Originally posted by fizzle322 Originally posted by Hohbein .
Right. *cracks knuckles*
Your quite right, I do not 'have' to eat meat. However, if I weren't to pickup that chicken from the supermarket shelf and eat it, what would it have died for? Are you aware just how many animals are killed and WASTED each year? By eating meat, I'm not consenting to having animals locked in cages and butchered... I'm merely giving their life at least SOME meaning. If I weren't to eat them, what exactly would they have suffered and died for? To be tossed into a dustbin and eventually incinerated along with everybody elses 'trash'?
I do not kill animals. I scavenge.
Well you and I both know that if I stopped buying the chicken, and you stopped buying the chicken, and everybody else stopped buying the chicken, the market would shrink, thered be less need for breeding animals to die in meat factories, and the whole practice would eventually come to a sputtering halt.
Note the 'if' in your sentence. You and I both know this will NEVER happen. It's not a matter of faith, it's a simple fact. For us to stop killing animals for the purpose of food, everyone on the planet would have to become vegetarian. Not gonna happen.
We know this intellectually, but we have no faith in it ever happening.
But that's really a copout isn't it.
You know that a single person has an effect on the market. The store you shop in will stock 1 less package, in their computer will be a few pounds less worth of meat purchased every year. The meat factory will use one fewer bottles of bull sperm.
As somebody else just stated, this is entirely untrue. Just because I don't visit my local Tesco to buy a chicken, doesn't mean Tesco would stock one less chicken. Instead, the chicken that I didn't buy is more likely to go to waste.
Sure the cycle will continue and probably even grow. But at least you wouldn't be contributing to it.
I know theres alot of hatred and killing in the world. Alot of wars.
But I don't have to join them. I don't have to be one of them. Thats a choice.
Now whether the cycle continues with or without me, thats a different matter.
So let me get this straight. Your actually trying to compare me using my computer, to you shooting a lion dead for 'fun'? In fact, your actually trying to suggest that what I'm doing is worse and less humane? Fascinating...
There's no real point in arguing this matter. It's much like the vegetarian argument of 'if I stop eating meat, I'll be saving animals!'.. when of course, they are not, at all. By using electricity, I don't personally effect the lives of any animals, not atall. The electricity I use would still be produced, in fact if I didn't use it, who would? Would it really be right for these animals to have died for no good reason?
You, on the other hand, kill animals for absolutely no good reason, other than your own personal enjoyment and satisfaction. By shooting dead one lion, or buffalo or whatever, you are DIRECTLY effecting not only the life of that animal, but the life of it's offspring. You have taken it into your own hands to end a life for your own entertainment, to cause suffering and devestation for no actual reason.
So, who's worse? The guy that uses something that animals have had to die for to help produce, or the guy that kills animals for no other reason than it being 'entertaining'?
I think we all know, I'm right.
That is just ignorant. But yeap, you can be 'right' in your ignorance. Justifying yourself by assuming if you didn't consume, production of those products would continue as waste? Do you know anything about supply and demand?
Sure, we all know, you have the moral high ground, so you have to be right. It's all black and white to me now.
Comments
Right. *cracks knuckles*
Your quite right, I do not 'have' to eat meat. However, if I weren't to pickup that chicken from the supermarket shelf and eat it, what would it have died for? Are you aware just how many animals are killed and WASTED each year? By eating meat, I'm not consenting to having animals locked in cages and butchered... I'm merely giving their life at least SOME meaning. If I weren't to eat them, what exactly would they have suffered and died for? To be tossed into a dustbin and eventually incinerated along with everybody elses 'trash'?
I do not kill animals. I scavenge.
Well you and I both know that if I stopped buying the chicken, and you stopped buying the chicken, and everybody else stopped buying the chicken, the market would shrink, thered be less need for breeding animals to die in meat factories, and the whole practice would eventually come to a sputtering halt.
Note the 'if' in your sentence. You and I both know this will NEVER happen. It's not a matter of faith, it's a simple fact. For us to stop killing animals for the purpose of food, everyone on the planet would have to become vegetarian. Not gonna happen.
We know this intellectually, but we have no faith in it ever happening.
But that's really a copout isn't it.
You know that a single person has an effect on the market. The store you shop in will stock 1 less package, in their computer will be a few pounds less worth of meat purchased every year. The meat factory will use one fewer bottles of bull sperm.
As somebody else just stated, this is entirely untrue. Just because I don't visit my local Tesco to buy a chicken, doesn't mean Tesco would stock one less chicken. Instead, the chicken that I didn't buy is more likely to go to waste.
Sure the cycle will continue and probably even grow. But at least you wouldn't be contributing to it.
I know theres alot of hatred and killing in the world. Alot of wars.
But I don't have to join them. I don't have to be one of them. Thats a choice.
Now whether the cycle continues with or without me, thats a different matter.
So let me get this straight. Your actually trying to compare me using my computer, to you shooting a lion dead for 'fun'? In fact, your actually trying to suggest that what I'm doing is worse and less humane? Fascinating...
There's no real point in arguing this matter. It's much like the vegetarian argument of 'if I stop eating meat, I'll be saving animals!'.. when of course, they are not, at all. By using electricity, I don't personally effect the lives of any animals, not atall. The electricity I use would still be produced, in fact if I didn't use it, who would? Would it really be right for these animals to have died for no good reason?
You, on the other hand, kill animals for absolutely no good reason, other than your own personal enjoyment and satisfaction. By shooting dead one lion, or buffalo or whatever, you are DIRECTLY effecting not only the life of that animal, but the life of it's offspring. You have taken it into your own hands to end a life for your own entertainment, to cause suffering and devestation for no actual reason.
So, who's worse? The guy that uses something that animals have had to die for to help produce, or the guy that kills animals for no other reason than it being 'entertaining'?
I think we all know, I'm right.
That is just ignorant. But yeap, you can be 'right' in your ignorance. Justifying yourself by assuming if you didn't consume, production of those products would continue as waste? Do you know anything about supply and demand?
Sure, we all know, you have the moral high ground, so you have to be right. It's all black and white to me now.