Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

On what basis would one restrict that consideration to any group of creatures over another? You go with sentience, an effect of biology.

As I've explained, if an animals has the capacity to feel pain and suffer then it has interests. Without that capacity, it has no interests. This seems an entirely sensible approach.

You go with empty categorizations like "unnecessary", a failure to elaborate upon what you wish to assert. You say that we must consider all of these creatures, and yet consistently avoid considering them when conflict arises between themselves and what you, personally, prefer to eat. You seem unwilling to provide even a short list of "necessary" suffering.

Necessary harm & suffering could be a immunization injection. Unnecessary suffering would be in the main the eating of 10 billion animals in the US each year.

So, lets just cut to the chase. Whatever suffering that would be effected by your dietary choices is "necessary", isn't it?

No. I will go with the evidence. If you could demonstrate that the suffering attached to the harvest of a vegetable crops is greater than that caused by meat production then I would listen. Of course, we both realise that many crops are grown just to feed animals that will themselves be eaten. Come up with a convincing argument and I will listen.

Whatever suffering effected by the dietary decisions of others is "unnecessary".

Not everyone, no. For a start there are a of other vegans & vegetarians out there. I am not aware of any human medical condition that would require them to eat meat. There might be and if eating a sentient animal was the only option then as long as all practical steps were taken to minimise the suffering of the food source, then this minimal suffering could also be necessary.

So, of the 10 billiion animals slaughtered in the US each year, do you think 100% of their suffering is necessary?

---

Are we any closer to seeing that list of the damned?

What do you mean?