Paris: Animal rights activists seize puppy from homeless man

[Alcon]

This is obviously dumb, but what's the point of this besides moral outrage at crazy activists?  Activists of marginal causes be crazy, sure, and they always have been.  But there are vastly more important issues around animal welfare than this, and attacking the crazy activists sometimes seems like a pretext for ignoring those concerns.

[Alcon]

This is obviously dumb, but what's the point of this besides moral outrage at crazy activists?  Activists of marginal causes be crazy, sure, and they always have been.  But there are vastly more important issues around animal welfare than this, and attacking the crazy activists sometimes seems like a pretext for ignoring those concerns.

No one likes animal rights groups and it's good to feel angry after reminding ourselves from time to time.

This stuff is a stunt meant to bring attention to animal welfare concerns.  These groups are fringe groups, and sometimes, they're intentionally being absurd because they're involved in a very marginal cause, and that's how marginal groups get attention.  You know, like nearly every minority political cause ever (including ones that we now think were right).  This is a lot like responding to concerns about the treatment of gays in the 1970s-1980s by being like, "no guys let's talk about how flamboyant their parades are!!!".

[Except this is somehow possibly even dumber (!), since it's not like the animals are the ones behaving absurdly in this case, but they are the ones whose welfare concerns we're using this as a pretext to dismiss.]

[Alcon]

is anyone going to stop arguing over these random fringe people who are like 1/1000th of the population at most, and we all effectively agree on, and actually respond to what i'm saying?  anyone?

[Alcon]

BTW Alcon here's the right reaction to future discussions of this kind; "this is horrible, those people are the scum of the Earth, my heart goes out to that poor homeless man" and then stop posting beside saying that the vast majority of Animal Rights Activists aren't these kind of horrible people . Your reaction on the other hand comes across as you don't really disagree with these peope, but you dislike how their action have put their and your cause in a unflattering light.

Yo, here's the thing: these people are being complete jerks.  You know how you can tell I think that?  Because I said that.  "Scum of the earth"?  I'm going to reserve the creepy, overcompensating vitriol for people I think are actually psychopaths and sadists instead of well-meaning ideological hacks.  I'm happy to settle for "this is horrible, and my heart goes out to that poor homeless man" but -- besides making myself feel good, and look good to others -- what purpose does that serve?  Absolutely none.

Moreover, where the hell do you infer that I "don't disagree with these people" and only "dislike how their action (sic) has put their cause in an unflattering light"?  No.  These people are probably idiots.  They probably have incoherent reasons for their beliefs, and they mainly do stuff like this to feel morally righteous, with minimal interest in whether what they do is actually right.  They probably don't care what harm this did.  They probably just like the moral high it gave them, and feel righteously justified by it.  

That behavior frustrates the hell out of me.  I don't like when people substitute mindless moralism for actually seriously questioning and understanding their beliefs systems and actions.  I think that's a natural tendency of all of us, and it's gross.  It's part of our tendency to tell ourselves we're good people, and then reinforce that by doing lazy, morally superficial symbolism.  That's a lot more comforting and attractive than challenging the weak points in our own beliefs and behaviors, and that's exactly why the behavior is so insidiously toxic.

You know what these idiot activist groups and threads like this have in common?  They're both full of that behavior.  They're both full of people, like you, who would prefer to come in, solemnly nod, pat yourself on the back, and go back to not engaging in a debate that might question your viewpoint.  As I said earlier, it's a lot like people wanting to talk about how offputting pride parades are instead of questioning their view on gay rights, or about how violent some civil rights activists were instead of questioning their views on racial equality.  It's like people feel that they're morally 'good enough' that they don't have to spend time questioning whether their beliefs are actually logically moral.

But here's the irony in your behavior that really pisses me off.  You questioned my sympathy toward this homeless guy because I didn't engage in lazy, morally superficial head-nodding.  You decided that my non-participation in the ritual head-nodding implied I don't have moral concern.  Here's the thing, though.  You posted this thread after abandoning a substantive debate on your position on animal rights in another thread.  When you were confronted with a challenge of your belief system, you stopped participating.  Instead, you decided to post this fluff.  Now, you are challenging my compassion and moral sincerity, because I didn't participate in giving meaningless, symbolic reverence to this mindless head-nodding.  But you declined to participate in an actually substantive ethical discussion in favor of this mindless head-nodding.

Tell me how that "comes across," dude.

