>>> I should also have made it clear that I do not consider
>>> animal welfare driven food choices an act of consumer
>>> politics.
>>
>> But really, that's just because you reject all consumption
>> of meat, right?
>
> I no longer understand the usage of the word ‘reject’ ...
I doubt that.
> Does ‘reject’ mean I don’t personally take part in or
> agree with some idea or action?
No: you've made a decision for yourself about eating meat, and then you've presented your decision as 'an ethical imperative' and thus denounce everyone else whose ethics aren't up to your standards.
> I think it is fine that others do eat meat ...
Not if you craft your own choice not to as ethical you don't.
This is something like "I'm good at chess; great chess players are smart; if you can't beat me at chess, I'm smarter than you" ...
You're more ethical than me because you don't eat meat? Bleah.
>> And of course your own choice is not one of politics
>> either; it's simply a matter of ethics.
>
> Why “simply”?
I'm not giving you my viewpoint; I'm giving you *your* viewpoint. You said:
>> The issue, for those so inclined (or convinced), is not
>> simply one of sending a message to corporations, but is
>> an ethical imperative.
So are you asking why you said "simply" ...?
/jordan