Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sharkey]

Pigs have the cognitive ability to be sophisticated.  Even more so than dogs and certainly three-year-olds.

I would eat three year olds if it were:

1) Culturally acceptable
2) They tasted good
3) They were good for me
4) Farming them were more economical
5) They didn't have the potential for much greater cognitive ability
6) I weren't wired up to feel sympathy for cute things

That last one seems to be the most important issue when it comes to eating critters, and most of the reason we don't strangle babies with their fucking umbilical cords.

And #5 can be used as an argument against eating sperm. Or, if you're only imperceptibly less retarded, against abortion.


I have a vegan friend who's practically militant about it. We've had the argument. We don't need to have the argument every fucking time. I make a point of eating pate around him whenever possible just because he's an asshole and I'd like very much for him to try to physically stop me so I could slug him for it.

I don't even like pate, but geese are assholes, too.

Actually, this whole issue could be avoided if we just started breeding food critters to be ugly, stupid and fucking mean. Except I can't imagine many things meaner, uglier or stupider than most of what we're already eating. Or most people.

[Brentai]

Actually, this whole issue could be avoided if we just started breeding food critters to be ugly, stupid and fucking mean. Except I can't imagine many things meaner, uglier or stupider than most of what we're already eating. Or most people.

Animal 51

Yes, I meant 57 and just typo'd it.  Whatever, the actual (mock-ups of the) thing is truly disgusting and not half as endearing as The Mayor's :3 cube.  Apparently for as creepy as the idea is, most people apparently want this animal to be bred.

[Kazz]

A vegan doesn't eat meat because he feels it is morally wrong to kill animals.  Anybody who argues that it's morally right to kill animals is making the wrong argument and asking to get guilted into submission.

The best counterargument that I can come up with: The meat industry is huge, ancient, and worldwide.  Your moral decision to refrain from eating meat is done in the vain hope that so many people stop eating meat that the meat industry collapses.  Even if you managed to do that, you wouldn't be saving the cows and chickens; the farmers, with no reason to care for them and no place to put them, would probably destroy their livestock.  Or if you managed to get them released, the unprepared creatures would die in the wilderness.  Unless you have some plan that involves buying up all the world's livestock and keeping them like pets indefinitely, the animals are doomed.

But that's all hypothetical nonsense.  You're not going to stop worldwide meat consumption.  Your refusal to eat meat puts absolutely no pressure whatsoever on the meat industry.  Someone else will come along and eat it, or at absolute best, it will rot on the shelf and its life will be a waste.  The animal that you refuse to buy the meat from has already been slaughtered; you can't save it by refusing to eat it.

The absolute BEST thing you can do for the animal is eat its meat, and respect the life that was taken by using it to support your own.  But if you refuse, I understand.  It's not my place to tell you what to do.  Just as it isn't your place to tell me what to do.  So fuck off.

[Brentai]

The absolute BEST thing you can do for the animal is eat its meat, and respect the life that was taken to support your own.  But if you refuse, I understand.  It's not my place to tell you what to do.  Just as it isn't your place to tell me what to do.  So fuck off.

[Sharkey]

Pre-Godwining this: They're already dead, might as well make lampshades.

In case you forgot that PETA campaign.

[Brentai]

Pre-Godwining

Hitler was a vegetarian.

It's a pretty good bet that he did it because he was paranoid about his own health and not because he had an aversion to gathering and slaughtering things.  Otherwise, well, I hope someone give him a firm steel-toed kick in the teeth for being a hypocrite.

EDIT: From Wikipedia:

In an attempt to disgust dinner guests and provoke them into shying away from meat, he reportedly told graphic stories of visits he had made to a slaughterhouse in the Ukraine. Food writer Bee Wilson notes: "It amused him to spoil carnivorous guests' appetites... As they put their forks down in disgust, he would harangue them for hypocrisy. 'That shows how cowardly people are,' he would say. 'They can't face doing certain horrible things themselves, but they enjoy the benefits without a pang of conscience.'"

Oh come the fuck on.

[Kazz]

Yeah, fuck you, Hitler.  You vegetarian.

[Büge]

And this is why I tend not to advertise my food choices.

[Fredward]

Hitler was, from my understanding, very fond of animals and children, and actually banned animal testing in Germany.

[Arc]

Yes, I meant 57 and just typo'd it.

The easiest way to remember the 57 number is to recall the famous Heinz 57 ketchup, which is actually a thixotropic fluid drained from the Animal in intervals and mixed with vinegar.

Mmm-mmm good.

[Sharkey]

A vegan doesn't eat meat because he feels it is morally wrong to kill animals.  Anybody who argues that it's morally right to kill animals is making the wrong argument and asking to get guilted into submission.

Doesn't seem like either side is any more or less valid if you're taking about pure morals. They're moral arguments; i.e. all equally meaningless until you make them practical arguments. Dude just telling me that it's wrong isn't doing any good, and doing it every time we go to a restaurant is going to provoke me into ordering veal in the hope that he'll leave.

Kind of like how you can find a million reasons not to go around killing or even just being a dick to other human beings, but it'll be a lot more productive to think about the actual practical why of it beyond "God says not to." And there are a whole bunch of good, interesting reasons.

I have not, however, heard sufficiently good reasons not to eat critters beyond it being kind of gross (don't care,) cruel (don't really think so or care,) and inefficient in terms of quantity of food produced per acre of land (would actually care about this, but am too goddamn put off by the fucking hypocrisy of this viewpoint being expressed by people who at the same time are frequently supporters of organic products and in opposition to GM crops.)

[Thad]

But that's all hypothetical nonsense.  You're not going to stop worldwide meat consumption.  Your refusal to eat meat puts absolutely no pressure whatsoever on the meat industry.  Someone else will come along and eat it, or at absolute best, it will rot on the shelf and its life will be a waste.  The animal that you refuse to buy the meat from has already been slaughtered; you can't save it by refusing to eat it.

The absolute BEST thing you can do for the animal is eat its meat, and respect the life that was taken by using it to support your own.

Breaks down logically.

You make the fair point that a vegetarian's choice not to eat meat will not impact the market and will not result in fewer animals being slaughtered.

Yet you then follow it with the suggestion that if the person instead chose to eat the meat, there would not be meat expiring on the grocery store shelf.

The "one person's not going to make a difference" argument is a two-way street.

[Kazz]

Fair point.  I'll have to bolster the argument by demanding that one eats as much meat as possible.

[Thad]

Which brings me to my next point:

I'm with Shark; practical arguments are much more interesting than moral ones.  Beef's generally bad for you and beef cattle are destroying the ozone layer.  Discuss.

[Kazz]

Point A, don't care, and Point B, the automobile deserves at least honorable mention in that category.

[Thad]

Frankly I think you can make a case for the automobile contributing to BOTH categories.

[Kazz]

I wouldn't know.  I think it's morally wrong to eat cars.

[Thad]

Okay, THAT would be a case where the moral argument is more interesting than the practical one.

[Arc]

We find your stance close-minded and culturally insensitive.

[Fortinbras]

Beef's generally bad for you

A life without cote de boeuf, braised beef, beef stock and jus seems barely worth living anyways.  If I can get another ten years of tasty animals in, it'll be a life well spent, richer and more fulfilling and with a greater breadth of experience than longevity and perfect health could hope to provide.

Not that it's an actual, viable argument (since people who eat red meat and don't give a shit about their health routinely outlive joggers and vegans,) but my hypothetical ten years of rich, unctuous, meaty oblivion would also have a less severe ecological footprint than sixty years of horrible, horrible tofu.