Ed said:
>Not many would be willing
>to eat the burger if, as in
>the old days, they actually
>had to kill the animal themselves.

Actually, Ed, even in the "old days" most people didn't have to personally kill the animal from which they ate. HG societies usually have sexual division of activities like hunting, thus leaving at least half the group out of the hunt. Then factor out the kids, elderly, and otherwise unable. Finally, consider the degree to which a succesful hunter (or hunt group) would likely share his bounty with others, including hunt-eligible men whom had not participated in this particular kill. You are left with the high probability that even in the "old days," most folks did not have to personally kill the animal that they ate.

Admittedly, most of these folks would be much closer to that kill, and might be expected to help with cleaning/preparing/cooking the carcass, etc.

FOR ELAINE:
I respect the point that you are trying to get across to meat-eating folks. I would suggest that you might consider focusing your message more clearly.

If the primary point that you wish to impart is that factory farms/slaughterhouses are unimaginably horrific, then expand on that while leaving out the Dominionism, Speciesism, Religion, class analysis, and/or broad generalizations about human nature based upon pseudo-scientific novels. This is not to say that these other points aren't valid in their own right, but merely to say that they tend to distract and hinder the target reader from getting the central message that you want them to get. They get so riled up by these other emotionally-charged and value-laden terms that they can't even begin to seriously consider the "slaughterhouse" issue.

However, the horrors of the modern commercial slaughterhouse do not alone constitute a compelling argument against the eating of all meat, but rather for the personal avoidance of meat that comes from such a source. The issue is the same with eggs and dairy products.

In solidarity,
ne@nderthal