[Alcon]

It comes across as a the girl who keep telling she's a virgin, the tough guy who keep telling how strong he is, the businessman who keep telling that he doesn't run a con. It comes across as a person who fake his moral outrage.

Considering that I asked you how your behavior comes across, I'm glad we're on the same page.

Next time, maybe you'll embarrass yourself less if you actually read the post before replying.  Then again, that might take away from your precious mindless symbolism time.

[Alcon]

Also, to be clear, I'm not particularly "outraged" about this.  Bad moral arguments are bad moral arguments, and avoiding moral arguments in favor of fluff is bad habit, even if they're not emotionally stirring.

[Alcon]

Well I think mindless symbolism are a better use of my time, than desperate trying to stop a discussion, just because a superficial similarity between the views of some douchebags and mine.

I'm genuinely confused...are you talking about yourself?  Because you stopped engaging in a moral discussion, and posted this, a thread about douchebags.  When I replied that I thought this was a useless exercise, and the moral discussion you abandoned wasn't, you claimed (incorrectly) that my reaction was about a superficial similarity between the views of some douchebags and me.

Look, if there was a moral issue here to discuss, I'd be happy to discuss it.  What is it?  All of us agree that these people are probably dumb hacks, and it sounds like what they did was cruel and wrong.  Where's the discussion here?  My problem is with the lack of substantive discussion.

I didn't for a movement believe before I posted this thread that you supported taking puppies from their homeless owners, of course after having read your post I'm now doubt, so congratulation with your "moral argument".

You can't be serious.  I spent an entire paragraph saying exactly why I think what these people did was dumb and harmful.  I even compared this thread, unflatteringly, to their behavior.

Based on this, and your totally hilarious self-burn on the "how does that come across?" question -- which was clearly about your behavior if you read the prior paragraph -- I'm starting to suspect you're not even reading posts anymore, just pouting.

[Alcon]

Do I really think you support this; no, not as the set up of the story is. But I find this insistence everytime someone with a aim which are somewhat the same as some posters, there comes these post about, "why do we even discuss this, it's only 0,000000000000000001% of the group in question" (if you haven't discovered it yet, I like hyperbole and sarcasm), and in those situation I would wish people who say these things, just said what I suggested even if it's just fluff... exactly because it's just fluff. You don't come across flattering when you use the other argument, and you don't convince anybody but the already saved. So if you want to sell your cause, fluff are more useful, not as ridiculous as I suggested, but you're smart, I'm sure you could say it better.

Of course this thread didn't develop as I would like, I think the fact that a organisation like this French one could think this was a good way to sell themselves, was the most interesting aspect of the story. But the thread developed another way in it own organic style, which I found interesting on it own.

OK, so you'd prefer I just engage the meaningless fluff instead of turning into a substantive argument.  I'd prefer you actually engage the substantive argument.  I'm making my case why.

I'm not here to "sell my cause."  I sell causes for a living.  I know that selling a cause to a mass audience is different than having an in-depth argument involving logic.  Atlas is generally from the latter, since if I were appealing to a mass audience with fluff, it wouldn't be efficacious to do it here.

[Alcon]

This is not a thread about Animal Rights activism. This is a thread about a specific news event. I don't see why we need to turn this into a general discussion on the entire Animal Rights movement, when no one has called them into question.

Can you name one single aspect of this thread that can be discussed, beyond meaningless head-nodding?  Do you completely oppose shifting the topic of discussion when an original topic doesn't offer much?  If I search your recent post history, will I find instances where you did this, or participated in a shifted topic?

And I have no idea why you're so defensive about that.

Did you not read the two posts I made?  I explained why I object to this crap.  (And what did that explanation have to do with "defending" anything?  I don't feel any brotherhood with some random moron activists.)

[Alcon]

Probably. So if you have nothing better to do with your time, by all means have fun and dig up some old post of mine that tangentially proves your point. It wouldn't be the first time someone does this.

How is it "tangential"?  You seem to be arguing it's unacceptable to shift the topic of a thread, even if (as here) there's nothing substantive to discuss.  It doesn't seem remotely "tangential" to me if you previously have demonstrated that you don't think it's unacceptable.

Either that, or there's something substantive here worth discussing.  If so, I ask again: what is it?

The fact that you needed to go out and say that most ARAs aren't like that, when no one had even suggested otherwise, seems like a sign of defensiveness to me. It would be like if an atheist's first reaction to the Oregon mass shooting were to point out that most atheists aren't mass shooters.

