The AntiChris

No, I was referring to the original threads I'd been involved in.

You should check out the past year's archives of this forum to get some idea of the ugly history of this topic.

Chris

LordSnooty

Ah, sorry Chris.

I have indeed noticed in previous threads that vegetarianism is a touchy subject here.

Paul

Valmorian

Any moral argument is by definition a statement of preference.

As for if I was in the minority, I suspect it would not make a bit of difference what argument I made, it would still be considered immoral.

I can only hope that "morality" such as this, which does not affect another human being, will not be legislated. I have no problem whatsoever if every person on the planet but I thought I was immoral for eating meat. Just as I really don't care if every person on the planet thought I was immoral for wearing makeup, or not praying, or reading pornography.

LordSnooty

Do you support fox hunting? Badger baiting? Cock or dog fighting? Young thugs that that kill and torture animals for their own entertainment? Is that acceptable? I'm assuming you'll say yes, either out of a desire to shock or a refusal to back down on your extreme views.

I may sound as though I'm being facetious, but I'm genuinely interested.

Incidentally, please stop comparing vegetarians to religionists. Such snide comparisons do neither you nor your arguments any favours. There's a world of difference between not praying, and kicking a badger in the face. Just ask a badger.

Paul

The AntiChris

Then you presumably don't support legislation enacted to protect animals from cruelty and mistreatment?

Chris

Valmorian

I do, because it suits my own moral code. I'm not so arrogant to assume that it is objectively "right", however. I find it distasteful, in the same way that I find, say, someone playing loud music outside my apartment window is..

Worthy of a fine, possibly some community service, but in no way would I put cruelty and mistreatment of animals anywhere near the same league as cruelty and mistreatment of humans.

Of course, this is simply my own moral code, and so long as I'm lucky enough to live in a society where the majority shares it, I'm good.

What's your point, exactly?

Valmorian

Support? No. However, I recognize that this is from personal distaste. I certainly don't afford the same rights to animals that I do to humans.

*sigh* Of course, you say you "assume" I would say yes. You seem to make an awful LOT of assumptions.



My PERSONAL preference is that animals be kept humanely, and killed with the minimum amount of pain and suffering possible.



Of course, the badger won't answer at all. Nor is it capable of answering.

In the case of a starving omnivorous animal with the capacity to kill me, I'm sure it wouldn't consider MY 'right to life' whatsoever.

I see you find such comparisons 'snide'. Why would that be? Shall I suggest that it's because you feel guilty and know that you really DO Believe in God?

This is the sort of argument I see from the Vegetarians here.

The AntiChris

Valmorian

To point out that your original statement wasn't accurate. You do in fact support legislation "which does not affect another human being" when it suits your "moral code".

The point being, to show that you share a similar "moral code" with the ethical vegetarian. The difference being one of degree rather than of fundamentally opposing values.

Well good for you! However, you have demonstrated that you don't have to be an arrogant objectivist in order to be willing to coerce others with the force of law when it suits your moral code.

Chris

Valmorian

And nowhere did I ever state that I DON'T support such legislation. I stated I HOPED that I would never be in a society that legislated the killing of animals for food as a crime. (Perhaps that wasn't clear enough, however, I'll give you that.) There are PLENTY of laws that restrict behaviours that a society finds distasteful. *shrug* I'm simply glad to live in a society that doesn't place the 'rights' of animals at the same level as those of humans.

[/q]

I can support legislation to curb unnecessary cruelty to animals without supporting legislation that would make the killing of animals for food illegal. So, I agree that it's a matter of degree.

Of course, excluding cruelty to plants is also a matter of degree.

Indeed, I never stated that you HAD to be. I'm not sure where your confusion arises. I simply pointed out that it's no great shock that people are offended when you imply they are immoral.

The AntiChris

Valmorian

No, in fact you didn't say that. It might be what you intended to say, but it's not what you said.

I don't think anyone has suggested (at least on this thread) that animals should be put on an equal footing with humans. Unless you think that the cessation of raising and killing animals for food automatically grants those animals rights "at the same level as those of humans". Stretching the imagination a little I think.

I'm not sure what the point of this statement is? (I wondered how long it would take for the burning issue of vegetable rights to raise it's ugly head )

Yes, but the whole point is that you're condemning a group of people who take a slightly different view to you (one merely of degree, as you've admitted) as being being offensive.

Hardly a position conducive to rational debate.

Chris