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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Nonsense. We are doing our human thing from a position of awareness. We have knowledge of the consequences and morality of our actions. The mosquito does not.

People choose to be fundamentally awful. Corbyn chooses to support the IRA or whichever oppressive dictator takes his fancy on the day. Owen Jones chooses to be a repulsive little gimp and consciously tries to use his position to encourage turning this country into a socialist hellhole, even though he knows the effect this will have on his fellow citizens. peter chooses to support these monsters. sw chooses to spunk his wages on Guinness, beat his children and píss in his wife's wardrobe.

All conscious choices. All guilty.

---

Nah. Free will is an illusion. How can it be anything else, when not one cell in your body or your brain (i.e. everything that makes you who you are) was your choice? None of us are the true authors of our actions, in any meaningful sense.

Moral culpability has a deep purpose and without it we'd be fúcked. But it is inherently illogical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Nah. Free will is an illusion. How can it be anything else, when not one cell in your body or your brain (i.e. everything that makes you who you are) was your choice? None of us are the true authors of our actions, in any meaningful sense.

Moral culpability has a deep purpose and without it we'd be fúcked. But it is inherently illogical.

---

Who are you, Mr Spock? You can't hide your guilt behind pseudo-intellectual balls. Reason it as much as you like, ultimately you're a nasty little shít with possible sexcrime tendencies because you shoose to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Who are you, Mr Spock? You can't hide your guilt behind pseudo-intellectual balls. Reason it as much as you like, ultimately you're a nasty little shít with possible sexcrime tendencies because you shoose to be.

---

I'd love you to elaborate on what is pseudo-intellectual about pointing out that not one cell in your body or your brain was your choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

I'd love you to elaborate on what is pseudo-intellectual about pointing out that not one cell in your body or your brain was your choice

---

Why are you choosing to oppress me over this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Why are you choosing to oppress me over this?

---

You realise he is Jewish :corbynforpm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

Nonsense. We are doing our human thing from a position of awareness. We have knowledge of the consequences and morality of our actions. The mosquito does not.

People choose to be fundamentally awful. Corbyn chooses to support the IRA or whichever oppressive dictator takes his fancy on the day. Owen Jones chooses to be a repulsive little gimp and consciously tries to use his position to encourage turning this country into a socialist hellhole, even though he knows the effect this will have on his fellow citizens. peter chooses to support these monsters. sw chooses to spunk his wages on Guinness, beat his children and píss in his wife's wardrobe.

All conscious choices. All guilty.

---

We have some awareness, sure. But we also have our instincts. And, as endless examples show, a few missed meals and our 'morality' disappears like an ice lolly on a hot day. Does that make us evil? Or does it just make us animals like everyone else?

The irony, in fact, is that our coveted moral sense is a luxury we have acquired only by ruthlessly exploiting other people, animals and our environment in order to ensure a constant supply of food, water, warmth and shelter. Only the acquisition of those things has given us the luxury to construct a moral universe. Take those things away and morality disappears. Or, if you prefer, we return to a state of 'innocence' in which 'morality' is neither here nor there.

The point is that that we are just animals and only as 'innocent' or 'guilty' as other animals. Also, every aspect of civilised life is tainted by 'immorality' at some point or another. Just because we don't participate directly doesn't make us any less complicit. And, in that context, I find singling out animals for especial concern over humans distinctly odd and not a little distasteful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

We have some awareness, sure. But we also have our instincts. And, as endless examples show, a few missed meals and our 'morality' disappears like an ice lolly on a hot day. Does that make us evil? Or does it just make us animals like everyone else?

The irony, in fact, is that our coveted moral sense is a luxury we have acquired only by ruthlessly exploiting other people, animals and our environment in order to ensure a constant supply of food, water, warmth and shelter. Only the acquisition of those things has given us the luxury to construct a moral universe. Take those things away and morality disappears. Or, if you prefer, we return to a state of 'innocence' in which 'morality' is neither here nor there.

The point is that that we are just animals and only as 'innocent' or 'guilty' as other animals. Also, every aspect of civilised life is tainted by 'immorality' at some point or another. Just because we don't participate directly doesn't make us any less complicit. And, in that context, I find singling out animals for especial concern over humans distinctly odd and not a little distasteful.

---

Nice to see you stick up for Owen Jones, Corbyn and sw, b.


Although one of those is completely unpalatable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

We have some awareness, sure. But we also have our instincts. And, as endless examples show, a few missed meals and our 'morality' disappears like an ice lolly on a hot day. Does that make us evil? Or does it just make us animals like everyone else?

The irony, in fact, is that our coveted moral sense is a luxury we have acquired only by ruthlessly exploiting other people, animals and our environment in order to ensure a constant supply of food, water, warmth and shelter. Only the acquisition of those things has given us the luxury to construct a moral universe. Take those things away and morality disappears. Or, if you prefer, we return to a state of 'innocence' in which 'morality' is neither here nor there.

The point is that that we are just animals and only as 'innocent' or 'guilty' as other animals. Also, every aspect of civilised life is tainted by 'immorality' at some point or another. Just because we don't participate directly doesn't make us any less complicit. And, in that context, I find singling out animals for especial concern over humans distinctly odd and not a little distasteful.

---

What a lot of old cobblers.

Are you still running most days, btw? The glw has challenged me to run 1,000 miles this year, which means a 5k pretty much every day. Seems unlikely, but I have accepted and only have 987.6 miles left to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

What a lot of old cobblers.

Are you still running most days, btw? The glw has challenged me to run 1,000 miles this year, which means a 5k pretty much every day. Seems unlikely, but I have accepted and only have 987.6 miles left to do.

---

It's not a load of old cobblers, it's the unpalatable truth. Our morality is a paper-thin conceit that relies for its existence on thousands of years of suffering, exploitation and death. As m says, it's societally useful, but that doesn't make it any less of a nonsense.

Must admit, the old running has been pretty erratic lately. The plan is to get back into it come spring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

We have some awareness, sure. But we also have our instincts. And, as endless examples show, a few missed meals and our 'morality' disappears like an ice lolly on a hot day. Does that make us evil? Or does it just make us animals like everyone else?

The irony, in fact, is that our coveted moral sense is a luxury we have acquired only by ruthlessly exploiting other people, animals and our environment in order to ensure a constant supply of food, water, warmth and shelter. Only the acquisition of those things has given us the luxury to construct a moral universe. Take those things away and morality disappears. Or, if you prefer, we return to a state of 'innocence' in which 'morality' is neither here nor there.

The point is that that we are just animals and only as 'innocent' or 'guilty' as other animals. Also, every aspect of civilised life is tainted by 'immorality' at some point or another. Just because we don't participate directly doesn't make us any less complicit. And, in that context, I find singling out animals for especial concern over humans distinctly odd and not a little distasteful.

---

There is some justification in singling out animals for especial concern. Yes, by acquiring modern luxuries we are complicit in the suffering of other humans. But everyone agrees that this is sub-optimal and it would be better if we could have such luxuries without any human suffering - and significant efforts (both intentional and inadvertent) are made to move closer to this ambition (see the numbers who have been pulled out of poverty by capitalism over the past 100 years). This consensus is far more ingrained than, say, the belief that it would be better if we could enjoy a KFC without some chickens having suffered a horrific existence, even if we all know that to also be true.

So there is some requirement to redress the balance. Not to shift focus away from humans to animals, or to make us believe it's just as bad for animals to suffer as humans (which it obviously isn't), but to shift the dial on our ethical framework to *some extent* in order to reduce suffering among animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

I think that's the point, though. There is only one valid reason to not eat meat, because you don't like the taste.

As soon as it becomes more than that it becomes an ideology of some kind. And at that point it becomes irritating and pathetic and, more importantly, intellectually indefensible.

---

:nod: My ex was a veggie because she didn't like the taste of meat, she'd happily still cook me food with meat in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

There is some justification in singling out animals for especial concern. Yes, by acquiring modern luxuries we are complicit in the suffering of other humans. But everyone agrees that this is sub-optimal and it would be better if we could have such luxuries without any human suffering - and significant efforts (both intentional and inadvertent) are made to move closer to this ambition (see the numbers who have been pulled out of poverty by capitalism over the past 100 years). This consensus is far more ingrained than, say, the belief that it would be better if we could enjoy a KFC without some chickens having suffered a horrific existence, even if we all know that to also be true.