Dude, read my first post in this thread or ANY of my posts in this thread.  My entire point has been that this thread lacks a substantive discussion point unless it is a broad indictment of animal rights activists.  The fact that I'm pointing out it fails as one isn't "defensive."  It's an explanation of why I think this thread is useless.  It's useless, not 'offensive' (or whatever), because it fails as a broad indictment of anything.

I also do think some people are comforted in moral complacency by the bad behavior/craziness/whatever of people who disagree with them.  That's what I wrote about in my last post, explaining why I have such a strong negative reaction to this thread.

I really don't see anything to be 'defensive' about.  I don't have some identity that's challenged when people ridicule idiots who happen to share some opinions with me.  I've explained my objection really, really clearly in this thread:  I think this stuff is a waste of time at best, and an insidious comfort blanket at worst.  We could discuss animal rights in a substantive way.  It's disappointing when intelligent people like you and Ingemann dodge those difficult debates in favor of this fluff.

[Alcon]

This isn't a news event.

Since this is not 1984, you don't get to decide what's news and what isn't.

Nice zing, although weren't you just protesting that you should get to decide the constraints of discussion?

I think there was some lesson in 1984 about the consequences of artificially binding people's ability to have substantive discussions...but, idk, maybe Orwell was for that one.

[Alcon]

Yes, I am aware that we regularly have head-nodding outrage threads.  Those usually suck too, and I have no problem when they're changed into something more substantive.

I've explained why I "feel the need to" several times.  Instead of explaining how you disagree with this, or even hinting what part you find unreasonable, you keep defaulting back to the explanation that I'm doing this because I feel "defensive."

Here: I think most people who have similar animal rights views to me have them for shallow, lame reasons and -- being that they're from such a marginal group -- probably tend to be crazy people at unusually high rates.  So, yeah, I'm not really defensive about them.

Now that that's out of the way, maybe you could actually address my concerns about threads like these, addressed my substantive concerns on animal rights in that thread you stopped replying to, explain what substantive concerns exist in this thread, or just concede that you're just annoyed that the head-nodding is being interrupted.

[Alcon]

"Threads like these" are a fact of life on a political forum. They're not going anywhere. And if you really hate them that much, the best solution perhaps is to stop replying to them.

No, I think a better solution is to turn this thread into something substantive.  I explained why.  It's your right to continue to complain about it with no supportive reasoning, but that seems like a pretty impotent effort.

What concerns? I, like most decent people, oppose animal cruelty and generally support the actions of groups that take care of animals. I have never said anything in this thread against animal rights in general (nor did anyone else). So what is there to discuss there?

Or you really want to reopen the whole vegetarianism debate? I believe there is a thread expressly dedicated to that in another board.

Sure!  Go for reopening that debate!  I was the last person who posted in it, so you can jump right in.  Considering the vehement position you've expressed on this topic, doesn't it seem more worth your time to discuss that than to complain that insubstantive topics sometimes shift into substantive ones (DUN DUN DUN!!1)?

If you don't want to defend your position on meat-eating, I'm also open for some other debate.  We could talk about whether you put any effort whatsoever into actually limiting animal cruelty when you choose what meat to eat, and if that matters.  We could choose some other topic we disagree on, if you know of one.  I'm up for anything substantive.  But since we already know you are "the opposite of a vegetarian," and see vegetarians as having a dogma with no valid claim about third-party interests, that topic seems like a good place to start.  Pick your poison!

[Alcon]

No, actually I'm just utterly bored by this debate, and especially by your and Bgwah's obnoxiously militant and dogmatic stance on it (in fairness, you at least articulate your positions in a rational argument, which is more than can be said of Bgwah's deranged ramblings). I wonder how you would react if I was half as petulant and self-righteous on, say, feminism as you two are on animal rights.

I've spent a lot of time commenting on the vagaries of this question and what significance they have. What part of my argument is "dogmatic"?

I'm being aggressive.  Don't confuse being aggressive with being dogmatic.  Being dogmatic is intellectually dishonest; there's nothing wrong with being aggressive about ideas.

Everyone has their pet issues (no pun intended) and while I respect the fact that you feel so passionately about protecting animals from abuse, it is a pretty marginal issue to me, as I'm mainly preoccupied by the suffering of human beings. Again, if Bgwah can start a circlejerk against me on AAD because I dared to try and have a civilized discussion on gender issues, I don't see why I should sit through an endless lecture about why eating meat is VERY BAD.

