Why are you not vegan....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raymond Lin said:
It is necessary to kill them so i can eat it. I am not exactly going to eat it while it screams on my plate, i am NOT that cruel.

You are not my doctor so don't go down the "what is healthy" for me route, please?
Click to expand...
But you don’t need to kill it. You can eat numerous other things without killing animals.
Again, I eat meat (not a lot but I do), I can still realise it’s wrong.
 
Ahleckz said:
But you don’t need to kill it. You can eat numerous other things without killing animals.
Again, I eat meat (not a lot but I do), I can still realise it’s wrong.
Click to expand...

Treating animals badly is wrong, caging animals with no room to so much to take a step is wrong, killing and eating it, is not.

What's next? start forcing lions to be vegan in the wild and teach them some morals?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Treating animals badly is wrong, caging animals with no room to so much to take a step is wrong, killing and eating it, is not.

What's next? start forcing lions to be vegan in the wild and teach them some morals?
Click to expand...
Why is killing something, that doesn’t want to die, out of choice, not wrong?

Though, I can tell by your second paragraph you aren’t genuine about having a discussion. A lion can’t go to Tesco and buy what it needs. It needs to eat that gazelle. You don’t. You can decide to do so, but you should realise that taking a life unnecessarily is wrong.
Taking a life can’t be ok, what gives anyone the right to kill anything else that doesn’t want to die?
I’m not saying don’t do it, I’m just saying you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim the moral high ground when it’s evident you don’t have it.

It’s pretty simple, killing is wrong. You can say you don’t care, and that’s fine, but you can’t claim it isn’t wrong and it isn’t a corruption of morals.
 
Ahleckz said:
Why is killing something, that doesn’t want to die, out of choice, not wrong?

Though, I can tell by your second paragraph you aren’t genuine about having a discussion. A lion can’t go to Tesco and buy what it needs. It needs to eat that gazelle. You don’t. You can decide to do so, but you should realise that taking a life unnecessarily is wrong.
Taking a life can’t be ok, what gives anyone the right to kill anything else that doesn’t want to die?
I’m not saying don’t do it, I’m just saying you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim the moral high ground when it’s evident you don’t have it.

It’s pretty simple, killing is wrong. You can say you don’t care, and that’s fine, but you can’t claim it isn’t wrong and it isn’t a corruption of morals.
Click to expand...

To put it simply, if I think is wrong to kill something for food, I would go vegan. I won't do it halfway. I already eat less meat than most, i don't have it every meal or even everyday.

I am not the kind of person to put this in the wrong aspect in my head for moral reasons and then still eat meat, even a little. That makes me a hypocrite. It's wrong to kill something for fun, but it's not for food.

There is no moral high ground just because of a single lifestyle choice, it is arrogant to think that you are if you think that way. Because morals is not 1 dimensional and not dependent on 1 choice, it is a collection of choices.

I don't claim the moral high ground btw, but I disagree that you have it because you eat no meat or less meat. Whilst in other aspects of your lifestyle could be worse than mine environmentally wise. That is just arrogant. No?
 
Last edited:
I enjoy the benefits of eating fish and occasional red meat. Not talking about a McDonald's here, but there is nothing better than a steak with salad or Tuna pasta!

I'll stick to been less superior to someone who practices Veganism, one day I'll be just like them a vastly superior human race. One day, I can only dream. :cry: Some stuff I read on a forum is very strange haha.
 
Raymond Lin said:
To put it simply, if I think is wrong to kill something for food, I would go vegan. I won't do it halfway. I already eat less meat than most, i don't have it every meal or even everyday.

I am not the kind of person to put this in the wrong aspect in my head for moral reasons and then still eat meat, even a little. That makes me a hypocrite. It's wrong to kill something for fun, but it's not for food.

There is no moral high ground just because of a single lifestyle choice, it is arrogant to think that you are if you think that way. Because morals is not 1 dimensional and not dependent on 1 choice, it is a collection of choices.

