The act of eating is a service.

[Tenet Nosce]

From the human's perspective, it's not murder, because the human doesn't even think the animal is a being who deserves life, and the human thinks killing animals is just normal, so how could it be murder? Murder is intentionally taking the life of another person. If the human doesn't think the animal is a person, then it's obviously not 'murder' in the same sense as a human ruthlessly killing another human.

I see what you are saying- although I think there is some gray area you missed. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody who eats meat thinks animals aren't deserving of life. Though I would imagine that some do.

As regards murder- yes this means intentionally taking the life of another person. Clearly, we could go round and round about what constitutes a "person" and probably wouldn't get anywhere! But at the least, I think we could agree that the term "animals" represents such a vast range of lifeforms that to make a blanket statement that "animals are people too" is quite a stretch. I mean- if I tried to make a case against the "murder" of shrimp wouldn't you consider that a little absurd? Are shrimp to be considered people?

The action is the same. It's an act of bloody violence, and stops a beating heart.

Is it really? I mean- do you really consider the slaughter of a pig in a factory farm as the same action as swatting a housefly? Flies not only have a beating heart, but nine of them!

When vegetarians say "killing animals is murder" we are referring to the animal's perspective, in an effort to elicit compassion in humans who are ignoring the animal's perspective and thinking only about the taste of that burger.

I get it- however I simply question whether or not that actually works to elicit more compassion or not. I will admit- I do not really know! But what I do know is that vegetarians could say "killing animals is unnecessary" and that would be a much less contentious point. I imagine it would result in a much greater percentage of a given audience being willing to open their hearts and listen to whatever else they have to say.

Surely, if a vegetarian is unable to establish a basic sense of compassion and rapport with a meat-eater, then the chances of being successful in their objective to increase the meat-eater's compassion toward animals is pretty small.

If by "extreme" you mean acts of vandalism, I agree.

If by "extreme" you mean billboards, or being tenacious in expressing one's opinion in an internet discussion forum, then I'd disagree.

Yes, I am referring to the vandalism and such. But I am also referring to the employment of extreme language. I seem to be having difficulty communicating this effectively.

Let's take a totally different example, and one which I know we are on the same page about. Look at the media reporting on the Ron Paul campaign this last week: "Ron Paul Drops Out", "Ron Paul Ends Presidential Campaign", "Ron Paul Admits He Will Not Be President" are a few examples. None of these are true! The language these articles are using is more extreme than what is actually the case. That is different from calling these reporters extremists.

Getting back to our example with animals- and in my opinion- murder is an extreme term. One could say: kill, slaughter, or slay and it would be more accurate. Again, in my opinion.

One could also say: murder, assassinate, or annhiliate. These are valid synonyms, but tend to connote something more extreme.

So- yeah- you could say that I murdered a fly last week. But what would be the point in doing so? Wouldn't that actually detract from the argument?

Yup, I murdered a fly last week. I also murdered some bacteria in my bathtub, and murdered a celery plant from my garden. Now what about those cows again? If all killing is murder, then why should I care about any of it? Being a murderer then becomes simply part of being a human- or any physical lifeform for that matter- and there is nothing I can do to change it. So why should I try?

Here's a different example from pop culture: AMAZING! Everything is frigging AMAZING nowadays. People say: wow that hummus was AMAZING! Really? Were you really AMAZED by that hummus? Was there something puzzling or inexplicable about the hummus? Or was it just tasty and delicious?

Here's where we might disagree. What I was trying to express in my previous reply to you, is that if Person A feels "judged" by Person B expressing their opinions about xyz, when Person B never even said anything directly about Person A personally, then it is Person A's responsibility for what they are feeling. It's NOT Person B's fault if Person A feel butthurt just based on disagreement of viewpoint.

Now if Person B says to Person A "you are stupid" then yes, of course Person B is responsible for their rude comment. But when Person B just says "I think xyz is wrong" and Person A engages in xyz, it's not Person B's fault if Person A feels guilty, butthurt, offended or whatever.

Oh no, I agree with you about all that! I just mean from a pragmatic standpoint of achieving the stated outcome of influencing people to eat less meat, or to stop eating it altogether.

What I am trying to say is: people are people. And for better or worse (I think worse) people seem to be more and more on edge and looking for any reason to get butthurt or offended. At the end of the day, if something we say results in butthurt or offense of our audience (whether or not we think it is an appropriate response) then all we have done is alienate them, and then they aren't going to listen to ANYTHING we have to say.

Thus, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would we do that?