Confederation and meat consumption

[Jim Kent +]

Jim Kent mentioned photos of abortions. If a thread were started about killing fetuses and the spiritual implications, would it be okay to ignore what really happens physically—to skirt around the facts and pretend it's something other than what it is (physically)? There is much philosophy to explore, but isn't it best to proceed from fact? How can a subject be canvassed if part of it is ignored because of sensitive feelings or the fear of giving offense? Isn't it a user's choice here whether or not to participate in a thread? We have guidelines in place for managing content. (Caveat: I am making no statements about abortion either way in this example.)

I get the point you're making and I agree.

But I will never react well or even positively to anyone using words or pictures in a deliberate attempt to elicit an emotional response to reach a desired outcome. 

This is because of the natural negative reaction I've had to the Roman bullshit a billion of us were tainted with.   

You want to deal in facts, fair enough, the only fact I consider I know in this life-time is that I exist...

I can't call it a fact, but I consider it highly likely that there are hundreds of millions of ex-Catholics that will never react positively to such moral manipulations, and this is why I'm arguing that much of the "Vegan" approach, here and elsewhere is fundamentally flawed. 

I would happily become vegan if I could trust a proper scientifically formulated diet that worked for all genetic types and life-styles, but with so many clear and binary agendas, I would find giving this trust to anyone, very difficult.

I've tried to meet somewhere in the middle, but this doesn't seem to resonate with anyone, enough to comment anyway.

Without wanting to sound rude to any participant of this forum or this thread in particular, I getting tired of this, these discussions are getting us nowhere in my opinion and we're all just going round in circles - so I'm out