You're ignoring a lot of things here. But since you have no soul anyway I guess that's okay.
I'm vegetarian, too! ^^ I started almost a year ago! ^^ I became vegetarian because I saw a video of ppl from KFC stomping on chickens, throwing them at walls, even cramming them in small cages with otehr chickens, dead or alive...and all this while they were still alive..humans can be so cruel..
:temigi:![]()
![]()
:tehidari:
:kaohappy2 Hey, I'm Feena, nice to meet'cha!!! :kaohappy2
Thx to Raven Nox for the siggy!
I never understood the, "I'm not losing any sleep" argument. What the hell does that mean? Do you have a hard time falling asleep?
It's not a silly question at all. What's silly is claiming a person shouldn't be judged on consumption choices, an then totally contradicting yourself. If you think it's not proper to say anyone is a better person based on consumption choices, then you're no better than a cannibal, An a vegetarian is no better than you. To say otherwise would make you a hypocrite.
If I think it makes perfect sense what does that say about me? :/
Let me translate:
If you believe that what one deems "food" is not grounds for judging them, and that all consumption choices are equal, then you are equal to cannibals.
I think that's what he meant, at least.
EDIT: I'll get to you later, Raistin. You fat tard.
I believe what Chemical was referring to was food consumption within the context of a vegetarian/non-vegetarian debate, and as such no moral standard of superiority could be attained. No one is talking about cannibalism, so I don't see how that line of reasoning was ever reached.
Precisely.
We're talking about items found in the supermarket, not in Helter Skelter's lunchbox.
I had established and maintained that the context of my remark's were entirely within context of vegetarian/non-vegetarianism.
Just... read the posts. Read. Don't look... read.
Last edited by Chemical; 11-11-2006 at 07:50 AM.
Boldly go.
Well some people like to bring statements outside of the realm of the debate. If not eating animals so as to not contribute to their suffering isn't any better than not caring and eating them, wouldn't it be logical that not eating people so as not to contribute to their suffering isn't any better than not caring and eating them?
And, yes, I realize it's a stupid argument.
My major concern is with the moral battle that occurs. I just want to make it clear that I don't feel its proper to say anyone is a better person based on consumption choices. -- Chemical
I was going to say that I didn't consider myself morally superior, but then I realise that I do feel superior to some omnivores. Not to the people who don't raise the issues with themselves (the people whose only thought when eating meat is along the lines of, "Wow, this burger is delicious") - I can't feel superior to somebody who doesn't even take it as an issue. They're the kind of people who I wouldn't even bother discussing vegetarianism with, because they simply don't get it. For example, there'd be no point discussing it with NorthernChaosGod - waste of my time and his.
The people I do feel superior to are the people who justify meat-eating to themselves (much in the same way that I justify eating fish to myself). The people who have raised the question with themselves. They obviously have some idea that keeping animals in a restricted environment and then killing them is Not A Good Thing, but then they choose to ignore it. I don't think that's right.