The moral argument of eating meat & dairy

A

andy w

Well-Known Forumite
henryscat said:
Consuming animals and animal products goes beyond just being an individual lifestyle choice. That choice causes immense harm and suffering to other species, in which case it is legitimate to openly challenge and oppose that choice.



Again, what are the consequences of the choice to smoke? For instance, on those who choose not to smoke but are subject to second hand smoke? Or the effects on the NHS that the rest of us have to pay for? Or on families/friends left behind by those who smoke themselves into a premature and unpleasant death? The thread isn't about smoking obviously, but there is a line that is crossed by certain "lifestyle" choices and the consequences those choices have for others and in the case of eating animal products, other species.
Click to expand...
Surely the defining line should be if an activity is legal or not, and therefore eating meat, smoking etc is a legitimate lifestyle choice and should be left to the individual.
Can I ask what position would you take if someone was pushing for the ban of alcohol(seeing as there is a number of health and behavouer issuses) would that not be an attack on a legitimate activity.
 
henryscat

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
andy w said:
Surely the defining line should be if an activity is legal or not, and therefore eating meat, smoking etc is a legitimate lifestyle choice and should be left to the individual.
Click to expand...

That assumes that the law is always correct in matters of ethics, which I would argue it is not. Ultimately what is made illegal comes down to politicians and they're subject to all sorts of influence not least lobbying from business interests.

Can I ask what position would you take if someone was pushing for the ban of alcohol(seeing as there is a number of health and behavouer issuses) would that not be an attack on a legitimate activity.
Click to expand...

Interesting question... Alcohol in excess certainly has undesirable effects and impacts on others in society, so some intervention is justified. I probably wouldn't support an outright ban, but would support measures particularly aimed at dealing with the effects of excessive (binge) consumption. For instance, minimum pricing, tighter advertising rules, town centre establishments contributing to policing costs. If drawing a parallel with this thread I'd say that alcohol in moderation on the whole doesn't cause harm, but consuming an animal in any quantity still does.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
So despite alcohol related violence and crime towards other humans you wouldn't ban it, but you would ban eating meat that harms no humans?

Is it only mammals and fish you care about? What about reptiles, insects etc?
 
db

db

#chaplife
henryscat said:
I have no expectation that you will agree with what I've said, nor anywhere have I asked you to change. But.... I am intolerant of people who having made a choice are not prepared to defend or substantiate it, which on the whole you're not.
Click to expand...

er, yes he has - several times, and in as many ways as he can to try and make you understand, but your persistent blinkered views seem to stop you from seeing the obvious.. just because you don't agree with his justifications doesn't mean he hasn't presented any..

you even have other vegetarians and vegans disagreeing with you, because people like you make normal, well-adjusted veggies look bad :roll:

also, as others have said, you have demonstrated your double-standards in this regard vis a vis alcohol.. so basically, you only get a cob on if it's stuff you don't like.. if you indulge, then your scruples go out the window..
 
flossietoo

flossietoo

Well-Known Forumite
Um, as a 'normal, well-adjusted veggie', can I just say, on the subject of too many pies....did you SEE Terry Duckworth on Coronation Street last night???
He used to be handsome. Let that serve as a warning to all the girlies currently lusting after the strange hybrid boy-girls of One Direction.
Ok, you can carry on arguing now.
 
henryscat

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
also, as others have said, you have demonstrated your double-standards in this regard vis a vis alcohol..
Click to expand...

You are trying to compare two things that aren't comparable. Read what I said then see if you can back up your allegation. Except as usual you cannot or are afraid of doing so. All you ever come out with is superficial and banal tripe.
 
db

db

#chaplife
henryscat said:
You are trying to compare two things that aren't comparable.
Click to expand...

you mean like the time you compared people who eat meat to nazis?


th_emot-siren.gif
GODWIN'S LAW ALERT
th_emot-siren.gif
 
Mikinton

Mikinton

Well-Known Forumite
henryscat said:
I didn't say that, if I did then find a direct quote. However, the comparison between industrialised killing of animals and the Holocaust is a deadly serious one. I challenged you on that thread to state why you thought the analogy was incorrect: you couldn't then and you still can't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well I did, so here's your chance to respond.
 
db

db

#chaplife
henryscat said:
However, the comparison between industrialised killing of animals and the Holocaust is a deadly serious one. I challenged you on that thread to state why you thought the analogy was incorrect: you couldn't then and you still can't.
Click to expand...
as usual, you are making assumptions and delivering them as fact to back up your baseless, circular arguments..

i can state why it is incorrect, i just won't, because you will either 1) ignore it or 2) reply that you don't think it is a valid reason (i.e. anything you don't agree with, you maintain is not a valid opinion/argument)..

oh, alright then, i will: your analogy presumes that animals have as many rights and are "equal" to humans, ergo your nauseating comparison between me eating a mcdonald's and hitler's final solution.. this presumption is a moral belief and not fact..

i am not right, you are not right - it is a matter of opinion, not fact.. there is no absolute answer..

however, please take this opportunity to try and maintain otherwise.. aaaaaaaaaand - go:
 
Trumpet

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
Got to throw my twopennorth in here. I eat a varied, but very meat biased, diet and enjoy pretty good health on it. An ex partner used to eat a very vegetarian biased diet but occasionally ate chicken or salmon and also was pretty healthy on it. So I can't see any health benefits one way or the other. Something's going to get you eventually.
When it comes to life choices I'm with Tek-Monkey here, I eat lots of meat BECAUSE I ENJOY IT, I don't care whether anyone says that's a rubbish justification because I don't feel I need to justfiy my diet. I also enjoy riding my bike at high (sometimes ridiculously so) speeds when I feel road and traffic conditions allow (obviously only on foreign soil officer). I drink, probably too much on occasion and dabbled with soft drugs when I was a teenager but grew out of it without descending into a pit of despair or depravity.
I reckon people who go skiing are a little bit bonkers, no steering wheel, handlebars or brakes. Likewise horse riders, the thought of sitting on top of a tall possibly tempramental beast at speed also scares me. (I said possibly tempramental before the horseists set about me) But would never try to dissuade someone from following an enjoyable, for them, pursuit. It's all part of life's rich tapestry and I'm sure that conversely a percentage of skiers and eventers would probably not want to jump on a motorbike for their jollies.
Until sheep, cows, pigs, carrots, potatoes etc evolve as predators and start eating us we're higher up the food chain and that's a fact, live with it.
 
db

db

#chaplife
to paraphrase a popular internet meme:

Vegetarianism is like a penis: It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.. and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my throat :v:
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I think the problem is that HC thinks his moral compass is the only one the points true. I know mine doesn't agree entirely with 'the norm', but I don't really care. I believe animals are worth less than humans, just how it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: db
db

db

#chaplife
tek-monkey said:
I think the problem is that HC thinks his moral compass is the only one the points true. I know mine doesn't agree entirely with 'the norm', but I don't really care. I believe animals are worth less than humans, just how it is.
Click to expand...
exactly.. my morals differ from others (obviously; "if all cars were red," and all that) but if i encounter someone who disagrees with me on something that is based on opinion/morals, as opposed to fact, generally things go along the lines of:

1) i present my argument for why i believe what i do
2) they present theirs
3) we discuss the differences
4) one of us gets the next round in

whereas henry scat (much like councillor tom harris) is one of those frustrating people who insist on going "BUT I'M PRESENTING ALL OF THESE LOVELY FACTS AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, YOU MUST BELIEVE THE SAME AS ME, I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL YOU THINK ALONG THE SAME LINES AS ME! LOWER YOUR SHIELDS & SURRENDER YOUR SHIPS; WE WILL ADD YOUR BIOLOGICAL & TECHNOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR CULTURE WILL ADAPT TO SERVE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!11 :xd:"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top