RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
January 21, 2014 at 1:48 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm by James2014.)
(January 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm)Chuck Wrote: The attempt at reduction of value system to a single variable along a single axis is, how do you say "simple minded, obsessive, impudent and infantile" politely?
No, that is not very polite.
(January 21, 2014 at 1:39 pm)StoryBook Wrote: Its glucose, your point?
Yep, glucose. Now If I get fat from an animal, add a few chemicals in there, I can turn it into glucose. I can then add a few more chemicals in there and polymerise glucose into cellulose. Sure I have used a few other synthetic chemicals in the process, but fundamentally I have fed nutrients from meat to a herbivore in a form that would allow them to be healthy, agreed?
(January 21, 2014 at 12:33 pm)StoryBook Wrote: Ok then...
1. Animals are conscious, and can suffer. They suffer more in the wild. They get chased, injured, strangled, starved, dehydrated and killed or die a slow/long death(days even). You are confused about nature being a happy place. Domesticated animals get food and water, shelter, and a place to grow with little worry of predators.
2.There is a difference from killing for food and abuse. If you are going to compare yourself to an animal then have fun out running a lion. Lions don't see eating a gazelle is wrong. They claw it, injure it, bite its neck, strangle it, paralyze it and eat it. They don't feel guilty about it, it is in their nature to eat meat.
3. As stated in 1 and 2 eating can cause suffering. Suffering is a fact of life. No matter what you do, you can't prevent that gazelle from suffering without causing another animal to suffer.
Therefore your logic is flawed. You are blind to what has been presented to you.
The points you raise then. Firstly could you clarify your argument for me? Do you agree that reducing suffering should be our prime ethical concern?