So there is some requirement to redress the balance. Not to shift focus away from humans to animals, or to make us think it's just as bad for animasl to suffer as humans (which it is obviously not), but to shift the dial of our ethical framework to *some extent* in order to reduce suffering among animals.

---

But the point is that to do something about the one thing while demonstrably not doing something about the other is morally dubious to say the least. It is quite possible to - for instance - give up your mobile phone, not drive a car, not travel by aeroplane, refuse to transact with morally questionable businesses, etc, etc. However, those choices are likely to have negative professional and financial consequences, so most people eschew them.
To me, a vegan or vegetarian is someone who has decided to publicly announce themselves as a moral being in a world replete with injustice, suffering and misery and - rather than choosing to take a difficult stand - has chosen the easy one of just not eating animals. That strikes me as a fairly huge cop-out and tells me the person isn't actually serious about morality, merely posing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

But the point is that to do something about the one thing while demonstrably not doing something about the other is morally dubious to say the least. It is quite possible to - for instance - give up your mobile phone, not drive a car, not travel by aeroplane, refuse to transact with morally questionable businesses, etc, etc. However, those choices are likely to have negative professional and financial consequences, so most people eschew them.
To me, a vegan or vegetarian is someone who has decided to publicly announce themselves as a moral being in a world replete with injustice, suffering and misery and - rather than choosing to take a difficult stand - has chosen the easy one of just not eating animals. That strikes me as a fairly huge cop-out and tells me the person isn't actually serious about morality, merely posing.

---

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. :shrug:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

:nod: My ex was a veggie because she didn't like the taste of meat, she'd happily still cook me food with meat in it.

---

:nod: been in that situation too, although she also ate fish so not really properly veggie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

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. :shrug:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

I insist you read my posts properly before you reply, Peter. :-)

I specifically said that not eating meat was intellectually indefensible only once it became an ideology.

---

What you actually said was that the only valid reason was not liking the taste. I was pointing out that it was entirely possible to have reasons for not wanting to eat meat, beyond not liking the taste, without forming an ideology or boring everyone to tears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

But the point is that to do something about the one thing while demonstrably not doing something about the other is morally dubious to say the least. It is quite possible to - for instance - give up your mobile phone, not drive a car, not travel by aeroplane, refuse to transact with morally questionable businesses, etc, etc. However, those choices are likely to have negative professional and financial consequences, so most people eschew them.
To me, a vegan or vegetarian is someone who has decided to publicly announce themselves as a moral being in a world replete with injustice, suffering and misery and - rather than choosing to take a difficult stand - has chosen the easy one of just not eating animals. That strikes me as a fairly huge cop-out and tells me the person isn't actually serious about morality, merely posing.

---

Oh we can all have contempt for the overt posing/posturing/moral grand-standing aspect of veganism and vegetarianism. But from a purely utilitarian point of view, there is logic behind it all.

Quite simply, if we can all agree that the worst possible thing is for all sentient beings to experience the maximum suffering, then to reduce that suffering by any margin is a desirable outcome. If that can be achieved while being morally inconsistent, smug, experiencing cognitive dissonance or any number of other unattractive human traits, then it is still arguably worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

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 ****.

morally superior to someone who doesn't give a **** about the horrors of factory farming and other facets of modern animal welfare and has absolutely zero inclination to not play a part in it. How could you not? You have laid out your position on how appalling it is. You may acknowledge that you aren't whiter than white, but you can't deny there is some moral judgement at play here.

So by your own standards, does this not make you a bit of a ****?

I would obviously never suggest such a thing, I am merely playing your own argument back to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

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 ****.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

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 ****.

---

Of course it's immoral. Our entire moral structure is predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. If a driver chose to swerve to avoid a dog knowing they would hit a human instead, they would be prosecuted for having made an entirely unacceptable moral decision. By the same token, if someone chooses to support the RSPCA over the NSPCC (for instance), they are guilty of exactly the same moral failure, but cannot be prosecuted for it. They are no less guilty of it, however. The same applies to those who think it's more important to take steps not to eat animals than to avoid the exploitation and suffering of their fellow human beings.

You acknowledge that our progress has gone hand-in-hand with the increased suffering of animals but fail to make the connection between the two, which seems disingenuous to say the least. Our 'progress' has relied and continues to rely on that suffering. How much human suffering are you prepared to tolerate for an end to highly-efficient (albeit morally-repugnant) factory farming? Would you be happy to price meat back out of the reach of the poor in order to achieve this? What gives you that right? How can you possibly justify such technological regression on the basis of your personal feelings?

Clearly, if a vegan believes the eating of animals to be morally wrong, the inescapable conclusion is that they believe that by not doing so, they are morally superior to those who do. They might not say that, but clearly and undeniably that is what they believe just as I believe that because I don't rape people I'm morally superior to a rapist. The sense of superiority is implicit in the action (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Of course it's immoral. Our entire moral structure is predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. If a driver chose to swerve to avoid a dog knowing they would hit a human instead, they would be prosecuted for having made an entirely unacceptable moral decision. By the same token, if someone chooses to support the RSPCA over the NSPCC (for instance), they are guilty of exactly the same moral failure, but cannot be prosecuted for it. They are no less guilty of it, however. The same applies to those who think it's more important to take steps not to eat animals than to avoid the exploitation and suffering of their fellow human beings.

You acknowledge that our progress has gone hand-in-hand with the increased suffering of animals but fail to make the connection between the two, which seems disingenuous to say the least. Our 'progress' has relied and continues to rely on that suffering. How much human suffering are you prepared to tolerate for an end to highly-efficient (albeit morally-repugnant) factory farming? Would you be happy to price meat back out of the reach of the poor in order to achieve this? What gives you that right? How can you possibly justify such technological regression on the basis of your personal feelings?

Clearly, if a vegan believes the eating of animals to be morally wrong, the inescapable conclusion is that they believe that by not doing so, they are morally superior to those who do. They might not say that, but clearly and undeniably that is what they believe just as I believe that because I don't rape people I'm morally superior to a rapist. The sense of superiority is implicit in the action (or lack thereof).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

morally superior to someone who doesn't give a **** about the horrors of factory farming and other facets of modern animal welfare and has absolutely zero inclination to not play a part in it. How could you not? You have laid out your position on how appalling it is. You may acknowledge that you aren't whiter than white, but you can't deny there is some moral judgement at play here.

So by your own standards, does this not make you a bit of a ****?

I would obviously never suggest such a thing, I am merely playing your own argument back to you.

---

One may consider one's own choice to be morally superior, by definition. That is NOT the same as developing an ideology to present to the world that revolves around you being better than everyone else.

For example, one may believe this choice to be superior while other remain inferior. One may believe that we are all entitled to an opinion on this and everything else. One may believe in the sheer delight of dietary choice and marvel at man's capacity to choose for himself.

Either that or Berni is a **** for believing himself superior to a rapist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir C

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

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. :vsign:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

One may consider one's own choice to be morally superior, by definition. That is NOT the same as developing an ideology to present to the world that revolves around you being better than everyone else.

For example, one may believe this choice to be superior while other remain inferior. One may believe that we are all entitled to an opinion on this and everything else. One may believe in the sheer delight of dietary choice and marvel at man's capacity to choose for himself.

Either that or Berni is a **** for believing himself superior to a rapist.

---

Surely that depends what else Berni does in the rest of his life... he might be a mass murderer for all we know so would he still be morally superior to a rapist???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

If the odd pig or chicken got a reprieve because of me, good luck to them :)

---

Better to have lived and to have been eaten, than never to have lived at all.

This probably doesn't apply to factory chickens, but does for most farm animals who don't have a bad life imo, albeit a little truncated. If we didn't eat them, there'd be no sheep on the fells to cut the grass and keep them beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

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. :vsign:

---

I am not denying it is a common feeling among vegans. I am suggesting it is their fault and is not implicit. One may consider one's moral choice in one sphere to be superior to other choices- why else would one make such a moral choice?- but it isnt the same as feeling or expressing a sense of superiority.

Indeed, in this conversation it is you (the carnist) suggesting that me (the vegan) is making an immoral choice. How is THAT for a sense of superiority?

The unspoken issue here is that all animal lovers feel a degree of guilty for eating meat which is why most of us are happy to be as divorced from the process as possible. When confronted with a vegan who has made a choice to sacrificing pleasures we feel inferior. That's you, b. Don't blame me and my other happy, flappy, rainbow eating vegan chums :)

Finally, awards ceremony or not, anal sex is anal sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Better to have lived and to have been eaten, than never to have lived at all.

This probably doesn't apply to factory chickens, but does for most farm animals who don't have a bad life imo, albeit a little truncated. If we didn't eat them, there'd be no sheep on the fells to cut the grass and keep them beautiful.

---

Truncated :)

Lovely way of putting it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I am not denying it is a common feeling among vegans. I am suggesting it is their fault and is not implicit. One may consider one's moral choice in one sphere to be superior to other choices- why else would one make such a moral choice?- but it isnt the same as feeling or expressing a sense of superiority.

Indeed, in this conversation it is you (the carnist) suggesting that me (the vegan) is making an immoral choice. How is THAT for a sense of superiority?

The unspoken issue here is that all animal lovers feel a degree of guilty for eating meat which is why most of us are happy to be as divorced from the process as possible. When confronted with a vegan who has made a choice to sacrificing pleasures we feel inferior. That's you, b. Don't blame me and my other happy, flappy, rainbow eating vegan chums :)

Finally, awards ceremony or not, anal sex is anal sex.

---

No, you see this is where you're wrong. By virtue of mankind's remarkable (and entirely necessary) capacity for cognitive dissonance, we have historically shown ourselves to be quite capable of loving our cats or dogs while being perfectly happy to go foxhunting or watch a bullfight and then tuck into a nice lump of foie gras followed by a rare steak. I would argue that this is the natural way of things and that our cranky, latter-day namby-pamby concerns about animal welfare are a very modern by-product of the non-conformist conscience and general leftism.

I can put my hand on my heart and tell you that I honestly do not really give a flying fück about the animals I eat beyond the fact that they taste good. What is more, I consider this to be a perfectly normal, sane and sensible way to think. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

No, you see this is where you're wrong. By virtue of mankind's remarkable (and entirely necessary) capacity for cognitive dissonance, we have historically shown ourselves to be quite capable of loving our cats or dogs while being perfectly happy to go foxhunting or watch a bullfight and then tuck into a nice lump of foie gras followed by a rare steak. I would argue that this is the natural way of things and that our cranky, latter-day namby-pamby concerns about animal welfare are a very modern by-product of the non-conformist conscience and general leftism.

I can put my hand on my heart and tell you that I honestly do not really give a flying fück about the animals I eat beyond the fact that they taste good. What is more, I consider this to be a perfectly normal, sane and sensible way to think. :shrug:

---

I am sure you do, b. I was talking about animal lovers. That is animal lovers, not pet lovers.

What I am less clear about is why you appear so animated by the dietary choices of other humans. You found it so hard to accept my choice that you felt the need to invent an entire relationship with a lithe young sex maniac in order to explain my actions. You even described her buttocks- there is that anal fixation 'rearing' its head again :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I am sure you do, b. I was talking about animal lovers. That is animal lovers, not pet lovers.

What I am less clear about is why you appear so animated by the dietary choices of other humans. You found it so hard to accept my choice that you felt the need to invent an entire relationship with a lithe young sex maniac in order to explain my actions. You even described her buttocks- there is that anal fixation 'rearing' its head again :)

---

Oh, I don't really believe in animal lovers. They're just anthropomorphic sentimentalists.

And what I find hard to fathom is the tendency to self-harm. It's the modern-day mortification of the flesh. In the old days, you'd have been wearing a hair shirt.