Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

I agree that it isn't moral, but nature isn't always fair. I can live with myself if my most heinous act is enjoying chicken.

Broilers are in the main raised in over crowded barns. Thety are so overcrowded that they become stressed and opten resort to cannibalism. To stop this, they are debeaked; their top beak cut off. This is painful at the time and remains painful. They are kept in semi dark conditions to reduce the stress. They only see daylight when they are taken to the slaugher house.

For me this is just too much suffering. I agree it is immoral to put them through that in their millions just to satisfy a liking of the flavour. It's refeshing to find a person who takes responsibility for their actions rather than raise dubious reasons why it's not moral in the first place, e.g. it's natural.

I'd be interested to know why youthink it is immoral?

---

If I didn't eat meat I would literally starve to death. Yes, I used the word 'literally', and I used it accurately.

Why?>

---

Do you agree with Dawkins that on moral grounds, eating meat cannot be justified?

Nope. I love eating meat. Have it all the time. Also I don't think there is any needless pain and suffering. They're killed almost instantly. In the wild, they'd almost always suffer a brutal and painful death, a hard life from birth to death. In fact it happens to pretty much every wild animal on the planet. Farm animals always have food readily available, no predators and the killing is quick. Besides, with our ever growing population and very much limited resources, you can't be picky.

You mean it's not needless because you enjoy the taste so much?

There is little we can do about the wild, as you say. If you were in the wild you might not be at the top of the food chain and may be eaten by a large predator. Does this mean we can take your life in a less painful way?

Farfm animals do not always have food readily available. The killing may be mostly quick but the suffering in the weeks and moths beforehand is not.

---

If the animal isn't intelligent enough to be consciously aware of its existence then what difference does it make? It doesn't even know its alive.

This is faulty logic. Is a newborn human, a chronically seniule person or a person with severe mental handicap as aware as a pig. No.