Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

It is "perfectly possible" to choose not to eat meat (but only for some), and if you prefer to consider it a moral or ethical decision then you could call it "perfectly logical" if you like, just so long as we're willing to provide that "academic" discussion about our assertions and still, this only applies to some. I'm still waiting to see any elaboration on this unnecessary suffering bit, and how you've avoided it by choosing not to eat meat. I keep seeing it over and over, but the longer this goes on without any elaboration the more I am beginning to suspect that it is a weasel phrase, and that you realize this as easily as I do.

We've moved on from many things, one thing we have not moved on from is the need for sustenance. You're going to cause suffering any way you choose to go about it. What makes the suffering you choose to cause "less immoral" or "less unethical" than the suffering the bacon lover chooses to cause? So far it seems to me to be a matter of assigning positive value judgement to what you choose to eat because you choose to eat it, and negative value judgement to what you choose not to eat because you don't eat it. In other words, I'm not surprised that you don't think the things that you eat make you immoral or unethical by your own standards, neither do I, but If I can be said to be either of these things due to my dietary choices then you are subject to the same criticism, and isn't it possible that we are both equally immoral/moral unethical/ethical even by our own standards (or each others)?

I will type a response later. My pesky job is getting in the way right now.

Damn reality.