Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

It only seems less significant to you because you are obviously well fed. Starving folks the world over would disagree. They don't give a flying fuck about what it means to be sentient. They do, however, give a flying fuck about whether or not they have food. This is where I get frustrated in conversations like these. Your idealistic view (that is apparently cultivated to be in accordance with your notions of ethics or morality) of what food production is or could be is at odds with the reality of what it is and could be. In this area I actually am an activist. CFA all the way baby! I'm all about integrated agriculture and "green" practices. Sadly these do not always align with green politics and most of the best systems are still prohibitively expensive (shameless aside).

Your testimonials of good health and general well-being do not constitute a justification for your claim to moral or ethical vegetarianism. Voodoo "works" for people as well.

How does that contradict ANYTHING I said? I said if a human were starving and the only thing available to feed him was a cow it is fine to kill the cow.

Also, i don't think a starving human being is necessarily the best one to ask about ethical arguments based on reason. You are right. They could care less. At that point survival impulses supersede everything. We all know what a human is capable of when no longer bound by reason.

It's not a justification and I never said it is. I was arguing for the fact that I have made a choice to be vegetarian and I am in good health. As in I don't need to kill that cow to survive. I think you may have just misread the intention behind my statements.