Vegetarians are hypocritical.

ScoTTyBEEE said:
I don't see why wearing wool would be an issue, shearing its fur doesn't kill an animal.
Click to expand...
Indeed, assuming they are looked after well - fed & given a good degree of space (which most seem to be) - then it's a similar trade off to our cats & dogs - who trade affection for food/companionship & a home.

With sheep it's wool for food & a home.
 
Nitefly said:
It depends on how far they wish to take it. 'Morally speaking' (from a vegetarian point of view) it's better to only consume dairy than to consume meat AND dairy, so it's a compromise position. Not much wrong with that.
Click to expand...

That milk could be for baby cow.

THINK OF THE BABY COW

:p
 
Nitefly said:
It depends on how far they wish to take it. 'Morally speaking' (from a vegetarian point of view) it's better to only consume dairy than to consume meat AND dairy, so it's a compromise position. Not much wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Exactly ;).

People need to stop trying to see things in black & white, it's a common human flaw.
 
RDM said:
Who would pay for that?
Click to expand...
PETA - all the vegans/veggies in the world by donation - it was an example.

I was making a point that in theory it could happen, in response to the comment that ending the consumption of meat would cause suffering - which is not objectively true.

As there are a number of options available, another possibility - phasing out the supply over time - using existing stock until the last remain.

The key point being, it's not like we would HAVE to kill every single farmyard animal the second as a species we collectively decided to stop eating meat (in theory).

Edit - I can't believe I really had to explain that.....
 
ScoTTyBEEE said:
I don't see why wearing wool would be an issue, shearing its fur doesn't kill an animal.
Click to expand...

Except that wool is really part and parcel of keeping sheep for meat. If sheep weren't bred for meat then it wouldn't be finacially viable just for the wool.

If you were wool then you are just as bad as somebody who eats lamb IMO. Unless you make sure your wool comes from ethical farms which just have sheep for wool (which I have never heard off).

That's what really grinds me about moral vegetarians who claim they don;t eat meat because of the cruelty etc but eat dairy, sometimes even fish, and wear leather or have leather seats in their car or leather sofas etc.

To me, you either have to go vegan or eat meat and unless its for health reasons (allergies etc) then you can't just be a vegetarian on moral grounds.

And in my mind it's better to eat meat than buy a leather sofa as eating is part of keeping alive whereas you can live without a leather sofa.
 
Nitefly said:
It depends on how far they wish to take it. 'Morally speaking' (from a vegetarian point of view) it's better to only consume dairy than to consume meat AND dairy, so it's a compromise position. Not much wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Except when they bleat on and on about it and take a superior position to you (or try to)

I do agree that it's a compromise but should be accepted as such. Listening to lectures from them about how they couldn't possible eat meat due to the cruelty etc just grinds on me when they are stood there in a leather jacket, leather handbag and leather shoes.
 
Judgeneo said:
My housemate is an ex vegetarian, but he refuses to eat lamb.
Chicken? Beef? Fish? Fine, lamb? Nope.

He's never even tried it, I worry for him.
Click to expand...

Oh lawd. I've heard that one too from the nutjob. Their reason was the age that Lamb are slaughtered as "they haven't led a fulfilling life so it's wrong to eat them". They completely refused to acknowledge the differing lifespans between different animals and the resulting "effective" age. It was as if they thought sheep lived until they were a hundred years old and it was cruel to slaughter them at 5-6 months old.:rolleyes:
 
Nitefly said:
It depends on how far they wish to take it. 'Morally speaking' (from a vegetarian point of view) it's better to only consume dairy than to consume meat AND dairy, so it's a compromise position. Not much wrong with that.
Click to expand...

There is though. If they ate chicken but didnt eat dairy or eggs would you think thats alright?
 
Greebo said:
Except when they bleat on and on about it and take a superior position to you (or try to)

I do agree that it's a compromise but should be accepted as such. Listening to lectures from them about how they couldn't possible eat meat due to the cruelty etc just grinds on me when they are stood there in a leather jacket, leather handbag and leather shoes.
Click to expand...

I've never had any vegans or vegetarians bleat on at me and I've lived with 6. Anyone that bleats on critically at somebody for something that is, objectively speaking, relatively unimportant is just a phallus face.
 
TheCenturion said:
Why don't you explain your view point a bit more? I can't really understand it.

I'm a vegetarian, I rarely eat eggs but regularly drink milk (in small doses as I'm not very lactose tolerant :o)

How am I hypocritical?
Click to expand...

Firstly, why are you a vegetarian? Don't want to form an argument and it being irrelevant to you.
 
salami1212 said:
There is though. If they ate chicken but didnt eat dairy or eggs would you think thats alright?
Click to expand...
I don't understand why people focus on the species.

I'd prefer person A who eats 1 steak a week (you can eat that for a long time off one cow) to person B who eats 20 eggs & 50 fish a week.

It's total consumption of animal material based on the suffering - what specific species is meaningless (imo).

Everybody should try to consume less meat, but that's more for environmental & health reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom