-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
The moral argument of eating meat & dairy
- Thread starter Mikinton
- Start date
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
You failed to address any of his points, very telling.
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
If you'd have stuck to the "killing animals for food is morally wrong" argument, I'd have accepted it and moved on, but it's when you stray into the "consuming meat and dairy products is bad for you" point of view, I think "So what. Not my problem. I'll take the risk, thankyou." That's what I mean by 'irrelevant'; it is of no relevance to my situation. It may be of relevance to you, possibly because you're a bit of a chubster already, or you resent the extra burden on the health service of people with poor diets, but as I say, to me it's a bit of a non-issue. If I perceive it as a health risk, then I cut down but not cut out.
I mentioned this way back, I think, but if every obstacle you've thrown up was removed - animals had a great life until they were painlessly killed before their time, meat and dairy products were 'healthy' to eat, land use in rearing them was as efficient as if it had been devoted to growing crops - I still don't think you'd eat meat etc. (Which is fine, but don't try kidding us that all these other arguments, valid as they are in themselves, have any bearing on your decision on whether to eat meat.)
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
Only because I can't type on a proper keyboard at the moment. In the meanwhile, you haven't answered what are some really simple questions. The only reason you haven't is because it may challenge your thinking.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
So you can avoid a question because you are on a phone but I can't? Talk about double standards!
Come on then, list your simple questions here and I'll re-list mine. I forewarn you though most of my answers you wont like because I find your preachy 'moral' stance amusing. You are no better than a bible basher on that front, believe what I do because that is whats right! Thats a point, are we still talking moral issues only?
Obviously DB posted his points which you spectacularly avoided first, so when you get back to a keyboard feel free to answer his ones first.
Come on then, list your simple questions here and I'll re-list mine. I forewarn you though most of my answers you wont like because I find your preachy 'moral' stance amusing. You are no better than a bible basher on that front, believe what I do because that is whats right! Thats a point, are we still talking moral issues only?
Obviously DB posted his points which you spectacularly avoided first, so when you get back to a keyboard feel free to answer his ones first.
Lunar Scorpion
Anarchy in the UK
It isn't always necessary to kill "pests" and there are humane ways of dealing with them.
Lunar Scorpion
Anarchy in the UK
That's like saying it's okay to have a black person as your slave (assuming you're not black, of course).
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Not really, as I don't count people as animals? I do see it as acceptable to have a pet pony and a working cart horse though, if that helps?
Lunar Scorpion
Anarchy in the UK
Normally on here threads die a death after a few days debate so full credit to Henrys cat to this topic going for so long. Saying that I'm with db about the nature of this debate and gave up contributing to this thread a couple of months ago because it felt I wasn't going anywhere with certain members entrenched in their opinions and not prepared to accept other people had a point of view. Sorry to sound like a stuck record but it's funny how some people who like to consider themselves liberals have facist tendicies
Lunar Scorpion
Anarchy in the UK
Yes, I am indeed facist. I will not eat anything with a face or that came from anything with a face. That includes clock batteries - even digital ones.
Oh... You mean fascist! I think you need to look up the word personally, as I think you'll find that my disagreeing with your ill-considered opinion is nowhere near fascist, yet your speciesist violence is.
That is quite funny, like it
Then you sour the mood with an add on, oh well I suppose you can say(and eat) what you want
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
I'm not quite sure I get that site. If I judged everything on what it isn't I'd spend all day trying to decide what to have for breakfast, I prefer to prescribe to the scientific method of describing something. I don't see a pig as not human, I see it as a pig. If I want to look further, I'd think of it as a large mammal of the Suse family. If I wanted to look into its natural habitat I'd see that it now lives in many countries it shouldn't because man transported it there for food. I certainly don't look at it and think not a duck, not a chicken, not a goat, not a cow, not an axolotl, not a blue tongued skink.....
If you are simply getting at the fact I treat non-humans different to humans then you will find that is an entirely natural state exhibited by most species on the planet - it is certainly more natural than an omnivore refusing to eat meat. If man treated all animals as humans it would become illegal to keep your dog on a lead or your gerbil in a cage as that is false imprisonment, feeding them different food to yourself would be wrong as that is discrimination, I assume beastiality would become legal as well. Would they get employment rights too? At least we'd lose the stupid vet bills as they could get treated on the NHS. Or maybe it should go the opposite way, rather than animals getting human rights we should take the rights away from humans that animals don't have? Make it no longer a crime to lock people up and feed them crap? Kill them as you wish, eat them if you want. Tie them up outside the pub while you go inside for a drink perhaps?
You see, it all becomes rather stupid. You can't treat them as human for one purpose and not others, as that means you are still discriminating. Where do you draw the line, and why?
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
That's because either you haven't read it, or you have read it, but read it to mean what you want it to and not what it says.
On what basis do you do so?
Are you a racist? If not, on what basis are you not?
Define what you mean by natural.
This proves you haven't actually read what is written about speciesism....
Equal consideration of interests, which is the principle under discussion is that the same as equal rights. I do not require pigs to be given the vote. They should, however, receive equal consideration of their interests.
Read it again.... Or if you want another article, try a Peter Singer one:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1979----.htm
I doubt you'll read it, because as you have repeatedly shown you run a mile from anything that might challenge your thinking.
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
For a large part of the twenty or so pages, I have not seen a great deal of evidence of people with carnivorous or dairy eating tendencies to intelligently explain or justify it. What I have seen is a great deal of flippancy and denial, so I make no apology for my response.
What precisely is fascist about a lifestyle choice that doesn't kill, rape and steal children from animals?
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
I'm lost here. Sure I've been drinking, but why should pigs be given equal consideration but not the vote? Are they not human, in your bizarre way of looking at animals? Surely if we are not allowed to differentiate then a pig has as much valid input as you do?
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
Not sure why you pose that as a question. But if you don't count people as animals, then you are wrong. Humans are but one species in the animal kingdom.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
I note you still haven't addressed the points raise yet are continuing to ask others to explain themselves. Or are you still 'unable to type on a proper keyboard'