Because the quality of the argument has absolutely nothing to do with who's making it and how much you like them, and because either way, I'm the one trying to engage you and I'm not bgwah.

[Alcon]

I don't quite understand all the heat generated in this thread. Surely most of us agree with the above, no?

Yes, we do.  Why the heat?  Imagine there was a substantive thread around gay rights, and people stopped replying to that thread to instead open one about how silly pride parades are.  Or if someone terminated a conversation about civil rights in favor of a thread highlighting the militancy of some particular small group of Black Panthers.

[Alcon]

Somehow I doubt there's a specific exemption in French law where you can steal other people's animals without due process of law if you think you'd treat them better   Nice attempt to turn this thread substantive, though.

[Alcon]

Somehow I doubt there's a specific exemption in French law where you can steal other people's animals without due process of law if you think you'd treat them better  Nice attempt to turn this thread substantive, though.

This thread have been substantive the whole way, except for your attempt to spam it to death.

I posted a post asking why this is substantive or important, and explaining why I think topics like these are problems when they aren't substantive or important.  In what sense is that "spamming," besides that you disagree and don't want to talk about this topic from that angle?  I think you're annoyed that I took your topic in a way you didn't like, but I have no idea how you'd characterize it as "spam."

I have repeatedly asked someone -- anyone -- to identify what significance this topic has to anything, besides that marginal activists are sometimes crazy jerks, or why we should care that they're crazy jerks if that's the point.  The answers were lacking, so I criticized the topic.  The fact that you don't like the criticism doesn't make it "spam."

Also this organisation can be a private organisation who work under a public mandate of animal's right protection.

You think that the French government gives a "public mandate" to a random activist group to do things like this?  Putting aside how obviously ridiculous that idea seems, where are you seeing any indication that's the case here?  It seems like you're grasping at straws to turn this topic into something substantive, which I guess is a step up from accidentally insulting yourself because you don't read messages.

(Y'know, responding to messages without having read them might generate something reasonably called "spam," don't you think?)

[Alcon]

I do not know enough about zoos to have an opinion on the matter, and if some species are shown to be unfit for such life, then they should definitely be released. Still, my point was that I appreciate the work of groups who try to provide animals with the care they need.

Also, no, I don't subscribe to the notion of "animal rights", because I see rights as the product of a social-contract between individuals capable of reason. I do however think that humans have a moral obligation to avoid unnecessary cruelty toward any being that can feel pain.

1. I'm not sure I understand your semantics.  In what sense do animals capable of feeling suffering but lacking contractual capacity lack "rights" that humans have?  I don't think anyone is arguing that animals deserve right to complete right of consent, or anything.  I think most of the arguments are about suffering...so what rights relating to suffering (or anything discussed here) should we confer only to animals with contractual capacity?

2. Do humans without contractual capacity receive these extra rights?

3. Do you make any more than passing effort to reduce unnecessary cruelty in your meat consumption patterns?  Do you think you have any moral obligation to?  Why/why not?

[Alcon]

1. I do not conceptualize it in terms of animal rights, but rather in terms of moral obligation. An action that causes unnecessary suffering is morally wrong in and of itself, regardless of who/what the subject of such action is. Such action does not violate an individual right, but a categorical imperative.

I don't have a problem with this.

2. I'm not sure what "extra rights" you are talking about. We limit the rights of children and mentally impaired people too, since they both lack the capacity to make use of those rights. Animals are even beyond that, since their behavior is entirely based on instincts rather than rationality.

I was asking whether the distinction between "rights-bearing" and "protected from cruelty but not rights-bearing" limited the extent of moral obligations or rights relevant to suffering.  As far as I can tell, the answer is no, but I didn't know that until this post.  I don't have a problem with this answer either.

3. I generally believe that the task of correcting social injustices befalls on public action, not on individual activism. Thus I'm not interested in investing myself personally into a cause, other than stating my arguments for it. I have never been to a protest, either. So no, I don't go out of my way to be 100% sure that the meat I'm buying comes from the most humane farm in the world. That said, I tend to buy organic food when available, so presumably I've avoided the worst cases.

OK, this is where your argument gets completely shoddy.  You claim an imperative not to cause unnecessary suffering, but you claim you're obligated to avoid meat-eating -- which causes unnecessary suffering.  A lot, dude.  You kind-of-sort-of-maybe prefer humane meat (which may limit unnecessary suffering but doesn't prevent it), and even then, you buy organic, which is a weak proxy for humane meat.

