I come across the tu quoque quite a lot.

I think it's quite significant, given the views he has expressed.

Obviously I can't say to what extent he is driven by his enthusiasm for hunting (or "country sports", in his words) but considering its one of his main lines of defense I'd say it plays a large part.

It's ethically dubious and as such I'm wary of how effective it will be at yielding ethical results.

But as I said, I'm not up to speed on this, so I'd be interested in knowing the current problems that have arisen as a result of the Hunting Act.

While I don't really stay abreast of UK news, I have read that Cameron's motives for the repeal are less to do with farmer's livelihoods and more to do with his personal love of hunting as a sport.

I don't think she enjoyed killing the animal, but rather the unique opportunity.

I think that's splitting hairs. You're saying she didn't enjoy killing the animal, but rather the opportunity to kill it? I see no distinction worth making.

And as I said, she's a prolific hunter. She won a reality tv show for hunting and frequently uploads photos of herself posing next to kills. I think it's pretty safe to say she very much enjoys it. And you know, I'm willing to entertain the thought that some hunters get a pang of guilt every time they pull the trigger. But what difference does this make if they enjoy every other part enough to keep pulling that trigger? Animals are dying by their hands either way, and that's why these people need to be criticized.

My biggest objection is to posing with the carcass. I was under the impression it's disrespectful and in poor taste to do so.

It certainly elicits distaste, but to be honest I doubt the giraffe cares that much.

Sam Harris has some very sober, sensible views on psychedelics.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life

You know, it's infantile language like this that turns the debate dysfunctional at the drop of a hat.

I recall you using the words "vegan sperg-out" in a recent, somewhat related thread.

Though we seem to be in agreement on this issue, I can't help but feel this is a blatant double standard.

I feel compelled to criticize irrational and harmful beliefs. I feel compelled to encourage reason and intellectual honesty.

I assume you echo these values, but since they clash with your own beliefs here, you dismiss them as "shoving my tree-hugging onto others".

Quote from: Pendulate on May 14, 2015, 10:50:49 PM

I think that says a lot about the average discussion value this forum has to offer.

Then why even come here? Don't you get bored of only talking about your lolvegan shit?

This isn't the only website I visit, I have posted in threads not related to veganism, and yes, it gets very boring -- but that's not a good reason to let people spread harmful and irrational misinformation and hold harmful and irrational beliefs.

I don't really see a problem in her joy and pride in participating in such a rare hunt, since it's a very special opportunity.

But see, that's a loaded statement because you are saying that killing an animal is a "special opportunity" (rather than a tragic necessity) and that joy and pride are repectable feelings to have about it.

There should be nothing joyful about killing an animal. You might be proud of yourself for doing what had to be done (assuming that was the only option of course) but I don't think that was the type of pride you meant.

And it's anything but a special occasion. Getting to see an endangered animal is a special occasion, having to kill it is not. I'm not trying to be pedantic; these are the subtle, yet toxic views on hunting that need to be quashed. And the difference between taking pleasure in killing an animal and not taking pleasure is a significant one where ethics are concerned.

I think he's great.

I hate to pull godwislaw in a serious discussion but with the way you worded that it literaly sounds like some kind of Nazi justification for the holocaust. And what are you goint to do with those corpses? What are you going to do about the inevitable violent backlash from anyone who wants their right just to eat like a normal human being. You all tried to wave the prohibition comparison off as some kind of strawman but that's  probably the most valid comparison you can find and Meat is way more ingrained in theaverage diet than alcholoh. People will not take this lying down.

As opposed to what alternative? Either we stop breeding them and (unfortunately) kill those remaining, or we continue to breed and kill them indefinitely. How can people possibly object to the former when they are perfectly fine with the latter every single day?

What would we do with the corpses? Sell them like they are sold already, I presume.

And nobody said veganism would happen overnight; it would be a gradual shift. You are also moving the goalposts -- the point of the discussion is whether the act of eating animals is ethical. The stubbornness and irrationality of other people is not relevant to what you, personally, choose to do.

You assumed what would happen if society suddenly went vegan, so I gave you a reasonable answer. I never said that such a situation would ever occur.

3) The mass extinction refers to the impact that your crazy plan would have on the environment. Climate change is a bitch

Yes, and I was asking you what these impacts would be. I already explained how animal farming does massive damage to the environment (one of the important points you didn't address). I'd like to know what you think would happen if it were to stop.

[You expect me to sift though 10 pages of people arguing to find one random comment? No pls

I'll post it again, then.

If we we're to ever as an entire species to stop eating meat we would have to euthenise metric Fuck-tons of cows and other farm animals to stop some ridiculous environmental disasters including overabundance of CO2

How do you figure that? Animal farming is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet, releasing the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as every car, truck, train, plane and ship combined. This is not even accounting for the methane produced by livestock which is over 20 times more damaging to the environment and over a period of years this number increases dramatically.

and overpopulation and overgrazing or a combination of all.

Except we do not pluck cows out of the wild and put them in farms; we breed them, by the billions per year, for our pleasure.

In the end everything dies and this whole "morality of killing sentient life" thing comes back and sucker punches you in the face.

So nothing is immoral because everything dies eventually? Would morality be more valid if we all lived forever?

Or better yet, in triggers climate change. Have fun being a vegan in the next Ice Age or when the heat ruins our ability to produce enough crops for everyone.

We need those crops to feed the animals we eat in the first place. And we put far more crops into animals than what we get out of their meat.

We would also need to massively increase the amount of crops that we produce. In fact we would have to bring new crops to different places that they were not ....remember the last time we over-saturated the land with crops they couldn't sustain?

Over 60% of the world's grain crops and 70% of soy are fed to livestock. We have more than enough to sustain ourselves and those in developing countries (assuming an intercontinental market was open) but we instead choose to indulge in meat, a first world luxury of the highest order.

Would very much like to get a response to this.

How about that for starters. It's OK if everyone and everything die miserably just so long as nobody had a burger. That's what relay counts right.

I addressed a comment you made on an earlier page and I'd very much appreciate a response.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 12, 2015, 09:45:34 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 12, 2015, 09:35:40 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 12, 2015, 09:33:18 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 12, 2015, 09:24:27 PM

I would chime in my opinion but I don't think I'm in the mood for an autistic vegan sperg out.

All I'm gonna say is I like eating meat both because I like it, and it pisses of sanctimonious vegans with sticks up their arses, yourself being a prime example.

Perhaps read through the thread and get a decent understanding of the subject before assuming there's nothing valuable to discuss?

So you're telling me not to assume despite the fact that you just assumed I hadn't read the thread?

I think it's clear that you haven't. Nobody with any sincerity would read the exchanges in this thread and then chalk it up to an "autistic vegan sperg out".

But I have and I would, and now you're only proving my point.

Well, let's take it back a notch then. What parts of my position (or Verb's) do you find objectionable? Assuming there are any, of course.

Quote from: Pendulate on May 12, 2015, 09:33:18 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 12, 2015, 09:24:27 PM

I would chime in my opinion but I don't think I'm in the mood for an autistic vegan sperg out.

All I'm gonna say is I like eating meat both because I like it, and it pisses of sanctimonious vegans with sticks up their arses, yourself being a prime example.

Perhaps read through the thread and get a decent understanding of the subject before assuming there's nothing valuable to discuss?

So you're telling me not to assume despite the fact that you just assumed I hadn't read the thread?

I think it's clear that you haven't. Nobody with any sincerity would read the exchanges in this thread and then chalk it up to an "autistic vegan sperg out".