> wait for the person who does it better.

Which means less work for wambotron. Assuming that wambotron was paid hourly and not on commission basis, wambotron does less work for more pay, which is effectively a raise.

You (and parent commenters) should keep asking for thinner until you actually get what you want. Yes - let it take 15 minutes, if it has to. You're the one who's paying. The feelings of the employee are irrelevant - he has a job to do. The feelings of the people behind you are irrelevant - you waited your turn, too.

They're not wasted. Odds and ends go into a bin to be ground up later for "salads."

No, that's not it for me at all.

You can call it by some strange name, but I don't call bread "wheat that was harvested" or pie some outrageously long list of ingredients.

I understand your sentiment, particularly in the context of waste. Honestly I think you're probably not correct, anyhow--I imagine GP feeling roughly just as bad if the waste was a non-animal food product. If I were speaking for myself, I can say that I would.

I would imagine most people are either okay with animals living in X condition and then killed, or not okay with animals living in X condition and then killed. Why does it matter what you do with the corpse?

> Why does it matter what you do with the corpse?

If you have to kill something, or destroy something, at least have a good reason for doing so.

Cutting down a whole forest for no reason is not a good way to behave.

Cutting down a forest is only a problem if I'm not growing suitable new forest to replace it.

If I'm buying meat in the store I'm definitely paying for it to be replaced.

I don't see why a good reason is necessary when it comes to a renewable resource.

I support demanding good reasons for non-renewable resources.

Because you're actively killing a living thing.

In the same way I think it's not productive to call an animal that will killed "cold cuts", I don't think it's productive to refer to a living animal as a "renewable resource".

Also implying that you can kill and waste as many of them as you like simply because you paid for it is not productive either.

In all honesty, it's disappointing to see people refer to living creatures this way.

I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown. A lot of things die simply because I exist. If it was a top priority to minimize it I wouldn't eat meat at all.

I'm not trying to be insulting by calling things resources. Even the most important things like time are renewable in some important contexts.

Waste is not productive by definition, not sure where you're going with that. It's bad economically but not morally.

To get to the important part, I want animals to live without suffering. But cold cuts can't suffer.

And I'm not calling living animals cold cuts.

Thanks for the conversation, I appreciate it.

> I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown.

I used to feel the same way. A genuine question - have you ever done any active killing yourself?

I feel like it was a massive perspective changing experience for me to kill and butcher a ~1000lb wild creature.

I haven't. Maybe I'll try it some time.

Though there's a lot of difference in the wild vs. farmed part of the equation, not just in the details of killing.