So, in sum, you don't care about avoiding unnecessary suffering if it's anything less than totally convenient and doesn't require you to change your diet at all.  Your rationale for this is that the task of correcting social injustices falls on "society," not you.  Your involvement in changing "society" extends to making not even the slightest demand that society change, not even altering your personal behavior unless it's completely convenient and nearly effortless, and for all purposes appearing to not give a damn if society changes.  This despite your ostensible 'categorical' moral commitment to avoiding unnecessary cruelty.

I can see why you'd prefer not to be invested in this topic.  You'd go broke quick.

[Alcon]

There is a big difference between actually causing harm to living beings and not spending hours figuring out what to buy or not to buy based on the way it was produced. Sure, there are a few high-profile corporations whose evildoing is well-documented (and you can, and should, avoid those) but when the practice is as widespread it's almost impossible to avoid unless you want to dedicate your entire life to that particular cause.

If the practices of the meat-farming industry is causing unnecessary suffering, then those practices should be outlawed. That's what governments are for.

So, basically, everything I said was completely, 100% accurate, with the addendum that you want it noted that you don't personally torture animals.  Oh, good!

You just, as I said, have absolutely no interest in even going slightly out of your way to avoid other people causing them systematic suffering because of your actions.  There's probably some really bad meat companies out there -- you know, those ones, the ones that would require too much research for you to bother to identify and avoid.  So you do absolutely nothing.  But you're intellectually aware it happens, so at least you're at peace with your uselessness.

But, no really, you're a super moral guy with a lot of strong, liberal feelings!  You really wish there were a way you didn't indirectly cause all that nasty suffering.  Too bad nothing is practical.  Vegetarianism?  That would require sacrificing a small proportion of the world's flavor profiles to fulfill a moral imperative you claim you have, and that's just going too far.  That would require your moral beliefs to have some sort of small cost associated with them!  That's just too much to expect of yourself, I guess.

But I'm sure if there were an e-petition to ineffectually "call on the meat industry to be better to animals" or something, you'd totally sign it, because that's the strong, upstanding, moral man you are.

Utterly disgusting.

[Alcon]

No, what I'm saying is that consumers are not responsible for the actions of corporations. This is one of those silly ideas that many modern activists have embraced, and which has significantly harmed their success on other fronts. Ironically, it plays right into the corporations' propaganda ("we're doing this because the consumers want it"). I'm glad that some activists take the time to make sure that everything they buy is perfectly 100% morally consistent with their views, but most normal people just don't have the time and energy to do that. And guess what, I don't give a sh*t if you think we are horrible people. By all means, keep patting yourself on the back.

There is no part of your argument I'm misunderstanding.  The only distinction you're drawing is that you don't execute the suffering personally.  You just knowingly do something that will inevitably cause the suffering.  Totally different!

Here's what's up.  You're preferring your own convenience, and a slightly broader selection of foods, even though you know the end result is increased suffering for sentient beings.  Literally, you think that having your preferred dishes is enough to justify that suffering.  You don't actually believe there is a moral imperative to avoid "unnecessary suffering."  You think suffering is just fine even if it's unnecessary, so long as the end result of that suffering is that you don't have to eat falafel or a vegetarian curry instead of a hamburger.  That's apparently your definition of "necessary."

And I'm not patting myself on the back.  I'm beating up on you.  The purpose of morality isn't to feel self-satisfied and comfortable.  Maybe that's the point you're lost on.

Perhaps we should get an opinion from someone who objected when some idiots caused suffering to another sentient creature for their own unnecessary self-satisfaction.

Utterly disgusting.

[Alcon]

I already said I don't give a sh*t if you think I (and most normal people who don't have about a thousand more serious things to worry about that where their meat comes from) am a horrible person.

OK...why not respond to my substantive criticism of your argument then?  What about what I'm saying is invalid?  "I don't care what you think of me!" isn't much of a defense of logical moral criticisms, which I am presenting.

You obviously have a very high opinion of yourself, since otherwise you wouldn't be so keen on beating up on the majority of people for not doing something they can't realistically be expected to do.

I never said I don't beat up on myself too.  It's healthy!    Feel free to do the same back, as you are (although calling me a "slacktivist" is a little baffling, coming from you.)

And how is the expectation here "unrealistic"?  It's not remotely "unrealistic" to avoid eating meat besides that you don't want to.

