I agree that we shouldn't allow negative emotions to drive our decisions but I find it quite sad and heartless when people don't see any value in empathy and compassion. I don't know how we can ever live peacefully among ourselves and other species if we don't allow positive emotions, which connect us to drive our values. But that's another topic. That's fine, let's play by your rules of debate. There are plenty of scientific reasons not to eat meat. The health and environmental benefits of a plant based diet are extensive. BLOB_CASTLE mentioned the emission of gases exacerbating climate change. There's also the fact that growing animals for food uses way more resources than eating plants directly. This is particularly important with the growing global population. Animal foods are known to be the cause of many diseases currently affecting modern western society. Heart disease, stroke and certain cancers are some of the top deadly diseases caused by meat eating. There you go, 3 major (non-emotional) reasons not to eat meat: health, environment, resources.
No one is saying that empathy isn't valuable. What most of us are saying, is that we cannot default on empathy as an end of reason. You cannot just appeal to 'our better natures' and expect us to come over to your side. Vegetarianism has caused at least one death, and that of an infant. Adults make their choices, can you say the same for a baby?
Are you seriously comparing the irresponsibility of a vegetarian couple with the death of thousands of people due to consumption of animal products?!
There will always be irresponsible people regardless of background or ethical values, we can agree on that much. As I said in another reply any diet can be unhealthy upon the ignorance of nutritional requirements of the human body. Heck a lot of omnivores are deficient in vitamins and minerals for lack of eating enough veggies. The same way veggie diets can be deficient in certain nutrients due to carelessness. However, the difference of scale does matter. Taking an isolated example which is an exception to the rule and trying to compare it with the systemic health issues caused by meat eating is not a fair comparison by far and you know it. You're clutching at straws here.
When I ignore scale, i'm using to illustrate a point. The reason that you're more upset about the genocide of animals than the death of a human child, is because of scale, not because of kind. If we had your ideal system, we would have systemic problems resulting from the mass institution of veganism. Including most likely the mass enslavement of a significant portion of the human population to produce the amount of necessary complex plant proteins and fats. You're simply saying that it's okay to harm humans to produce human food, but not okay to harm animals to produce human food.
Seriously?! I honestly don't understand how you get to this conclusion using logic. I'm too tired to take this even remotely seriously.You're simply saying that it's okay to harm humans to produce human food, but not okay to harm animals to produce human food.
I appreciate the response. Personally, I have no interest at present in debating for/against meat consumption. I enjoy eating meat as part of balanced diet and that's all there is to it. I was merely trying to clarify why others might not have been accepting your prior arguments.