It's more important than my health at times, yes. I can't think of anyone who only eats for health, or who never acts in any way that's harmful to your health. For example anyone who ever drinks alcohol values something more than their health.Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I would also say meat intake is more important than the well-being of animals, I suppose. I value my happiness a lot.
My thinking things are yummy doesn't really play into it, though it is true that I do think cows are yummy. Taking up extra land is OK because I see no reason why it's not; however assuming taking up land is not OK, there's no reason cows should be singled out as the place to make improvements. I imagine there are easier things to do that would give greater reduction in land use than eliminating cattle.So I guess you're saying you think animal suffering and taking up that extra land is okay because you think meat is yummy. That's the argument I'm seeing from you. And isn't "there are worse things so I don't have to care about this" a logical fallacy of some kind? Aren't you always on about that?
I don't think animal suffering is a good thing, so it's not really a fallacy since I'm not disagreeing. However I'm not willing to do anything about it because 1) I think the level of suffering isn't so terribly bad right now as to demand my attention, 2) I think there are better ways to spend my time, if I wanted to do some good in the world, 3) meat makes me happy. I could spend time caring for suffering human beings, if I wanted to spend time on a worthy cause; a suffering human is worth a great many suffering cows to me.
The vegetarian argument generally comes down to "hurting cows makes me sad". Either it makes you sad or it doesn't. It doesn't make me sad (well not sad enough to stop eating them), but I can easily see how it would make other people sad. There's no need to rationalize your opinion any further than that.
