: Since there is no other argument provided by the author, I can only assume this is how he justifies his return to meat-eating to himself and to others. I'd have to disagree. The theme that runs through the article is of an end to idealism, and associated with it an end to a form of phobia. This is I think what he is saying, that hte obsession with gory details are the preserve entirely of the vegetarian lobby, which is not to say that all vegetarians are obsessed, just that some are ;). From this point we have to ask why is this such a major argument: As a shock tactic it simply doesn't work - butchery is not a new art, and doubtless a couple of millenia, if not a couple of hundred years ago you and I would have thought nothing of butchering the family pig. Making the connection is not something that dissuade many people from eating meat: I'm aware the lamb I had this evening came from a sheep, and I've even seen the photos. SO if, for the larger part of the population, it is no problem to know that beef is cow, or pork is pig, or that there is blood involved in their deaths, then why is it a problem for the rest? Certainly I've known vegetarians whose distaste for meat is obsessional (If I had a textbook I'd get you a definition) and stretched to the extent that the wouldn't use the same part of the kitchen, or even the same fridge and insisted on total separation. That's no different from the way someone would act with a phobia of broccoli, say.
: The author of this article is basically saying whistle-blowers are the bad-guys, and it is virtuous to be ignorant, even when it is willful ignorance.
That is not how I read it. I think he's saying that there is an extent to which the behaviour of some vegetarians is obsessional. He doesn't that people ought to know, what he is saying that he still knows but has come to terms with it. The example of a vegetarian magazine is this: who other than a vegetarian would buy a specialist interest vegetrian magazine? but why do they feel that they should show, every issue, pictures of abatoirs? They would seem either to be preaching to the converted or otherwise fulfilling a need for their readership for some form of gratification. That is the brutalism of which he speaks. IMHO
:Could the same type of argument be used to justify slavery, spousal abuse, or torture? If I say, "Look, that man is trying to abduct that child! Hey, You! Stop that!" Am I "brutal"? What if I make it my life's work to help prevent child abuse? Am I "brutal" then, since I am drawing attention to the issue? What a bizarre thing to suggest, that angel-dom is defined through ignorance, and the demons are those who raise a stink about things.
I've read this a few times, and I'm still not sure I understand it. No but if in a newletter for those against, say, spousal abuse, there would be an outcry if every edition had in depth descriptions of methods used. No there's every reason to draw attention to these things, what there isn't a need for is wallowing in the precise details of what is involved by those who already know in depth.
On a totally different tack I'd like to know what the reasons other than distaste for flesh are for vegetarianism/veganism since that was what my original post was about.
