Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[rexbeccarox]

I've repeatedly asked you, la ban, to comment on my posts in this thread, starting on page four, and you still haven't addressed them. Is there a reason? I mean, you have pretty definite opinions, you MUST have one for my situation. Here are my posts in case you missed them:

http://atheistforums.org/post-578461.html#pid578461

http://atheistforums.org/post-578510.html#pid578510

http://atheistforums.org/post-578728.html#pid578728

[Clueless Morgan]

If a vegetarian doesn't like eating meat, they should not eat meat.

if an animal doesn;t want to be killed then it shouldn't be killed

So... what? Lions and cheetahs and wolves and sharks and eagles and every other carnivore ever only gets to eat suicidal prey animals?

That's not how life works. Animals get killed and eaten regardless of whether they want to be killed and eaten.

Also, you claim here that animals that don't want to be killed shouldn't be killed, but then are perfectly okay euthanizing pit bulls that can't or aren't being rehomed:

unfortunately it is almost impossible to rehome pitbulls a bread that is massively abused and is abandoned vastly more than any other breed.

They are euthanised because there is no human alternative. Many of the No Kill shelters have appalling conditions and those that doen;t have a chronic shortage of space. there just aren;t the facilities to house so many dogs.

They are not euthanized because they want to die, which is the argument you're making for why an animal should be killed, they are euthanized as a convenience for us humans so we don't have to go through the trouble of finding them homes or funding a shelter to house them.

Again, I say: Hypocrite much?

[Jacob(smooth)]

we try to pass laws so that everyone has to live by our standards. And that is wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Because they are not universal moral standards, but mere opinions.

I respect your view on animals, really I do. It's a nice sentiment. But it remains your view. Personally I don't give a scuttering Fuck about animal welfare (certainly not when there are millions of humans forced to live in vile conditions).

Then I despise your opinions.

And that's OK! But you still don't get to elevate them higher than being simply "your opinions".

And since there are obviously plenty of people willing to buy cheap, intensively farmed meat, I don't see how your ideas about the chickens welfare are more valid than the farmer's.

Non sequiter

Not really. I'm pointing out that while you hold one view, lots of people hold different views.

And do think that for families living in poverty, the choice between cheap, intensively farmed meat, and no meat, is not yours to make.

So/ I think otherwise

I'm getting that. So you think the choice of what other people are allowed to eat IS yours to make. I think you're rather self evidently wrong. Or perhaps you SHOULD be empowered to make that decision for everyone.

Gee, if only there was a system of government where people could vote in people who would change things they felt strongly about.

Oh and yeah. Eating meat is totally the same as fucking an 11 year old. Can't believe you went there.

Why not?

Because the last time I saw that argument was from a theist (I forget the stripe) making the argument that since atheists were ok with homosexuality they must be ok with paedophilia as well. Almost verbatim actually. If their was no moral standard then ANY behavior must be ok.

You know whats the same as Kiddie rape? Kiddie rape. And that's it. Neither homosexuality nor eating battery farmed eggs are the same as kiddie rape.

I'm sorry, but even bringing that into an argument about eating meat and farming is a bit of a douche move. Its not the same ball park. It aint even the same fucking SPORT.

[Bad Wolf]

Since you are clearly a troll ill leave you to it.

I could say the same of you.....

[là bạn điên]

I've repeatedly asked you, la ban, to comment on my posts in this thread, starting on page four, and you still haven't addressed them. Is there a reason? I mean, you have pretty definite opinions, you MUST have one for my situation. Here are my posts in case you missed them:

http://atheistforums.org/post-578461.html#pid578461

http://atheistforums.org/post-578510.html#pid578510

http://atheistforums.org/post-578728.html#pid578728

You want me to comment directly on your comments ? You aren't even going to the effort of asking a question?

Your first comment seems to be about iron deciciency which you admit can be solved through eating spinach but then claim you will eat steak because it has protein as well whereas you could eat spinach nuts and seeds , tofu etc and get both that way

Your second comments complain that you are not being answered properly.

Ask a specific question and you will get a specific answer

---

elsewise why is it when you stick someone on ignore they always reply to you knowing that you aren't actually goin to read it.

---

we try to pass laws so that everyone has to live by our standards. And that is wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Because they are not universal moral standards, but mere opinions.

I respect your view on animals, really I do. It's a nice sentiment. But it remains your view. Personally I don't give a scuttering Fuck about animal welfare (certainly not when there are millions of humans forced to live in vile conditions).

Then I despise your opinions.

And that's OK! But you still don't get to elevate them higher than being simply "your opinions".

And since there are obviously plenty of people willing to buy cheap, intensively farmed meat, I don't see how your ideas about the chickens welfare are more valid than the farmer's.

Non sequiter

Not really. I'm pointing out that while you hold one view, lots of people hold different views.

And do think that for families living in poverty, the choice between cheap, intensively farmed meat, and no meat, is not yours to make.

So/ I think otherwise

I'm getting that. So you think the choice of what other people are allowed to eat IS yours to make. I think you're rather self evidently wrong. Or perhaps you SHOULD be empowered to make that decision for everyone.

Gee, if only there was a system of government where people could vote in people who would change things they felt strongly about.

Oh and yeah. Eating meat is totally the same as fucking an 11 year old. Can't believe you went there.

Why not?

Because the last time I saw that argument was from a theist (I forget the stripe) making the argument that since atheists were ok with homosexuality they must be ok with paedophilia as well. Almost verbatim actually. If their was no moral standard then ANY behavior must be ok.

You know whats the same as Kiddie rape? Kiddie rape. And that's it. Neither homosexuality nor eating battery farmed eggs are the same as kiddie rape.

I'm sorry, but even bringing that into an argument about eating meat and farming is a bit of a douche move. Its not the same ball park. It aint even the same fucking SPORT.

Ha fucking ha. Complete hypocrisy. You claim I am not allowed to impose my view because it is not a universal moral position but you are allowed to impose your view that Having sex with 10 year olds is wrong even though that is NOT a universal moral opinion. Having sex with 10 year olds is quite allowable in a number of areas in the world.

Go on ,redefine and wiggle out of that one

[Aractus]

Sorry, i'm not following you

First you claimed the domesticated dog is a pack animal (genetics), then you claimed that environment matters more than genetics, then you claimed that the dog is a pack animal by environment (not genetics) - so why did you ever say it was a pack animal??

[là bạn điên]

Don;t bother with badwolf. he is just at tedious troll. I put him on ignore (and he still replies!)

[bennyboy]

if an animal doesn;t want to be killed then it shouldn't be killed

So... what? Lions and cheetahs and wolves and sharks and eagles and every other carnivore ever only gets to eat suicidal prey animals?

That's not how life works. Animals get killed and eaten regardless of whether they want to be killed and eaten.

That argument is weak. Humans are different, because we are sufficiently developed to comprehend and care about the suffering of others. We are also so advanced that we can grow and even synthesize alternatives to meat if we choose to do so. What if I kill another person and say, "Well, judge, apparently it's in my nature to kill others. That's just the way the world is." Would this work? Of course not! People are expected to recognize the value of others, and to avoid inflicting suffering on them. The question is whether that same umbrella of comprehension and respect should apply to other entities we know are capable of suffering. I don't see any particular reason why not; what makes the value of human suffering important, but that of other animals unimportant?

The reality is this. We know that eating meat involves horrible living conditions and an unwanted death of an organism (unwanted by it, that is). We make a choice between saving that suffering and having that Big Mac, and choose the Big Mac. But there's nothing natural about it.

[là bạn điên]

if an animal doesn;t want to be killed then it shouldn't be killed

So... what? Lions and cheetahs and wolves and sharks and eagles and every other carnivore ever only gets to eat suicidal prey animals?

That's not how life works. Animals get killed and eaten regardless of whether they want to be killed and eaten.

Also, you claim here that animals that don't want to be killed shouldn't be killed, but then are perfectly okay euthanizing pit bulls that can't or aren't being rehomed:

unfortunately it is almost impossible to rehome pitbulls a bread that is massively abused and is abandoned vastly more than any other breed.

They are euthanised because there is no human alternative. Many of the No Kill shelters have appalling conditions and those that doen;t have a chronic shortage of space. there just aren;t the facilities to house so many dogs.

They are not euthanized because they want to die, which is the argument you're making for why an animal should be killed, they are euthanized as a convenience for us humans so we don't have to go through the trouble of finding them homes or funding a shelter to house them.

Again, I say: Hypocrite much?

I would love to have every dog placed in a shelter, we don;t have the resources to do so. Pitbulls which make up the majority of dogs dealt with are almost impossible to rehome especially if they have been taken from dogfighters. The dogs trust (which I support) Never puts a dog down if they are healthy but it gets lots of money as does the Battersea dogs home in london. its all about finances.

[Bad Wolf]

First you claimed the domesticated dog is a pack animal (genetics), then you claimed that environment matters more than genetics, then you claimed that the dog is a pack animal by environment (not genetics) - so why did you ever say it was a pack animal??

A dog is a pack animal and needs a pack. That is genetic. The absence or presence of the pack is environmental.
Imagine fish. The need for water is genetic, the presence or absence of water, is environmental.

---

Don;t bother with badwolf. he is just at tedious troll. I put him on ignore (and he still replies!)

He calls me a troll?!? The guy that has been here a year and has only posted 441 times. The guy that seems to answer any question with three or four words?!?!
The guy that has a position that he cannot justify to himself and so sees the need to discredit the person who points that out.....Yea....i'm the troll (sarcasm)