Just in case anyone was on the fence about whether vegans are insane...

[Burney]

Perhaps they just don't want to eat meat, dude. I've known several people who didn't eat meat and didn't make a fuss about it. They certainly weren't posing.

This poseur to whom you object - who exactly is he? He's not a man made of straw, perchance?

We were talking specifically about the ideological vegan or vegetarian. You surely don't deny such a beast exists?

[Sir C]

We were talking specifically about the ideological vegan or vegetarian. You surely don't deny such a beast exists?

Forgive me, I thought your condemnation was more all-encompassing. The ideological vegetable-botherer is a species with whom I have been intimately familiar and would tend to classify as ranging from the selfish virtue signaller to the actually mentally ill. The ones who feed their cats a vegan diet are espsecially worthy of a good kicking.

[Burney]

Forgive me, I thought your condemnation was more all-encompassing. The ideological vegetable-botherer is a species with whom I have been intimately familiar and would tend to classify as ranging from the selfish virtue signaller to the actually mentally ill. The ones who feed their cats a vegan diet are espsecially worthy of a good kicking.

Yes. The refusal to acknowledge that cats are pure carnivores and that one's duty of care to them therefore involves feeding them meat is morally reprehensible.

Mind you, a fully consistent animal rights loon would say that even owning a pet is exploitation and thus verboten.

[Sir C]

Yes. The refusal to acknowledge that cats are pure carnivores and that one's duty of care to them therefore involves feeding them meat is morally reprehensible.

Mind you, a fully consistent animal rights loon would say that even owning a pet is exploitation and thus verboten.

I certainly don't 'own' my cats in any meaningful way, since they make most of the decisions about how I live

[Ash]

I certainly don't 'own' my cats in any meaningful way, since they make most of the decisions about how I live

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

[Burney]

Yes. The refusal to acknowledge that cats are pure carnivores and that one's duty of care to them therefore involves feeding them meat is morally reprehensible.

Mind you, a fully consistent animal rights loon would say that even owning a pet is exploitation and thus verboten.

Mate, you've had them sterilised and you make them live in a walled compound to ensure they can't escape.

You're basically Josef Fritzl for cats.

[Peter]

We were talking specifically about the ideological vegan or vegetarian. You surely don't deny such a beast exists?

There is a worrying tension in your argument here b. You seem to be suggesting that it is morally bankrupt to tackle one problem without tackling all the others. As though giving money to one charity is wrong unless you give to them all. This is remarkably unfair.

We all prioritise what we choose to care about, what we choose to act on. If your issue is vegans announcing themselves as pure and superior beings, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Monty92]

There is a worrying tension in your argument here b. You seem to be suggesting that it is morally bankrupt to tackle one problem without tackling all the others. As though giving money to one charity is wrong unless you give to them all. This is remarkably unfair.

We all prioritise what we choose to care about, what we choose to act on. If your issue is vegans announcing themselves as pure and superior beings, I agree wholeheartedly.

Yes, this is a more concise version of my point. Mazeltovs.

[Burney]

There is a worrying tension in your argument here b. You seem to be suggesting that it is morally bankrupt to tackle one problem without tackling all the others. As though giving money to one charity is wrong unless you give to them all. This is remarkably unfair.

We all prioritise what we choose to care about, what we choose to act on. If your issue is vegans announcing themselves as pure and superior beings, I agree wholeheartedly.

No. My point is that I find the prioritisation of animal welfare over human strikes me as not a little immoral. And, if one changes one's life to facilitate the former while not doing so to facilitate the latter, it strikes me as undeniable that that is what one is doing.

[Peter]

No. My point is that I find the prioritisation of animal welfare over human strikes me as not a little immoral. And, if one changes one's life to facilitate the former while not doing so to facilitate the latter, it strikes me as undeniable that that is what one is doing.

I am not convinced that is strictly immoral, nor do I think it is an easy sell. We can all argue which behaviours contribute towards human suffering and we would not end up with an entirely clear picture. Owning an iPad, using an aeroplane, driving a car, liking football.

One fact that is difficult to deny is that centuries of progress which have raised the standard of living and life expectancy for humans across the globe has been coupled with a system that sees animals treated more cruelly than at any other point in history. I really dont see any hypocrisy in acknowledging that and not wanting to be a part of it.

Of course, one may buy the wrong mobile phone but I dont think that completely invalidates the point above.

THe bigger issue is the question of moral superiority. As soon as one attempts to make or portray that argument one is a bit of a ****.