There's a problem with these conversations about eating animals that is frequently hard to articulate. I think it's related to the famous quote: “You cannot re

There's a problem with these conversations about eating animals that is frequently hard to articulate. I think it's related to the famous quote: “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.” - Jonathan Swift? The argument against is detailed and seems logically consistent. Most people who are in favor of eating animals simply won't engage though. Those that do engage generally make a poor showing. My theory is morality isn't logical so arguing morality is simply a lack of self awareness. People who share your morality follow the logic and possibly change behavior, but without a shared sense of morality the argument is just a collection of empty words on par with a solved sudoku puzzle. Of course morality can and does change with time, just not via a logic based argument.