Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

2. Mere assertion

Fundamentally you are right, all ethics start with something we inherently assert to be of value. If you don't value suffering, then you could find something else to value (some not available to atheists admittedly), the only rules are be consistent and don't make logical fallacies. If you value suffering however my argument suggest one must think meat eating to be wrong. There other systems of ethics out there of course, e.g. Carl Cohen's social contract ethics. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...search.htm
I have specific arguments why he is wrong, but it is an interesting line of thinking.

---

I see that it is clear that you don't know then. If you did you would not of asked a silly question.
A herbivore can not stay healthy on a carnivore diet, the same as a carnivore can not stay healthy on a herbivore diet.

Nope. Its not a silly question at all. All meat consists of is primarily carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged into molecules of carbohydrates, fats and proteins (and of course all the vitamins and minerals. Converting the types carbohydrates/fats/protein in animal flesh in the types that are in plants for the herbivore to eat merely requires a sequence of chemical reactions. One could figure these out in a lab, then simply synthesise these chemicals from meat. All meat is is chemicals. All plants are, are chemicals.

When we talk about herbivors, what we mean is they are animals that have a number of physiological adaptations to allow them to survive off a diet of plants alone in the wild. When we talk about obligate carnivours all we mean is they are animals that have a number of physiological adaptations to require them to survive off a diet of animals in the wild. When humans get involved, all bets are off, because we have science and chemistry.

Does this make sense?