Vegetarian or No?

Surely it should have been pink floyd with the flying pig over the factoy (see Pink Floyd - Animals) lol. The bias in that episode does make me laugh though, as I am still used to seeing animals raised in more humane conditions.

I still see where you are coming from, a lot of the meat industry's practices are wrong. However my insanity or some other cause still prevents me from seeing any moral dilemma in eating animals like the omnivores we are. (as long as their are humanely treated in their keeping). Maybe some day something will change my views on that, but I don't see it being hugely likely any time soon.

I am still waiting for some reply from Decius, unless he has entirely left in disgust.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

ok, disregarding all previous arguments and wandering on to more practical matters, does anyone know any good vegetarian meals I can make, because as I said I want to cut down my meat intake. This is partially in response to this topic, ad partially because meat is quite expensive, so I want to try and find some cheaper meals to live off while I'm a student.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

Do you have a pressure cooker?

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

nope, I'm somewhat limited in cooking apparatus as I'm in a hall of residence, we have a bog standard oven and hobs and a microwave, though I could probably borrow my friends rice cooker if I asked

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

Sorry I've been busy and haven't been able to visit this thread as often as I'd like, but it's really been brewing with some juicy stuff!

Cynic-Al,

I've read through all your posts and I'm eager to interject my humble opinion on some issues.

[qoute]"-but the moral argument for why to be is the only one that holds any close inspection" and "This now leaves us with the moral case for eating meat, purely on the basis of whether we should kill to eat."[/qoute]

Fantastic! I agree, close inspection of the moral argument is (for me) the seed of it all, for without this fundament of decision-making in an individual the whole subject is moot.

[qoute]"As you [Decius] have said in your last post, we have to kill to eat, be it plant, animal, fish or fowl. Your [Decius'] case is that we should eat the least intelligent life form available, but why should something's intelligence so radically change the way we treat it?"[/qoute]

Why should your intelligence so radically change the way I treat you? Why should I even consider it if I were the next Hitler and had it in for you? (metaphorically speaking, I hold you in high regard!) Why should I be bothered about you as a human if I were coming to attack/abuse you assuming I were able to and/or superior to you? Because your intelligence includes self awareness and the capability of feeling emotions including pain and these things matter to you so they should be considered when you choose your victims. But if 'you have to', if it is a matter of 'do-or-die', or 'true survival', then do the least damage as possible.

So, for example, I hand you a weapon, a knife, and I present you a line of edible organisms ranging from left to right, the simplest of foods, fungi, rice, carrots, soya beans and peas, all the way through to organisms capable of feeling pain such as prawns, fish, chickens, pigs, cows, sharks, dogs and humans (and the humans ranging from unborn babies, through retarded adults to Einsteinion genii) then where does one cut the line? And if I usher you out of the room and say, "There, there old chap, don't you worry about the actual killing part, I'll do it for you, you just tell me where to start cutting" will that effect your perceived line of acceptability? Dare you go a little further along the chain seeing as now you won't have to actually do any 'dirty work' yourself? You see my point? If you have to kill to eat, do the least damage (this is where I slightly differ from Decius' point in that I don't necessarily base it only on intelligence, but I am splitting hairs). This analogy is more acute if I were to reduce your choice to a mere three selections, a baby, a retard or a healthy adult. Who would you kill first? You certainly wouldn't not care in this instance would you?

quote:

---

"-because as I said I want to cut down my meat intake".

---