But tell me, how many animals do you think you have saved with your smug slacktivism?

Your entire argument is that you should have no obligation to go at all out of your way to enforce your "moral imperatives," and you're calling me a slacktivist?  To answer your question, it's pretty easy to quantify how many animals are slaughtered for food per American, and over an adult's lifetime, it comes down to something like 1,700 chickens; 60 turkeys; 25 pigs; and 10 cows.  That's not counting the male chicks ground up for egg-making.  For an adult male, these figures are probably higher across-the-board.  For somebody like you, an adult male who self-identifies as "the opposite of a vegetarian," it's probably moderately higher yet.  I realize supply and demand isn't perfect cause-and-effect, but unless you think demand doesn't correlate highly and fairly linearly with supply, and that your demand doesn't have as much effect as everyone else's demand, there's the answer.

So, that's the scale of the suffering that your decisions indirectly (but knowingly) result in.  Thoughts?

But maybe you'd like to argue that this is totally fine, when some jerks stealing a homeless guy's puppy is...

...

...

Utterly disgusting.

[Alcon]

I just explained why your moral criticism is invalid, and it's really pretty straightforward, since I have never hurt an animal in my life. You're the one who's accusing me of imaginary crimes, so forgive me if I don't take your criticism very seriously.

So, are you telling me that if you knowingly request something that will prompt another sentient creature to suffer, you bare absolutely no moral responsibility for the resulting suffering, as long as you didn't do it with your own hands?

Moving the goalposts much? You started this discussion telling me I should choose which meat I eat, and now you go again in full vegetarian fanatic mode. Forgive me, but I'm not going down that road again. I've had enough of this nonsense with your crazy friend.

Bull.  Quote me where I said humane meat was either suffering-free or morally acceptable.  My point was that you aren't just eating non-humane meats because it's unrealistic.  My point wast that, when confronted with a realistic option (vegetarianism) you still refuse to change your behavior.  That indicates you reject realistic options, which means you consider consider some aspect of meat-eating more important than your moral imperative to avoid harm.  So, your claim that you avoid unnecessary suffering is bunk.*

(* - This isn't necessarily relevant if you genuinely think you have no moral responsibility for things that you know will happen as a result of an unnecessary request you make or action you take.  I'm not convinced that's the case, but let's address that first.)

[Alcon]

I don't think killing animals is inherently cruel. I simply think that they should be treated decently while alive and be killed with the most humane method available. I think that eating meat and killing animals for that purpose is perfectly reasonable, and I wish to do that with as little animal suffering as possible. But obviously the world is not perfect, and I can do with it.

Hope that clears it up (but I won't lose sleep if it doesn't).

That's consistent with the criticism I've been levying.  I know that you'd prefer to avoid suffering, if all else is equal.  My criticism is that pretty much every other interest you have (slight convenience, taste preference) trumps that, and that's abhorrent.  If you applied this moral rationale to other situations ("as long as my hands aren't bloody, I can cause everything to happen so long as I have a preference for the results")...God, dude, can you not see how much of a problem that is?

Otherwise, could you point toward the specific part(s) of my criticism you think is inaccurate of your position?  As far as I can tell, all of your "clarifications" are just repeating things I've already noted about your position, while ignoring the criticisms I've levied against it.

[Alcon]

Yes, I don't lose sleep over the 0.0000000001% of animals that might hypothetically have slightly better living conditions if I spent 10 hours every day figuring out which company's meat I can buy and which I can't, or if I drastically and artificially limited the nutritional variety of my diet. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Putting aside that that's way hyperbolic, that's exactly why I offered vegetarianism as a much lower-cost solution.  You just basically shrugged it off with "I'm not going to talk about this," for some reason...

There is a much simpler solution that could save millions of times as many animals and leave alone the billions of humans who like meat and/or don't want to waste their time in such a way. Which is to enact stricter regulations. It would be a much better use of your time (and mine!) to advocate for such changes in policy instead of pestering some dude on the internet.

Having conversations that call into the question typical meat consumption as "obviously moral" is the only thing that's going to make people give enough of a crap to go vegetarian or do that.  Have you ever done anything like that before?  I'm guessing not.  How much thought do you put into doing something like that outside of the context of this debate?

I already have zeroed out my demand for meat.  If I thought that the political context was ripe to support this sort of regulation, I'd pursue it.  It's not, and won't be until people give a damn -- which is why I have these conversations.