Because cannibalism will spread prion diseases like Kuru - it's very poorly advised. Why do veggies and vegans still think this is a remotely persuasive argument?
This thread is acc pointless but if want to eat human go eat yourself and then come back and tell us if it tastes nice. Apparently the smell of burning human flesh is nasty and acc one that if so strong can make you pass out (WW2 concentration camps etc.) let alone putting in your mouth and eating it. It's just wrong both socially and morally ,man.
There is no objective answer to this question. Vegans/vegetarians will insist that they are right in every way possible and meat eaters frankly do not give a flying **** how animals are killed. Simple.
OK so as long someone doesn't care, that makes it ok. Got it.
Heck, let's drop some more nukes on Nagaski, I'm sure some people don't give a flying ****, so that makes it ok. Simple.
But what's the difference in the meat of an animal, and that of a human?
If it were served on a plate, grilled and seasoned, could you tell the difference? Or would your brain say 'YUM! DECAYING CARCASS ON MY PLATE! LET ME GET A SIDE OF FRIES WITH THIS!'
But you said as long as someone doesn't care, it's an irrelevant question.
It's literally your logic.
No, read properly.
What I said: There is no objective answer to this question because vegetarians will insist they are right and meat eaters don't give a ****.
Let me break that sentence for you so you can understand. Meat eaters don't give a **** how animals are killed. Vegetarians think they are right all the time. Both ideologies are subjective and no "right" answer can be drawn from the question.
So out of that sentence please point where I said it's irrelevant because meat eaters don't care. I am pointing out that there is no right answer, but instead you present a straw man to the argument and imply that I said that it's okay for animals to be killed.
You are also comparing two completely different things and in the wrong context. You are comparing the killing of humans for food to the bombing of a city during the war.
But what's the difference in the meat of an animal, and that of a human?
If it were served on a plate, grilled and seasoned, could you tell the difference? Or would your brain say 'YUM! DECAYING CARCASS ON MY PLATE! LET ME GET A SIDE OF FRIES WITH THIS!'
Well technically, it is possible to eat human meat there are concerns of whether it is ethically correct - which it certainly isn't. Most animals don't eat their own kind, despite having less of a conscience then we have.
What I said: There is no objective answer to this question because vegetarians will insist they are right and meat eaters don't give a ****.
Let me break that sentence for you so you can understand. Meat eaters don't give a **** how animals are killed. Vegetarians think they are right all the time. Both ideologies are subjective and no "right" answer can be drawn from the question.
So out of that sentence please point where I said it's irrelevant because meat eaters don't care. I am pointing out that there is no right answer, but instead you present a straw man to the argument and imply that I said that it's okay for animals to be killed.
You are also comparing two completely different things and in the wrong context. You are comparing the killing of humans for food to the bombing of a city during the war.
Try again.
The vegetarian community is putting forth an argument (which is correct, but let's ignore that for the moment).
Meat eaters have no correct defence to this argument and have the cheap cop out of I don't care.
You're saying because one party doesn't care, there is no right answer by default. That is like going to Court, the Prosecution putting its side across, the Defence saying it doesn't care, and the judge having the case thrown out, because there is no right answer because one party doesn't care.
The vegetarian community is putting forth an argument (which is correct, but let's ignore that for the moment).
Meat eaters have no correct defence to this argument and have the cheap cop out of I don't care.
You're saying because one party doesn't care, their is no right answer by default. That is like going to Court, the Prosecution putting its side across, the Defence saying it doesn't care, and the judge having the case thrown out, because there is no right answer because one party doesn't care.
'BUT BUT THE MEAT TASTE GOOD SO THAT MEANS ITS OK TO TORTURE ANIMALS'