> Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them I don't assume or believe this. What I referred to was modern fac

> Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them I don't assume or believe this. What I referred to was modern factory farming or feedlots. Pigs in particular are subject to some of the most horrific living circumstances. But you have had enough opportunities to state that you believe the torture of animals is in any way wrong. Since you have failed to do so I think it is reasonable to proceed with the view that you believe it to be OK if there is even a small utility value in it. > Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So now you are arguing that we should be taking our moral cues from animals? This is somewhat akin to the argument about the terrorist being so evil that we need to resort to their tactics - except the 'terrorists' here are defenceless animals. The second sentence here is almost certainly untrue. Such broad statement should require at least some evidence. > I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. The more angles you can view a situation from, the better your model of reality is. In chess you need to view the game from your opponent's perspective and in relationships you need to try to understand how your partner feels. Similarly in interactions with animals it makes sense to try to model their behaviour by taking their perspective. This is the case if you have a pet, are hunting or are being hunted. I believe this is an advantageous and natural human trait. Because we have more surplus brain power we can do it better than other animals. A necessary part of running this model accurately is to glimpse at some of the likely/obvious feelings of the animal being modelled. Those who don't feel any discomfort at the extreme pain of an animal are either censoring their view or they simply don't have the mental capacity to construct an accurate model. Either way I believe it is an impoverished way of viewing reality. Hopefully this extend description has at least allowed you to understand my argument. > To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". This is an obviously incorrect statement. Koala bears only eat Eucalyptus leaves. In percentage terms roughly 90% the of animal biomass is necessarily formed through eating plants. Carnivorous animals are by necessity a small minority. > So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals. This is a silly argument that doesn't follow from anything I have said. Even under your logic there is another option - don't eat meat. But that is a different argument.