Nation of meat eating animal lovers?

Mynight · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:37

cheesyboy said:
No, but it doesn't draw the same reaction as "burned to death!!!111oneoneeleven" does it?

And that's why i made the comparison with CO2 stunning. Also not very nice.

Oo apologies I didn't see your co2 post only the quoted part. I didn't even know co2 stunning was a thing

. That's actually quite disgusting

.

Steedie · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:39

cheesyboy said:
I'm glad you feel engaged with the issues raised. Good for you

Unfortunately, you can't have a debate with someone like this. I've had various discussions with vegetarians or vegans over the years, 99% of them are so stubborn and self-righteous that they can't see past their own viewpoint, totally blind to how hypocritical they are being.

And OP appears to be very similar, so I will just enjoy the posts by others

shiver · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:39

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned halal meat yet....

Oops..

Judgeneo · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:40

http://fortune.com/2011/05/26/mark-...y-what-he-kills-and-yes-we-do-mean-literally/

I believe this is the most moral way to eat meat.

Its not about the quality of life of the animal, its about the fact that you are taking a life to eat your meat. If you are not willing to personally kill the animal, then you should question why you are eating (or feeding a pet) in the first place.

I don't know of anywhere in the UK where this is possible, but I hope to start doing it in the future.

porushinobu · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:41

shiver said:
I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned halal meat yet....

Oops..

the last thing we need is adding halal to this. silly ~~subway~~ ... halalway

cheesyboy · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:41

Steedie said:
Unfortunately, you can't have a debate with someone like this. I've had various discussions with vegetarians or vegans over the years, 99% of them are so stubborn and self-righteous that they can't see past their own viewpoint, totally blind to how hypocritical they are being.

And OP appears to be very similar, so I will just enjoy the posts by others

Don't mistake me for a veggie. I'm a meat eater.

Steedie · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:42

cheesyboy said:
Don't mistake me for a veggie. I'm a meat eater.

I wasn't referring to you

I was talking about the OP

OhEsEcks · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:42

Judgeneo said:
http://fortune.com/2011/05/26/mark-...y-what-he-kills-and-yes-we-do-mean-literally/

I believe this is the most moral way to eat meat.

Its not about the quality of life of the animal, its about the fact that you are taking a life to eat your meat. If you are not willing to personally kill the animal, then you should question why you are eating (or feeding a pet) in the first place.

I don't know of anywhere in the UK where this is possible, but I hope to start doing it in the future.

I'd have no problem only eating what I kill. Except they won't give me a firearm license and apparently slicing a cows throat is inhumane. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Unless I can buy a crossbow...

Haggisman · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:43

SkodaMart said:
I find it offensive that people can be so upset over the death of 43 dogs.

how many badgers are about to be slaughtered needlessly?
How about Fox hunting?

How about the illegal invasion and murder in Iraqi?

43 dogs is trivial in comparison.

Would you have made the same insensitive responses to the other thread, be accusing people showing their dismay/sadness at the loss of being hypocrites, and be making the same comparisons here if it was a school/office block/old people's home, and it was 43 people who had died due to the fire instead of dogs?

shiver · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:43

OhEsEcks said:
I'd have no problem only eating what I kill. Except they won't give me a firearm license and apparently slicing a cows throat is inhumane. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Unless I can buy a crossbow...

It is actually very difficult to even keep your own livestock and kill it for eating these days.

There's lots of regulations meaning you have to ship it off to a slaughterhouse and then ship it back.

porushinobu · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:44

OhEsEcks said:
I'd have no problem only eating what I kill. Except they won't give me a firearm license and apparently slicing a cows throat is inhumane. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Unless I can buy a crossbow...

you can, but having it out in public is a different story

Haggisman · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:45

Judgeneo said:
http://fortune.com/2011/05/26/mark-...y-what-he-kills-and-yes-we-do-mean-literally/

I believe this is the most moral way to eat meat.

Its not about the quality of life of the animal, its about the fact that you are taking a life to eat your meat. If you are not willing to personally kill the animal, then you should question why you are eating (or feeding a pet) in the first place.

I don't know of anywhere in the UK where this is possible, but I hope to start doing it in the future.

I agree, and I'm sure when you're a multi-million/billionaire, it's easy enough to buy up a large patch of land, build a barn and all the required equipment.

Not so easy for someone living in a flat, or even in a terraced house with a 10x5m garden...

