Eating "sentient" beings.

[jimlintott]

Mmmm

Foie Gras stuffed veal served with baby carrots and new potatoes.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Er, "parenthood" would be my guess.

How cruel of you! He said he didn't want to know!

Aaron

 

[Beerina]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Well, at least retire them painlessly before harvesting.

 

[bob_kark]

Well, at least retire them painlessly before harvesting.

Hmmm... I wonder what a morphine injected steak would taste like...

 

[skoob]

So, when we release all the cows, pigs, chickens, etc... across the world wouldn't they be eaten by predators, hit by cars, starve to death, and so on? Why not just treat them well, feed them, keep them safe for most of their life and just eat them? Wouldn't that actually be more humane?

I'm sure that if the whole world population turned vegan over night, I'm sure we would find a suitable way of gradually reducing the livestock population without just killing them all off and without releasing them into the wild. I don't see how that possibly could be a problem?

Obviously, a slightly less improbable scenario, assuming that the vegetarian movement (or whatever) is successful, would be that as the number of meat eaters are reduced, the demand for meat decreases which would lead to a reduction of the livestock population. It's not like pigs and cows in captivity multiply uncontrollably without human help.

 

[Beerina]

I'm sure that if the whole world population turned vegan over night, I'm sure we would find a suitable way of gradually reducing the livestock population without just killing them all off and without releasing them into the wild. I don't see how that possibly could be a problem?

Obviously, a slightly less improbable scenario, assuming that the vegetarian movement (or whatever) is successful, would be that as the number of meat eaters are reduced, the demand for meat decreases which would lead to a reduction of the livestock population. It's not like pigs and cows in captivity multiply uncontrollably without human help.

Exactly! It's better for cows to live some life, then be eaten, than never to have lived at all.

 

[pchams]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Hypocrite.
Our brains got bigger from eating all that meat. Now you forsake it?

Salad is what dinner eats.

 

[Cuddles]

I think the point the author is trying to make is that other animal species are sentient too, so we shouldn't eat them either.

Oh, will they stop eating each other then?

I think this is the most important point. Humans are animals. There is no point saying humans shouldn't eat meat unless you also argue that no other animals should eat meat, which is clearly a ridiculous argument.

 

[JamesDillon]

I got lost in the drawing of a comparison between foire gras and lobster. Lobsters are bugs. Ducks are dumb, but substantially smarter than bugs. If you have no qualms about squishing a roach in your pantry, and roaches are much more closely related to lobsters than ducks are to us, you should no qualms about eating a lobster.

I have a friend from back in my fundie days who's a staunch young-Earth creationist; we've managed to remain friends by just avoiding those issues. We were out to dinner a couple of years ago and I ordered lobster; she commented that she couldn't bring herself to eat lobster because it's "related" to cockroaches. That got me thinking, though I didn't raise the issue with her-- how is a creationist ever justified in acknowledging that one species is "related" to another, regardless of any physical or genetic similarities, if God created them all in their present form?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Uh, personally speaking, I'd probably have a hard time swallowing a plant with a little emotive Disney face.

Creepy.

well I would have no problem chowing down on the smiling disney face thing - but if they start dancing and singing..

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I have a friend from back in my fundie days who's a staunch young-Earth creationist; we've managed to remain friends by just avoiding those issues. We were out to dinner a couple of years ago and I ordered lobster; she commented that she couldn't bring herself to eat lobster because it's "related" to cockroaches. That got me thinking, though I didn't raise the issue with her-- how is a creationist ever justified in acknowledging that one species is "related" to another, regardless of any physical or genetic similarities, if God created them all in their present form?

Goddidit. God deliberately made the world look exactly like it's billions of years old to teach a valuable lesson that lying to people is good, or something.