The eating meat for pleasure aurgument is flawed.

I've heard about vegetarians saying that meat eaters only eat meat for pleasure.
e
We eat ice cream, cake and other sweet things for pleasure not becuase we need them so that argument is flawed.

The argument isn't that its wrong to eat for pleasure but that its wrong to kill an animal without necessity (or just for pleasure)...

Exactly. We don't let psychopaths murder because they enjoy it, so why is it ok to murder animals to enjoy eating them? That doesn't justify anything

I've heard about vegetarians saying that meat eaters only eat meat for pleasure.
e
We eat ice cream, cake and other sweet things for pleasure not becuase we need them so that argument is flawed.

I've heard about vegetarians saying that meat eaters only eat meat for pleasure.
e
We eat ice cream, cake and other sweet things for pleasure not becuase we need them so that argument is flawed.

I eat meat for pleasure

A ****ing burger is wonderful

Survival of the fittest (species). Why do you find it hard that humans will be humans

You can't justify things because 'humans will be humans'. We have morality.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I've heard about vegetarians saying that meat eaters only eat meat for pleasure.
e
We eat ice cream, cake and other sweet things for pleasure not becuase we need them so that argument is flawed.

The argument isn't that its wrong to eat for pleasure but that its wrong to kill an animal without necessity (or just for pleasure)...

Exactly. We don't let psychopaths murder because they enjoy it, so why is it ok to murder animals to enjoy eating them? That doesn't justify anything

I eat meat for pleasure

A ****ing burger is wonderful

Survival of the fittest (species). Why do you find it hard that humans will be humans

Exactly. We don't let psychopaths murder because they enjoy it, so why is it ok to murder animals to enjoy eating them? That doesn't justify anything

It is not about eating for pleasure. It is about killing for pleasure. That's the ethical issue. When a human kills an organism (that happens to be human) for pleasure we say that the man is sick, mentally unstable, victim of psychological disorder and so on. But no one bats an eyelid when that organism is not human. This is no different to the medical consensus, back in the days, that homosexuality was a medical condition (even though they had no scientific evidence supporting the consensus).

Worldwide cultural consensus excludes animals from our moral spectra.

It is not about eating for pleasure. It is about killing for pleasure. That's the ethical issue. When a human kills an organism (that happens to be human) for pleasure we say that the man is sick, mentally unstable, victim of psychological disorder and so on. But no one bats an eyelid when that organism is not human. This is no different to the medical consensus, back in the days, that homosexuality was a medical condition (even though they had no scientific evidence supporting the consensus).


+1 Killing for pleasure is the issue.



+1



And rapists will be rapists. And murderers will be murderers. Your argument is flexible enough to accept any sort of crimes, however abhorrent.

They do. Did you see that viral Facebook post about dog consumption in China? There was absolute outcry, until people forgot about it and started tucking back into their bacon sandwiches.

You can't murder an animal. By definition murder is one human killing another. Don't use sensationalised language to try to make the choices of others seem comparable to things that are considerably different just because you disagree with them.

I disagree with how animals are farmed, and I find the idea that they're killed for us to eat uncomfortable, but I also know that I enjoy eating meat and was miserable the whole time I was vegan and didn't enjoy being pescetarian either. I'm also regularly anaemic if I do not eat red meat, and other dietary sources alone have never been able to bridge the gap for me, and there are things I would rather spend my money on than constant iron supplements.

It's an unpleasant reality, but it's what happens in the food chain. People eat meat. Animals being killed for that purpose is really not comparable to killing another human being and it really grinds my gears when people try to say it is.

I mean regularly. Dog consumption outcries are not regular. However, if a country started killing its citizens systematically (see 20th century Germany), people care about it.
Now look at our systematic killing of animals, and see how many care about it. There is no doubt that the species of the animal killed is a factor taken into account when people decide whether the act is ethical or unethical. Yet it should not be.

That doesn't mean it's right. That's like saying that some countries have the death penalty so we should have the death penalty. You can't use an appeal to majority as reinforcement for an ethical argument.

In the West, I think that I can. Most citizens of Western countries live in a jurisdiction free of capital punishment, torture and adequate recognition of transsexualism, homosexuality and women's rights.

No part of it mentions it being morally acceptable.




This

You said:
" I eat meat for pleasure" and " A ****ing burger is wonderful". The 'wonderful' implies you find it morally accepting. Same as if you said that you found rape wonderful, I would believe that you find it morally acceptable.

1. Rape, domestic violence and murder are also a reality. People rape, people beat their wives and people murder. That is not an excuse. Nor should an exception being made to excuse crimes to animals.

2. Why? Slavers said the same things of slavery, men said the same thing of women rights and European powers said the same thing of their colonies. The point is that there are no exceptions to an unethical action. You may do it but you cannot denied it is unethical. Criminals of sort try to make exceptions to themselves. But it does not work that way. Logical reasoning does not work that way.