I don't claim the moral high ground btw, but I disagree that you have it because you eat no meat or less meat. Whilst in other aspects of your lifestyle could be worse than mine environmentally wise. That is just arrogant. No?
Click to expand...
I guess we are coming at it at different positions. I think we can separate morality into issues, and I suppose you would have to add them up to see who the more ‘moral’ person is. I’m arguing that in this aspect, moon man has more morality than you and it’s ok for him to claim that. For him to say he’s a morally better person overall would be more dubious.
I would suggest that those who consider animal welfare and don’t kill probably live their life more morally in lots of other areas but that’s by the by for my argument.
You however are looking at a bigger picture, and claiming just because someone doesn’t kill unnecessarily that doesn’t make them morally better than anyone else. The trouble with your argument is that no one could be defined as moral as there’d always be something (probably) that removes some morality.
 
Ahleckz said:
I guess we are coming at it at different positions. I think we can separate morality into issues, and I suppose you would have to add them up to see who the more ‘moral’ person is. I’m arguing that in this aspect, moon man has more morality than you and it’s ok for him to claim that. For him to say he’s a morally better person overall would be more dubious.
I would suggest that those who consider animal welfare and don’t kill probably live their life more morally in lots of other areas but that’s by the by for my argument.
You however are looking at a bigger picture, and claiming just because someone doesn’t kill unnecessarily that doesn’t make them morally better than anyone else. The trouble with your argument is that no one could be defined as moral as there’d always be something (probably) that removes some morality.
Click to expand...

I am also being more realistic as well as the bigger picture. Is it remotely possible to make the planet, or even a single country like ours to be completely vegan or even vegetarian?

No chance, not even 1% chance.

However, it is possible to reduce our meat intake as a society, which THE BIGGER PICTURE will save more lives of animals, and less of them will die.

My way would have more impact and actually possible and sustainable.

Of course, I am looking at the bigger picture, I have explained this like 5 times now. Telling someone you are morally better is just rude, and would not work and would get up people’s backside and cause them to do the opposite. If you want to achieve what you want, that’s not the way to do it.

The vegans however do not understand this. I really cannot understand why.
 
Minusorange said:
Would you kill it yourself if you didn't have the convenience of somebody else getting the blood on their hands instead ?
Click to expand...
If we didn't have industrialized, large scale farming you can absolutely bet they would, so would you too. Why? Because that's what we would have been brought up doing for generations. We would have continued as Hunters, as such *everyone* would be totally used to the idea and the mechanics of killing an animal and then processing it's body for food and useful materials.
Modern large scale agricultural farming and global shipping / availability is what has "allowed" the notion of a Vegan diet at all, tbh.
 
krooton said:
You can't spell evangelical without vegan. ;)
Click to expand...
i know you are joking but this is an interesting point........ Vegans are essentially claiming Jesus was immoral. Now, dont get me wrong, I am fine with that, but when he told that fella to recast his nets and he filled em with fish, there must have been a lot of very cheesed off fish - if we are to assume any truth in religious texts and not think it is a load of made up horse hockey.

I saw something the other month which made me cringe. people mentioned about whether lions are unethical for eating meat, and the argument was no because they need meat.... (I agree). but where do we stand with dogs? PErsonally i think it is wrong to force veganism on dogs but ................ https://omni.pet/


it is all a sliding scale, I guess vegans feel the same way about a person eating even "ethically" sourced meat as I do about, say people who eat shark fin soup or buying ivory trinkets or medicines........ so I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

I am fine with people eating meat, but i am not fine with killing an animal for a tiny percentage of said animal, and I am definitely not fine with throwing said mutilated animal back into the sea to die a slow and presumably terrible death.

I do find the chat interesting tho.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am also being more realistic as well as the bigger picture. Is it remotely possible to make the planet, or even a single country like ours to be completely vegan or even vegetarian?

No chance, not even 1% chance.

However, it is possible to reduce our meat intake as a society, which THE BIGGER PICTURE will save more lives of animals, and less of them will die.

My way would have more impact and actually possible and sustainable.

Of course, I am looking at the bigger picture, I have explained this like 5 times now. Telling something you are morally better is just rude, and would not work and would get up people’s backside and cause them to do the opposite. If you want to achieve what you want, that’s not the way to do it.

The vegans however do not understand this. I really cannot understand why.
Click to expand...
We aren’t going to get anywhere.
It’s without doubt that the person who doesn’t eat meat is morally better, in that aspect, is better than the one who does.
You can continue to deny that for reasons, but you’re wrong. Killing an animal that wants to live is wrong. It can’t not be. You can ignore that, and decide your choice is more important but it doesn’t remove the fact that it’s morally wrong.
But, you seem to think it’s fine to kill so we aren’t going to agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom