(April 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: You mean it's not needless because you enjoy the taste so much?
There is little we can do about the wild, as you say. If you were in the wild you might not be at the top of the food chain and may be eaten by a large predator. Does this mean we can take your life in a less painful way?
Farfm animals do not always have food readily available. The killing may be mostly quick but the suffering in the weeks and moths beforehand is not.
I'm against animal cruelty, not the eating of meat. If animals were being harmed and given poor treatment I would be against the poor treatment. Morality has nothing to do with what you eat.
Quote:It maybe atheism attracts those who don't want to live by any ethical or moral code; maybe that's what they didn't like about religion.I don't think I'm unethical or immoral in anyway. I've done no wrong as far as I know. Eating certain foods isn't immoral in anyway. Eating meat is immoral to you. It's your opinion and of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I just don't agree with you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.