Any Vegetarians on This Board?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm not mad. You're useless and annoying, so I'm annoyed and have no use for you. You say stupid things and I tell you they're stupid. Either get over it or stop being annoying, useless and stupid. It's much easier than I'm sure it looks. Baby steps. I believe in you.
 
Blackthorn advances a moral agenda that has a history of mass murder and subjugation. If you don't think it's important that someone confront him, I don't know what to say (other than what I've already said a thousand times).
 
At least he's on topic. Is the title of this thread "crows got his feelings hurt by devil again"?

And weren't you just denying to Ween that you ruin threads? Isn't that why I called you a slippery little worm?

Do we really have to continue this?
 
I once ate a very expensive steak that was so tender I cut it with a spoon. I didn't bother getting any sides because I wanted to concentrate on the taste and texture of the steak. It was so delicious and memorable that I dream about it. You know what would have ruined the experience? My vegan friends calling me a murderer because I like to eat meat.

This topic is like religion or politics--neither side will change their minds no matter what each side says. I was hoping to read something other than the typical "meat = murder" comments. No delicious vegan recipes to be shared?

I think it's cute that anyone thinks Big Macs will ever be expensive due to the meat content. It's easy to keep them cheap when there isn't any meat in them.
 
I once ate a very expensive steak that was so tender I cut it with a spoon. I didn't bother getting any sides because I wanted to concentrate on the taste and texture of the steak. It was so delicious and memorable that I dream about it. You know what would have ruined the experience? My vegan friends calling me a murderer because I like to eat meat.
Murderer.
 
...You know what would have ruined the experience?..

Watching the animal being slaughtered in front of you?

I was hoping to read something other than the typical "meat = murder" comments.

Only because vegans believe it's wrong to kill animals doesn't mean we think those who do it are murderers. You do what you've been taught to do since birth, can't blame you for that. Can only blame you for what you decide to do when the facts and the ethical arguments for veganism are presented to you.
 
2junRY7.gif
 
Still trolling.

Only because vegans believe it's wrong to kill animals doesn't mean we think those who do it are murderers. You do what you've been taught to do since birth, can't blame you for that. Can only blame you for what you decide to do when the facts and the ethical arguments for veganism are presented to you.

Why do you condescend to meat eaters as dumb ciphers of their upbringing? I've yet to see a fact that contradicts my ethics.
 
"doc, does this medicine contain animal products?"

it wont be long til the health industry will be plagued with that phrase.:lol
 
at least they don't waste any of it :dunno

Did you ever see the Dirty Jobs show where they show what they do with cows that die of natural causes? None of that is wasted either. Not one thing.

People waste too much food in general, not just meat. At work I can't believe how much food the kids won't eat and that gets wasted. Makes me sick.

Also, if no one ate meat in the world, then they would have to produce a lot more plant food, which in turn takes up a lot of land and water. And since farms can no longer spread manure on their fields, they use chemicals, so.......it's a vicious cycle.

I won't even get into GMOs and other things with plant food. :lol
 
Obviously being a vegan you don't buy products made from animals, there are alternatives out there. The person who made that ignorant picture assumes vegans only change their diet. :lol

That must be really hard to do if you're really serious about being strict.

I have enough trouble trying to stay away from trans fat, hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup!

btw......don't you drink blood?

:D
 
Neither. Necessity is not the justification for taking a life. Who decides what is necessary? You can posit an objective criterion for determining that, but what guarantees will there ever be that those deciding will make the correct evaluation? The Confederate South saw starting the Civil War as necessary for the preservation of their culture, threatened by an oppressive regime sympathetic to Northern culture. The Germans sympathetic to the Nazis considered the persecution of the Jews, war with Britain, and the invasion of Poland as necessary for similar reasons. Arab Muslims consider the annihilation of Israel as necessary to the survival of the Palestinian victims whom they support. Every one of these examples has clear and obvious flaws in the justification, but if you think that the other side is as morally certain of their position as history supposes they should be, I think you'd be very much wrong. Were the Allies right to punish Germany after WWI? Was the North right to destroy the Southern economy by outlawing slavery? Is Israel right to aggressively defend themselves against Hamas while they hide behind their women and children?

As far as your hypothetical cows go (as well as your hypothetical and purely imaginary criminals) living is necessary at almost all costs. At no point would they see their deaths as necessary by any standard. Cow doesn't have to die; people can eat other things. Criminal doesn't have to die; he's incarcerated. The only person who can justify the taking of another life is the person whose life depends upon the life of the other ending. The rest of the world is free to judge necessity. In truth, the justification is that a man has a right to live because he cannot live as a man otherwise. If his life is threatened, he has the right to protect it. Is it because his need to live is above the need to live of those who threaten him? There's a contradiction in your reasoning, and it has been exploited historically in every instance of mass murder that I can recall. Needs of the many vs. the needs of the few. Feel free to interchange that with whatever group you like. Salem witches. Bourgeoisie. Who needs to stay and who needs to go? I imagine it's necessary to the lives of cows that humans die, since we insist upon eating them. Gazelles and lions, flies and spiders, etc. Instinct or not, the prey needs to live and so does the predator.
The first examples of the Confederate South and The Germans, and the Arabs vs. Israel does not apply here, because those are organized acts of war, not straight up self defense. To be clear, within the Confederate South, with Southerner vs Southerner and within Germany with pro Nazi German vs pro Nazi German, and within the Arab community, with Arab vs Arab, the standards of killing in self defense apply as I indicated before.
If a Southerner attacks another Southerner in a rage because they enjoy killing as an example, the other Southerner has a right, and possible a moral obligation to kill him, because Southerner number 1 is too dangerous to live, because he kills for reasons other than self defense, or pleasure. Killing Southerner number 1 AFTER he kills someone else and people are out of danger isn't the same thing.











Someone has a right to kill in self defense in order to protect their own life and it is justified because the life of someone who would kill for pleasure is worth less than someone who would kill only in self defense. Killing someone would would kill for reasons other than self defense makes the world a better place for everyone, no doubt, so long as the person who kills is killing in self defense. State sanctioned murder after the fact is different.
Killing people because you don't like their beliefs, like witches is different. If you don't like witches and the witch comes at you with a knife or something then the witch is fair game for you to kill them.


Last you talk about the predator and the prey as in an obligate carnivore vs their prey. That's a whole different subject. Human beings are not obligate carnivores, so that is a meaningless discussion here as far as the ethics of killing. The obligate carnivore must kill to survive. The human does not need to.
 
Last edited:
That must be really hard to do if you're really serious about being strict.

I have enough trouble trying to stay away from trans fat, hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup!

btw......don't you drink blood?

:D

Someone who only changes their diet is a total vegetarian. A vegan does not use silk, wool, down, leather, beeswax, or any other animal products.
That's how the Vegan society, and the American Vegan Society defines veganism.
Being a real vegan is more challenging than being a total vegetarian.
 
You would have a hard time convincing those agents of war that war was not already being waged upon them, and that they were not acting in self-defense.

As for necessity in determining what should and should not be eaten, when you can get it all in a single pill, will the killing of plants be considered immoral as well?
 
Back
Top