Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
Firstly (and this is also a response to Monty) it is ridiculous to suggest that any behaviour deemed self sacrificial or ethical implies a sense of moral superiority. It may carry with it a sense of self satisfaction but that is hardly the same thing. Nor is how one may feel and how one chooses to express it the same thing. I dont care what you eat any more than I care what your favourite drink is, or that you have preference for anal sex at Office parties.

The fact that plenty of vegans feel a sense of superiority is undeniable but I am afraid that is entirely their fault. It is not a natural result.

It is a bit ludicrous present centuries of progress as the sole result of intensive farming. How exactly has that helped the huge swathes of India that are exclusively vegetarian? How has it helped in many other countries where intensive farming isnt used? How is the consumption of cheap meat increasing life expectancy?

Cheap food has helped in some parts of the world but is also contributing to health crises in other parts- see obesity in the USA and increasingly here in Britain- the prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, cholesterol and high blood pressure. It isnt all a glorious bed of life-giving tenderloin.

And finally, our moral structure is not predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. The example of the charity shows you havent actually changed your stance from what I suspected originally- that there must be moral equivalence across all your activities else all are rendered meaningless.
You're wriggling here. Once morality is brought into the question of food consumption - and there can be little doubt that many people who choose vegetarianism do so for moral reasons - there is the implied construction of a moral hierarchy with vegans at the top, vegetarians underneath them and all us ghastly carnivores at the bottom. On that basis, it's not unreasonable for carnivores to perceive some moral slight.

As to intensive farming, it is undeniably the best way to ensure not merely enough food to keep everyone alive, but to provide a surplus. That is why the Chinese are adopting it at a rate of knots (see their purchase of pig sperm from us a few years back). The Indians are getting richer, but I hardly think anyone would present them as a good example of how to keep one's population fed.

Meat and animal fats have been conclusively shown not to be a factor in increased obesity. Sugar has been far more damaging in that respect.

And I clearly demonstrated that our moral hierarchy is clearly based on prioritising humans over animals. Someone who kills a human is not regarded in the same way as someone who kills an animal and neither should they be. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Finally, it wasn't an office party, it was an awards ceremony. And it wasn't my preference, it was hers.