Discussion in 'Serious' started by eddtox, 1 Oct 2010.
What no BK?
this question is flawed. it seems to imply the possibility that we can use live animals for meat.
No, it asks whether the moral negative of taking an animal's life can be balanced out (justified) by the benefit of having meat in our diet.
well, that's what your question should have said.
right now, it says "is it morally justifiable to kill animals for meat?" - in other words - "is it OK to take the meat we eat from animals we have killed?". Actually come to think of it, the answer to this is, it is the moral and correct thing to do. I mean, have you tried eating an animal alive? They don't half squirm.
You have reversed something there.
"Is it morally justifiable to kill animals for meat?" = "Is it morally justifiable to kill animals in order to get meat?"
Not. "We have killed an animal, is it morally justifiable to take the meat?"
hmm... my attempts at satire are going unheeded.
Don't feel too bad: I got a good laugh out of it. Not everybody has a sense of humour unfortunately - they're usually too tired and lethargic due to nutrient deficiencies from munching on boiled lintels all day...
Oops, generally helps to read the first post in a string of a conversation
That's because you haven't knocked them over the head hard enough.
Years ago I watched an Iraq execution video because I was curious, of course it was horrific and I felt sick but the sound was the exact sound that an animal makes when having it's throat slit in an abattoir.
That sort of bleating like reflexes are still trying to make you breathe even though your dead.
It just made me think that we are just animals and if their was a higher species we would be the ones being killed for burgers, and you know what ? They wouldn't give a toss.
Great video - thanks. Doesn't say much for the question we're asking, but it's certainly very enlightening,
Separate names with a comma.