Judgeneo · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:51

Haggisman said:
I agree, and I'm sure when you're a multi-million/billionaire, it's easy enough to buy up a large patch of land, build a barn and all the required equipment.

Not so easy for someone living in a flat, or even in a terraced house with a 10x5m garden...

You don't have the raise the animals yourself to kill them, you just need permission from the owner.

Evilsod · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:52

Judgeneo said:
http://fortune.com/2011/05/26/mark-...y-what-he-kills-and-yes-we-do-mean-literally/

I believe this is the most moral way to eat meat.

Its not about the quality of life of the animal, its about the fact that you are taking a life to eat your meat. If you are not willing to personally kill the animal, then you should question why you are eating (or feeding a pet) in the first place.

I don't know of anywhere in the UK where this is possible, but I hope to start doing it in the future.

Is it? Does he have a plan to use every part of the animal he kills so as not to waste any and needlessly kill more?

There is no 'moral' way to eat meat. There is however the most moral way to use the animal that provided it.

Judgeneo · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:53

Evilsod said:
Is it? Does he have a plan to use every part of the animal he kills so as not to waste any and needlessly kill more?

As I understand it, yes. You kill the animal you get the carcass prepared by the butcher. If you waste, the waste is on you personally.

Haggisman · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:54

Judgeneo said:
You don't have the raise the animals yourself to kill them, you just need permission from the owner.

Hmm, this is true...

Fulax · 12 Sep 2014 at 14:55

Zethor said:
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.).

What does that 99% involve? Feeding them? Giving them open spaces to roam in? Treating their illnesses? Protecting them from predators? Generally taking care of them? To use a bogus analogy: it is morally wrong to own slaves, but it is not therefore morally wrong to feed them.

As I said above, unless you can make the case that animals are moral agents, it is not necessarily morally wrong to kill them. Until you can actually provide such a moral philosophy you're essentially saying 'I personally don't like the killing of animals for food, so neither should anyone else.' And then you proceed to judge the progress of society based on the degree to which it conforms to you own opinions. Great.

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 - slaughter and it's no different than stray dogs getting slaughtered in the millions in developing countries.

It is not 'circumstantial.' In the UK, dogs are pets and badgers are not; badgers are TB-carrying vermin, dogs are treasured family pets. What people do to dogs in China is utterly irrelevant to how someone in the UK feels about 43 dogs being burned alive. From an abstract universal perspective it may be hypocritical to care about dogs being killed but not badgers, but no one is expressing an abstract universal perspective. They are expressing their own.

For the same reason, I would be more upset at the death of one person I know than of a hundred people I don't know. Yes, that one death is trivial compared to the hundred considered in the abstract. But that one life meant more to me than the hundred I did not know.

SkodaMart · 12 Sep 2014 at 15:03

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?

I didn't choose the interior new.

I bought the car second hand as it was affordable in good nick.

I'm not getting into a leather interior debate anyhow as I don't intend to stop wearing leather shoes or belts.

I'm vegetarian not vegan.

I have also stated that I would eat meat if it was necessary.
Luckily I have the option not to.

elmarko · 12 Sep 2014 at 15:07

Fulax said:
What does that 99% involve? Feeding them? Giving them open spaces to roam in? Treating their illnesses? Protecting them from predators? Generally taking care of them? To use a bogus analogy: it is morally wrong to own slaves, but it is not therefore morally wrong to feed them.

As I said above, unless you can make the case that animals are moral agents, it is not necessarily morally wrong to kill them. Until you can actually provide such a moral philosophy you're essentially saying 'I personally don't like the killing of animals for food, so neither should anyone else.' And then you proceed to judge the progress of society based on the degree to which it conforms to you own opinions. Great.

It is not 'circumstantial.' In the UK, dogs are pets and badgers are not; badgers are TB-carrying vermin, dogs are treasured family pets. What people do to dogs in China is utterly irrelevant to how someone in the UK feels about 43 dogs being burned alive. From an abstract universal perspective it may be hypocritical to care about dogs being killed but not badgers, but no one is expressing an abstract universal perspective. They are expressing their own.

For the same reason, I would be more upset at the death of one person I know than of a hundred people I don't know. Yes, that one death is trivial compared to the hundred considered in the abstract. But that one life meant more to me than the hundred I did not know.

The desire to avoid plain & seek pleasure, for freedom of movement & avoidance of death is beyond simple preference for the animals in question.

SkodaMart · 12 Sep 2014 at 15:07

Zethor said:
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.

Great post reflects my feelings, thanks.