On 16/05/2021 09:36, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2021 07:54:53 +0100, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
wrote:

Who knows but try explaining that to a person starving somewhere when there
are plentiful animals around and you have a gun.

Completely missing the spirit of veganism Brian. ;-(

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is
possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Ethical veganism also extends to the keeping of pets.

So, *if* people in some remote location have to eat animals to survive
, then that's (generally) not a choice but a need. (I understand any
habitation of Mars will only use plant based foods).

For the vast majority who can have food delivered to their front door
from a massive supermarket full of non-animal based foods then there
is no need and it isn't survival.

I also look at nature and do not see quite highly intelligent big cats
having debates at becoming vegetarian to save the sentient antelope.

Sigh. You really are reeling them off from the 'I don't have any clue
about veganism' question book aren't you.? ;-(

1) 'Big cats' are obligate carnivores and so *have* to eat meat. It's
'natural' for them to do so and they have the speed, strength, teeth
and digestive systems to do so. We have none of those.
2) 'Big cats' don't can't book Ocado delivery slots.
3) If a 'big cat' has just eaten, the chances are it would watch an
antelope walk by.
4) They are working with nature, not against it by artificially
inseminating millions of antelope, keeping them in unnatural
conditions before trapping them in a frame or box (where they have
*NO* chance of escape), before shooting them in the head or gassing
them before cutting their throats.
5) What animals do naturally is nature. What we do unnaturally is not.

All life is to some extent sentient after all.

Not as we typically define sentience there isn't.

That depends on your definition. Most behaviour is 99% instinctive. Like
walking within minutes of birth.

The biggest reason for not
using animals as food by breeding them is the greenhouse effect it can
cause from all that farting.

Nope, the 'biggest reason' is they aren't ours in the first place so
anything we do that impacts their natural lives is wrong. Worse,
causing an animal to suffer, be exploited and die when we don't need
it to and it doesn't want to is wrong.

One of the many additional reasonS we shouldn't be breeding, keeping,
feeding, exploiting and killing more creatures than PEOPLE on this
planet is (as you say) the levels of methane produced (mainly) by cows
then directly impacting all of us.

If this was important you would support the numerous methods of reducing
methane production. But you won't as it doesn't help your fanatical crusade.

We also have masses of habitat /
rainforest destruction (most of the soy grown there is fed to
livestock),

But increasing amounts are used to make soy meat and meat product
substitutes.

waste pollution (choking river and estuaries), water
consumption and the antibiotic resistance we are now suffering as a
race, no good when our interference with animals leads to zoonotic
pandemics.

Then campaign for the reduction in their use, and ban import from
countries where antibiotics are used routinely. Perhaps they should be
banned for use in pets too?