Quarkmoon:
(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)
"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."
This has already been addressed by others.
And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list:
http://www.vnv.org.au/AnimalProducts.htm
Interesting.
You refuse to act morally until
I am a paragon of virtue. How does what I do affect your actions? Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?
You're quite transparent. You obviously know that what you are doing is wrong, at some deep level, but you're clutching at any straw to try to absolve yourself of acting on your moral responsibility.
Even your enthuiasm to trumpet your own immorality is a dead give away. You hope that if you shout loudly enough, others will come to your rallying cry. There is safety in numbers, and if you gather enough meat eaters in one place you can all enjoy the solidarity of being equally blameworthy. Then you will be better able to ignore that niggling conscience inside.
Oh, and there is another reason why I eat meat, it tastes good!
Rapists probably enjoy raping, too. Do you really think the fact that you enjoy your depravity makes it better, on ethical grounds?
What are eggs? James R's position is that killing sentient beings is wrong. That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios, including wearing leather shoes, using any product that contains animal parts, and especially eating eggs and dairy products.
I know mountainhare has already commented on this, so I won't repeat what he said.
But I will point out that you are actually making an argument here that everybody ought to be vegan. So, who is the bigger hypocrit, Quarkmoon? You, who says people should be vegan, yet eats meat and uses animal products, or the vegetarians who at least have gone part-way to the level of morality you say you advocate?
But when [James] castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.
I may well be hypocritical, Quarkmoon. Let's assume I am. Are you then willing to concede that my argument that it is morally right to be vegetarian is correct? That is, leaving my personal actions out of the equation, do you agree with the inevitability of my ethical argument? And if not, why not?
That argument only works in your mind, because you raise an animals worth to the same level of humans.
Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?
Or, perhaps you're so naive as to believe that the steak you ate last night did not involve any animal suffering. Fact: an innocent animal was bred, raised and killed just because you love the taste of steak. No other reason. I doubt you know much about the details of how the cow that died for your pleasure was raised or killed, or much about the conditions and treatment it had to endure in its brief life. If I'm right, then maybe you should stop trying to justify yourself so loudly and get an education.
I call the nutrients I recieve from eating meat (ever heard of the Food Pyramid?) as necessary, but than it all becomes arbitrary which leaves your position on incredibly weak grounds.
As has been pointed out, there are vegetable and other sources available for all the nutrients you get from meat.
But why so defensive all of a sudden, Quarkmoon? I thought you were proud that you eat meat just because you like the taste. Why not just say "To hell with morality! I eat meat and I don't care that I'm evil!" Be honest with yourself.
Or, is your conscience niggling just a little? Maybe you're flailing around and trying to find another reason for eating meat which sounds more righteous. If so, we can discuss nutrition in more depth, if you like.
Or, do you want to try some other supposed justification? Or just change the subject?
o you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.
Correct. So, do you eat eggs as well as meat? If so, why? Do you condone battery farming? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you want to defend it?
Before you start, let me make it clear that I am totally against battery farming of chickens. And I'm against the cattle feedlots which produce your steaks. And the killing of lambs because you won't eat mutton (ever thought about why it's called "lamb"? Yes, you eat baby animals, whose lives are cut tragically short because you like the taste of their flesh).
I can do the same, I find it necessary to eat meat for many nutrients, who are you to tell me it isn't? As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.
For a start, let's assume you're right here. Do you then agree that eating of adult animals and baby animals (as opposed to unborn animals) is unnecessary? Or do you think you need to eat your lamb, too?
"Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong?
Ah, the moral relativism argument. What's right for you is good enough for you, and nobody can be "more moral" than you, because everybody has their "own morality".
I'm sure rapists think rape is fun, or at least justifiable, by their own standards. Do you have any problem with indiscriminate rape, on ethical grounds? I assume not, if you want to be consistent with your moral relativism argument. Please clarify your position for me.
Animals are not equal to Humans...
I'm not sure what you mean by "equal". Do you mean just "not the same species"? That's obvious, but provides no grounds for arbitrary cruelty, as far as I can see.
Or maybe you really mean "not worthy of moral consideration"; but you've given no reason for anyone to adopt that position, yet. Please tell me if you actually believe this.
Maybe you mean "animals are not sentient". All the obvious evidence says they are, but let me know if you want to argue that point.
Or maybe you mean "animals are just property, not worth of rights such as the right not to be eaten, so humans are morally justified in treating them as consumables". If that's the case, I want to hear your moral argument.
So, you have some explaining to do.
...animal products are a part of many things in our lives including tooth brushes, and their meat provides and abundant amount of nutrients.
Are you arguing that we should maintain the status quo just for reasons of "tradition" here? Humans have always eaten meat, so that makes it ok? Please clarify. Or is this just a repeat of your "nutrition" argument?
I must say, your views on abortion seem to be morally inconsistent with your views on vegetarianism, Quarkmoon. On the one hand, you say a human foetus is entitled to all the rights of a human child, while on the other hand you say animals have essentially no rights at all. (Note: a "right to be killed humanely for food" is not the kind of right I'm talking about.)
