Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

No I have a bias for asserting that laws should be applied equally in each and every case. Halal exemptions are contradictory to this principle of mine. Veal production, on the other hand, is not.

Now, on to your objections regarding veal. The process seems to be unsavory, doesn't it? Let's remove the "newborn calves" bit, because if it isn't ethical to treat an animal in this way it matters very little what stage of life they are in. That's an appeal to emotion (we have a soft spot for newborn anythings), and it makes for a poor argument if we're invoking some sort of logical process complete with moral and ethical absolutes.

"You would argue that", I don't give a shit, and neither do the people that write these laws. You "must demonstrate that". As it stands, we do not consider any livestock animal on par with ourselves in the areas of sentience, self-awareness, or suffering. If you could establish that they were, you'd still be left with the practical concern that we're going to have to off something, somehow, if we expect to continue living. Now, I'm not some vocal supporter of veal production, or battery farming, or grain fed cattle. These things to me seem to be a misuse of our resources. That doesn't mean that they are morally "wrong", it just means that I think we could better use our resources while achieving the same ends that the current system offers us. Pointing to veal makes livestock production as a whole unethical or immoral how? Veal itself is unethical or immoral how, because you say so, or would argue so?

You have again invoked "unnecessary" suffering and I have been begging for you (or anyone) to create even a short list of what lies on either side of this line. I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this. I can't even sign on with it as morally or ethically pragmatic without such a definition of terms. There are things that vegetarians could do to make the world a better place as well, like avoiding organic foods (then we wouldn't need livestock), and not eating (then we wouldn't need to destroy environments to source, or leverage nutrients, or for ag in the first place). Do either of these solutions seem "ideal" to you? Would either of them achieve your stated goal of avoiding "unnecessary suffering"? Perhaps we should go hunter-gatherer sans hunter? Do you imagine that this would prevent or cause "unnecessary suffering"?

First let's define our terms:

I think wiki has a good definition of suffering:

Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] is an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual. Suffering is the basic element that makes up the negative valence of affective phenomena.

Suffering may be qualified as physical[2] or mental.[3] It may come in all degrees of intensity, from mild to intolerable. Factors of duration and frequency of occurrence usually compound that of intensity. Attitudes toward suffering may vary widely, in the sufferer or other people, according to how much it is regarded as avoidable or unavoidable, useful or useless, deserved or undeserved.

nec·es·sar·y
   [nes-uh-ser-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural nec·es·sar·ies.
adjective
1.
being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part of the motor.
2.
happening or existing by necessity: a necessary change in our plans.
3.
acting or proceeding from compulsion or necessity; not free; involuntary: a necessary agent.
4.
Logic .
a.
(of a proposition) such that a denial of it involves a self-contradiction.
b.
(of an inference or argument) such that its conclusion cannot be false if its supporting premises are true.
c.
(of a condition) such that it must exist if a given event is to occur or a given thing is to exist. Compare sufficient ( def. 2 ) .

Unnecessary being essentially the converse of necessary:

un·nec·es·sar·y
   [uhn-nes-uh-ser-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural un·nec·es·sar·ies.
adjective
1.
not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.

In a word "unnecessary suffering" is pain or discomfort that was not essential or required. In the ethical sense it means that a moral agent, or being with sufficient reason to have the capacity for willful action with understanding of it's implications, knowingly and intentionally caused suffering. Simply put a :a person capable of moral action intentionally causing a sentient being to suffer when it was not required. Suffering is not required when there are other viable options that produce the same necessary result as those that would require suffering.

For instance if one were driving, came around a bend and suddenly there was a dog in the road. Let's say for the sake of argument that there was no way to stop the car and the only options were between hitting the dog and swerving off the road into a ditch, causing minor damage to the car and no harm to the person. If one were to choose to hit the dog for the sake of saving the car then they would have caused unnecessary suffering. Other options were available that didn't require hitting the dog with the car and the consideration was purely a material one in that one did not want to damage the car.

Some practical for instances:

Unnecessary suffering caused by moral agent:

A person beats a dog because they are angry it peed on the carpet.

A person breaks into another person's home and physically assaults them in furtherance of theft.

Necessary suffering caused by moral agent:

Parents agreeing to medical procedures on children that involve pain but are in the child's best interest.

Shooting another person in a case of self defense when it's clear that they would have caused you injury.

The arguments about not eating to "make the world a better place" are non sequitor. If an argument could be shown that the only way humans could possibly be sustained were by killing animals and causing their suffering then there would be a point. I do not necessarily think that this is the case. Humans have to eat but they don't have to eat meat. The question at hand is whether it is ethical to kill animals for food? Applied ethics deals with how do we implement ethical theory in a practical applications. This is why the Repubs are always trying to de-regulate business. Those ethics can be a bitch when you are trying rake in in hand over fist and people, animals and the environment keep getting in the way.

Also, from a couple of posts back the "you are just being emotional" is an ad hominem. The emotion in this sense would be compassion and I doubt we would last long as humans without some degree of compassion. That's besides the point, the argument is based on logic and this is an attempt to discredit the source. The converse argument could be made that meat eaters are non-self reflective and the knee jerk emotional reactions when meat eating is challenged demonstrates that they cling to the practice more from tradition and conditioning than rationality.