August Spies

I am a minority meat-eater. THe majority of the people I hang out with are vegans, most of the rest are vegetarians. I don't feel the need to be much more persuasive than that. Look the issue is this: do you think eating animals is morally acceptable? I do. I don't grant non-humans the same rights as I grant humans.

From there it is just a matter of preference. If I like the taste, then i will eat it... and since it is cheaper than fake-meat... ill eat it.

There are persuasive vegan argumetns, such as the argument about enviormental damage and how its unhealthy to eat a lot of meat. But these arguments just say that you should eat less meat.

August Spies

for my part, I make the comparison NOT to discredit vegetarians by saying they are as bad as fundies... but to point out that in an argument where one side views it as a non-moral issue and the other does the debate is going to be similar to religious issues, like abortion.

LordSnooty

Another vegetarian myth comes to the surface. Again.

Do I grant the same rights to animals as I do to humans? I do not think that dogs should have driving licences. I do not value animals above human beings.

The only right animals need is the right to live their lives without being harmed for the purpose of satisfying human taste buds.

Paul

The AntiChris

Quite honestly, it really doesn't matter whether you consider animal welfare to be a moral issue or not.

If you are at all concerned about animal welfare then you at least share some common ground with ethical vegetarians. You may not agree with the degree to which they take their compassion for animals but, at the very minimum, you must acknowledge that concern for animal welfare is not the result of irrational faith in a mythical god.

This is why the theistic comparison is not only insulting, but unworthy of a 'freethinker'. It's merely a cheap shot designed to ridicule ethical vegetarians and avoid addressing the issues they raise.

BTW, do you really think abortion is a non-moral, religious issue? I think you might find some atheists/agnostics who'd disagree!

Chris

Valmorian

What I said was: "I can only hope that "morality" such as this, which does not affect another human being, will not be legislated. "

Emphasis mine, to indicate I was referring to the moral standpoint of eating meat. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.





Nope, nor did I equate the two. I simply state that since I don't grant the same rights to animals that I do to people, I enjoy the taste of meat, and I have no emotional investment in the animals being killed for food, I have no moral compunctions about eating them.

Again, however, this is all a moot point, since I was simply indicating that one should not be surprised at the outrage given by people who are implicated as immoral.




Just that I find the concern for animals being killed for food to be at about par for your concern for plant matter being killed for food.
*shrug*




Eh? Since when was I ever offended? I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I'm suggesting that being surprised at people being offended at being called immoral is amusing.

I've yet to see a rational debate here regarding meat-eating. I've seen a lot of emotional diatribes from both sides, however.


Once again, in case you missed it, I am NOT offended in the SLIGHTEST if you consider me immoral. I could not care less. Not at all. Not one whit. Nothing. Nada.

HOWEVER, I do find it amusing that you seem to jump to the following conclusions:
1. People being outraged at being referred to as immoral is 'surprising'.

This does not surprise me in the slightest.. even though.. and read this part carefully again.. I personally am NOT offended.

2. This outrage is due to their guilt at eating meat.

I find this very amusing. Much the same way that people being offended and outraged at being prosetylized are 'really' feeling guilty for rejecting God.

Yeah, right.

Valmorian

No, it's the result of an irrational empathy for animals that are killed for food.

Whether I personally have empathy for animals is notwithstanding, they are both arbitrary values.

I fully admit that my fondness for, say, my dog is irrational.



YOU might consider it thus. I consider it apt in that it points out that people assign moral values to any number of actions, regardless of personal benefit OR benefit to society.

Valmorian

Do you have a reason for this other than personal empathy?
Just curious.

LordSnooty

Why is it irrational to feel empathy with animals? Since many of their emotions and physical responses correspond with ours, why should we not feel empathy with them?

Paul

LordSnooty

Nope.

Paul

LordSnooty

Your fondness for your dog is no more irrational than your fondness for your mother, or any other human being.

How can fondness be irrational? It's impossible.

Paul