempt to convert, and it even more certainly doesn't equal an attempt to convert someone to a cult.

One reason is that I’m interested in how every generation finds its passionate social causes. — apokrisis

The idea of avoiding harm to other animals has been around since at least Pythagoras. India has a long history of vegetarianism since around 600BCE. The modern Western vegetarian movement has been around since the 1800's... it's not a "generational" thing.

We avoid causing suffering on the basis of the ability to suffer. Since disabled people can suffer, it is wrong for me to cause it. Since cats can suffer, it is wrong for me to cause it. Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. — NKBJ

Any suffering which might be involved would be necessary for meat production. And different circumstances result in the act being judged to varying degrees of severity. Slaughtering chickens for food production is not generally considered comparable in terms of severity to slaughtering humans for food production, as I think you know. That's just how it is for many people, and that's just how it will continue to be for quite some time yet, I predict. I don't forsee a 'veggie revolution' on the horizon. Your views represent a minority.

It's not just a matter of whether it's right or wrong. It's a matter of, if it's wrong, how wrong? And why should I care enough to act any differently? You can make your case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day me likes meat. :yum:

It’s a generational thing.

In 1971, 1 percent of U.S. citizens described themselves as vegetarians.[119] In 2008 Harris Interactive found that 3.2% are vegetarian and 0.5% vegan,[120] while a 2013 Public Policy Polling survey of 500 respondents found that 13% of Americans are either vegetarian or vegan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

A recent uptick in popularity doesn't make it generational... Like I said, history is rife with it.

Keeping digging that hole you’re in. Others are celebrating the fact.

According to City A.M., research by Barclays reveals that those born between 1995 and 2005 (Generation Z) are way more into plant-based foods than previous generations, even millennials.

Yes, you read that right. Researchers find that Gen Z is buying loads of kale, tofu, avocados, quinoa, and dairy-free milk. How much more? They purchase 80 percent more kale, 57 percent more tofu, and a whopping 266 percent more avocados! And Generation Z consumes 550 percent more plant-based milk than Generation X.

As members of this generation grow older and start their careers and families, we can expect to really see a boom.

While significant, this increase is an extension of the consistent growth in veganism, especially over the past decade or so as millennials—the world’s largest generation—purchase their own food.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/thought-millennials-were-vegan-af-meet-generatio

is not generally considered — Sapientia

That's just how it is for many people, and that's just how it will continue to be for quite some time yet, I predict. I don't forsee a 'veggie revolution' on the horizon. Your views represent a minority. — Sapientia

You can make your case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day me likes meat. :yum: — Sapientia

None of these are philosophical or logical arguments for your case. Do I really need to point out to you that the number of people committing an immoral act has no impact on the morality thereof? Or that the time we spend doing something wrong doesn't make it less wrong? Or that your personal tastes are not remotely interesting in this discussion?

This is a forum for philosophical discussions. We're discussing the theory of animal rights, not trying to start a movement. And, might I add, you are voluntarily participating. No one forced you to. If you are no longer interested in the argument, or have realized that you are too close-minded about the subject to care any longer about the philosophy behind it, perhaps you ought to leave the discussion.

If you are interested in continuing the discussion thoughtfully, here is my answer to the one claim you made which is actually pertinent to our conversation:

Any suffering which might be involved would be necessary for meat production. — Sapientia

Yes, but the meat production itself is not necessary.

meat production itself is not necessary. — NKBJ

If it were the case that meat were necessary, would you condone its consumption? If yes, what do you consider to be baseline necessity?

I'm glad you're having fun. But you're still wrong.
A generation liking something that's been around for millennia does not make it generational.