>> I don't intent to change your mind, only to explain to you a perspective that you apparently find incomprehensible
>I spent decades eating animals and claiming that I loved them. You are not exposing me to new ideas.
I don't mean that eating meat is a new idea. I was specific, as a longer quote will reveal: "... to explain to you a perspective that you apparently find incomprehensible: I absolutely think compassion for animals is compatible with raising them to eat." It was in response to this:
> When meat is being served, you know animal welfare is not being considered. One cannot claim to value the welfare of a being before killing it prematurely and unnecessarily. That is a simple fact.
I think I've demonstrated pretty well that your simple fact is wrong, and there's a lot of complexity that allows for meat and animal welfare to exist together. You don't -- for very convincing reasons that are apparently only available to private followers of your philosophy via video chat. ;)
I suppose that means I've failed to get you to see my point of view -- but ah well. To tell the truth, I didn't actually think I would succeed at that part, because as I've said a bunch of times, I don't think this position proceeds from reason -- I think it proceeds from emotion, and some unhealthy emotions at that. To put all the cards on the table, the quote I was initially responding to is the sort of statement that I find aggressive and morally bullying. I'm writing to remove the power from it, to articulate a good answer for people who have trouble doing that, and to demonstrate that standing up to it isn't scary -- quite the contrary, that you can't back it up because it's silly in the first place. I would like to have been able to help you, but my main motivation is actually to prevent you from hurting others.