Nation of meat eating animal lovers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SkodaMart
  • Start date Start date
elmarko said:
Simply having a personal religion doesn't have to impact on any third party.
Click to expand...

His point was referring to religion in general not 'personal' religion.

And he may have some semblance of point.

There are religions, for example, where unless you convert more people you're going to hell (Jehovah's Witness). Directly affecting third parties with your actions.
 
tibbsey said:
As awful as Wikipedia is as a source, I'm willing to trust it much more than your anti-meat propaganda. Also you know, the however many years of successful human propagation having had meat in our diet.

Also my canines are sharp and pointed. They extend further than my incisors by about 3mm. A picture of heavily orthodonticised and pearly white (likely American) teeth hardly depicts human teeth properly.

Humans can survive on a vegetarian diet nowadays due to the heavily GM'd fruits and veg we eat (in before "oh I don't eat GM". Yes you do. ALL cultivated food has been selectively bred for our purposes since agriculture began), also supplements. I hate vegetarians who say "oh i've got a perfectly balanced diet with supplements. Supplements means it's not balanced >.<

Off to enjoy a bacon sandwich with extra bacon. Maybe I'll have a side of bacon too.
Click to expand...

Send me some mate! Bacon is proof vegetarians are wrong...
 
elmarko said:
Oh dear me, I assume you are referring to yourself in that?.

Perhaps reading the actual text & not quote-mining may be something to try for the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

"To pose a question, from the perspective of the animal.

How exactly is being killed by a 15 year old kid and a lighter for his amusement or being killed (coupled with a lifetime of misery in most cases) for another kid because he likes burgers - really that different when examining the suffering caused & the end result?."
Click to expand...

So being burnt alive is no different to being killed instantly with a bolt through the head? :confused:
 
Iamzod said:
Hang on, quick motors search suggests the OP Drives a Skoda Octavia "Laurin & Klement" which if I'm not mistaken has a nice full leather interior. So he won't eat cow but it's perfectly fine to kill a few and skin them so he can have a nice interior?
Click to expand...

Ha, wow.
 
Jono8 said:
So being burnt alive is no different to being killed instantly with a bolt through the head? :confused:
Click to expand...

Those dogs weren't burnt alive, to be fair. They were killed by smoke inhalation.

Drawing similarity, quite a lot of animals in the meat trade are pre-stunned by CO2 gassing. Try breathing in and out of a plastic bag for a few breaths and tell me that's a humane way of dispatch (it's very uncomfortable indeed)
 
Jono8 said:
How do you know this? I would imagine at least some had a rather horrible death.
Click to expand...

Because fire doesn't spread very quickly compared with smoke. And it doesn't take long to die from smoke inhalation.

Maybe some of them suffered burns before death, but only if the fire started very close to them.
 
elmarko said:
Eating animals explicitly involves the killing of a third party (namely the animal) those against meat eaters wish to prevent occurring. Simply having a personal religion doesn't have to impact on any third party.

People are not trying to convince you to change you, but to attempt to save the life of another life-form.
Click to expand...

It is not obvious that animals should be considered a 'third party' at all. It is not obvious that it is wrong to kill animals, any more so than it is obviously wrong to kill plants or an unborn foetus. That animals are moral agents with inherent rights (like people, which would make it immoral to kill them) is a moral argument on which there is no consensus.

Presumably the comparison with religion was about person X imposing their idea of morality onto person Y. Person X telling person Y that they shouldn't eat meat because person X thinks it is immoral is comparable to that.
 
The gangbanging the OP is receiving is uncalled for.

Firstly, there's no hypocrisy in not eating meat and having a pet that eats it or owning a car with a leather interior. The fact of the matter is, by choosing to not eat meat, fewer animals suffer and fewer animals get killed as a direct consequence. The OP may be a vegetarian but, like most other ones, he's also a realist. It's perfectly OK to try to cause less suffering and it's unreasonable for some of you people to claim vegetarians should be extremists who refuse to accept any form of animal exploatation, under any circumstances.

Secondly, what we are doing to 99% of the animals we exploit, from the moment they are born to the moment they are killed, is morally wrong. Even if we have some justification (we have no choice, the world is what it is, it wouldn't be different in a jungle), it's still wrong. Society has not progressed to the point where we can realistically right this wrong but, at some point, it will and we'll look back feeling disgusted by the senseless savagery (just like we do now in other contexts such as slavery, racism, child abuse etc.).

Finally, he's also correct to compare dogs to badgers and those who care for the first but not for the latter are the true hypocrits. You say that dogs are pets but this is circumstancial as badgers can be pets too. Or, if you look to China, dogs are slaughtered regularly and sometimes eaten. The badger population is our problem, our choice to solve it is the easy, cheap one and it's no different than stray dogs getting slaughtered in the millions in developing countries.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom