Forgive me if I didn't make it clear when I said "I think eating meat is acceptable if it's absolutely necessary", but I obviously don't expect anyone in a third world country to set their cattle free. I am talking about people in the West, where there is an abundance of food and the only reason to continue eating meat is pure selfishness.
Or...the meat industry on which millions of people rely? Or because most people aren't even in agreement regarding whether animals have the level of self awareness needed to make eating them iffy?
What I'm trying to say is that A) Almost nothing is "absolutely" necessary and B) If you start putting this sort of line on it, there will be an endless grey area where we can argue until...well, the cows come home.
Disagreeing with me would be evaluating the evidence at hand and explaining why you think the conclusion I drew (we ought not eat animals) is the wrong conclusion. But you are not looking at the evidence. You are not disagreeing with me when you say "I don't think animals are self aware". You are just being wrong.
.
That's just the thing though. *What* evidence? I have never seen any scientific proof that animals are self aware (note: pure 'intelligence' =/= self awareness). I've also read studies suggesting *plants* can think. There is just far too much grey and not enough proof.
But okay, let me tackle your argument to see if I can show you *why* I believe you are wrong.
As I understand it, your argument goes:
1) We should not harm animals unless it is absolutely necessary for our survival.
2) The meat industry harms animals.
3) Therefore we shouldn't eat meat.
If you don't agree, feel free to do your own structure.
While there are a lot of things that I disagree with here, I will say that unless you can guarantee that no-one will lose their job or livelihood, then I'd say that everyone going vegetarian would be a catastrophe.
Now if you were to suggest that we should research cloned meat more, breed cows without the capability of feeling pain or something along those lines, I'd be right behind you. But telling everyone "okay, from this point on no one is permitted to eat meat at all unless it's do so or die"...is just not reasonable.
Furthermore, saying things like "BUT WHAT ABOUT INSECTS? DO YOU DRIVE A CAR?! WHY AREN'T YOU LIVING IN A CAVE?" is disingenuous at best and willfully ignorant at worst. How can you expect me to have a respectful discussion when you bring out such nonsense?
Yet again, you are taking me totally out of context and trying to strawman. I was, as I said in my previous post, just trying to illustrate (albeit in a tongue in cheek way) that you cannot try to force your ideas down other people's throats unless you are some kind of saint yourself.
I was also trying to explore (via the Insect thing) that many people will use similar arguments to the ones you are using to say that we shouldn't kill bugs.
Try to convince them, sure. Have a discussion about it, sure. But when you find yourself spewing insults and vitriol at someone who isn't in the least aggressive to you or your viewpoint, then you should be aware that something has gone wrong.
I have much the same problem with aggressively evangelical "you're going to hell!" religious people. Meanwhile I'll talk with (and listen to) my Islamic, vegan or Atheist friends equally.
My ideology is vegetarianism. I have done everything possible to achieve being a vegetarian because I am now a vegetarian. I would like others to also become vegetarians, but at the end of the day I don't care what you eat as long as you're not dishonest. Countering someone's argument with "Can you prove that your stance is OBJECTIVELY right" is being dishonest because no one can do that. If you would kindly scroll back, that is how this whole ridiculous argument started. I called you out for being disingenuous and unreasonable and you followed it up with more nonsense and absurd demands. It's hard to be calm and reasonable when the people you are arguing with blithely ignore the evidence you present, take offense when you attempt to make analogies and use faulty reasoning to justify their stance.
You were the one who brought up the child molesting and essentially put words in my mouth by saying "look at how hyperbolic vegetarians are!"
Once again...ugh. You are taking me out of context, or choosing to ignore it.
I wasn't responding to you with the Objective Right bit. I was responding to the guy who was posting endless stuff like this:
So go visit a prostitute and then if you start feeling bad about abusing another human being for your own enjoyment, just remember, it's not *your* daughter.Could I say I loved women if I was a rapist, or that I loved black people if I was a member of the KKK?
.
If you are going to say crap like this you damn well better be able to back up why your viewpoint is logically (note: objectively) right.
You then jumped in with:
Peruvian never said killing or harming animals is objectively wrong. That line of argument is completely fucking meaningless. Nothing is objectively wrong. Why not hurt or murder other humans, or keep slaves?
.
Right of the bat you were inflammatory without any reason (do you really think killing an animal or keeping it in a cage is the same as murder or human slavery?). This is what I meant by "look at how hyperbolic (some) vegetarians are!"
Again, I followed this up with my 'unreasonable demands'...trying to (in a facetious way - all the smilies aren't a hint?) demonstrate how you really shouldn't say inflammatory crap like this unless you are absolutely sure your position is *perfect*. Saying thing like this is coercive - attempting to draw comparisons between really depraved, awful things and eating meat.
That was obviously a joke, but okay. I don't want to have a discussion. I just want you to stop being wrong.
It's cute that you tried to upset me at the end with the steak eating comment though. Naturally, as a vegetarian, the thought of someone eating a steak makes me burst into tears. It's good to see you have the maturity that I apparently lack.
So, wait a minute. You are telling me that I should accept that you were 'just kidding' regarding all the needlessly inflammatory stuff you've said from your first reply...but insist on taking "/eat's a steak" totally seriously.
/Sigh. It's pretty clear you don't want to have a discussion. You just want to sound off, annoy people and cram your viewpoint down their throats without considering that your own position has it's share of problems.
