For instance, cannibalism could be "defended" on the same grounds that it is "Tasty, tasty murder"
mourndraken was, if I understood him correctly, saying that if meat-eaters are capable of making so many arguments in favour of their preferred diet, then they should have no trouble going over to the local slaughterhouse and killing a few animals. They should have no problem perceiving this act as moral, and therefore no problem in executing it. It should, in fact, be an occasion for community gathering, as harvest time is, and a joyful one at that. People should volunteer for it
Basically, his point was that meat-eaters, despite all their protestations, are still revolted by what they call moral.
@MilesGregarius. If you had something original to add, then your post wouldn't be some quotes in a paraphrase. Your post might actually add to this thread.
For sure, it's not necessary to fill your meal with flesh. I never thought that meat lovers would think that what I wrote would give them a reason to eat each other... That's pretty messed up.
My apologies for misreading mourndraken's post.
However, having been harangued repeatedly by vegan/vegetarian evangelists, the cannabalism analogy arises nearly every time.
@mourndraken: Have you read
any of my previous posts on this thread?
I have roundly condemned modern factory farming in all its guises, and have specifically singled out slaughterhouses and feedlots for particular opprobrium.
@aneeshm: NOT once have I used the "it tastes good" argument.
And as a corollary to "meat-eaters who have never visited a slaughterhouse", how many vegan/veges have volunteered to farm rice in Laos or raise corn in Guatemala? This meat-eater has and understands the significant hardship involved in feeding oneself and one's family without the aid of modern machinery, pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation techniques. And yes, I have also killed, skinned, cleaned, and butchered my own animals.
Biologically, primates, including ourselves, are omnivores, requiring some nutrients most readily available from animal products. In this there is NO moral component. Where and how we derive said animal products does indeed have a moral component, but so does where and how we derive our vegetable products as well. Advocating vegetarianism to self-sufficient meat-eating populations - which is, in essence, what one does when one states that ALL meat consumption is immoral - if that entails environmental degradation through unsustainable modern factory-farming practices or if that entails economic servitude through dependence upon the purchase of agricultural inputs or of food, even "cruelty-free" food, that was formerly self-produced is in and of itself immoral.
Your average vegetarian may be able to quote chapter and verse on the environmental damage/animal abuse that the mass-production of meat entails, but rarely has as any concept of the resources involved in producing - especially at a price they're willing to pay - the grains, fruits, and vegetables that comprise their "morally superior" diet. And if meat-eating is immoral because an animal's life is taken, is it moral to protect one's grain or fruit supply by killing off those animals that threaten it? By killing whole species through habitat loss to farmland or agricultural runoff poisoning groundwater?
Are abattoirs and feedlots vile, despicable places? Yes. Do modern urbanites eat too much meat? Yes. Does this have anything to do with raising a turkey in my backyard? No. Does it have anything to do with pulling a trout out of a local stream? No. Does it have anything to do with buying organic, free-range, grass-fed beef from a reputable, small-scale, local producer? No.
As I've said before, if you had taken the time to read my previous posts, ALL of our food choices have moral implications at this point in human development. This applies equally to the grain, fruit, and vegetables that we eat as well as the beast, fish, or fowl that we consume. It is decidedly NOT as simple as "meat bad, vegetarian good".
