comparing eating meat to paedophiles and child abusers!

[Bubbles]

.

[Nearly Sane]

They wouldn't see it as trivialising, they see eating meat as being as bad and horrific as child abuse. You can disagree with that but they are not saying child abuse is like how you see eating meat. They are saying how you see child abuse, they see meat eating.

[cyberman]

Good grief!

http://youtu.be/yAEqcsvuHYI


They are not prepared to respect your choices of food and your right to make your own choices.

What a nut case! 

I feel sorry for victims of child abuse, that their suffering is being  trivialised by such people.
 

What say you?

They are perfectly entitled to say that the choice you and I make to eat meat is an abhorrent one. I disagree with them. They disagree with me. What are you getting so het up about? They, unlike us, believe that the way animals are treated in the meat industry is as appalling as the way children are treated by their abusers. I disagree; but it is a reasonable point of view.

As a victim of child abuse I certainly don't feel remotely indignant or offended about that. As NS points out, they are promoting the seriousness of animal abuse, not demoting the seriousness of child abuse.

[Nearly Sane]

But the issue is they see meat eating as wrong as child abuse. In which case an argument from a child abuser saying, it's the anti child abusers trying to force their opinion on me, I am not forcing them to abuse children would be dismissed by you as nonsense.

You can disagree with their morals but you are expecting them to somehow give your morality different treatment.

[Nearly Sane]

So if someone thinks meat eating is as bad as child abuse, they should be quiet about it because their claiming that is counterproductive?

Which presumably means people who think child abuse should be quiet about it because it is counterproductive?

[Rhiannon]

I once read an article in a very well-regarded magazine in which a 'natural parenting expert' likened bottle feeding to smacking and physical abuse.

Some people are very stupid, but they are entitled to their opinion. Not sure it should be in a magazine but on YouTube? Nut jobs abound so they can knock themselves out.

[Nearly Sane]

There was a time when female suffrage was looked on as being a great assault on freedom, perhaps they should just have kept quiet about it as campaigning for it would be counterproductive.

One used to be able to own someone and the very idea that one shouldn't was extreme. Imagine pandering to those who thought slavery was wrong, I mean after all, it's just an opinion.
 

[Nearly Sane]

So given that Nelson Mandela was convicted of terrorism that made apartheid ok? Those black people all that counterproductive campaigning

[floo]

It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child!

[cyberman]

Yes they are entitled to their opinion, buts that's all it should ever be...... Just an opinion.

So what are you objecting to? Them expressing their opinion? In what way has their opinion been forced on you? You mean the way they came into your house with guns and made you search "vegan opinion" on YouTube, and then made you watch a couple of the videos you found? Don't be so ridiculous. They force nothing on you. You seem to think everyone has the right to their opinion but you draw the line at disagreeing with you in public.

[Udayana]

It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child!

.. unless you live in a society where child abuse is normal of-course.

[cyberman]

Animal rights protesters are already free to eat what they wish, no one is forcing them to eat meat.

I would support their demand that food is clearly labelled so they can follow their own choices and that their freedom to have a meat and dairy free diet was respected.

But I would never support their campaign to force their choices on other people.

Slavery abolitionists were already free to own what they wished. No-one was forcing them to own slaves.

You would have supported their demand that produce be clearly labelled so consumers could follow their own choices and that their freedom to avoid slavery linked imports was respected.

But you would never have supported their campaign to force their choices on other people

[cyberman]

It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child!

I agree with you - but it's ok if people disagree isn't it? Not disagree about child abuse, I mean - but it's ok for them to disagree and think that it is wrong to eat meat.

[Nearly Sane]

It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child!

It was once normal to own another human being? Was that ok?  If not that normality isn't the point, is it?

[floo]

It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child!

It was once normal to own another human being? Was that ok?  If not that normality isn't the point, is it?

Hardly the same thing at all, humans have needed the protein meat provides, otherwise supplements are required!

[Nearly Sane]

It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child!

It was once normal to own another human being? Was that ok?  If not that normality isn't the point, is it?

Hardly the same thing at all, humans have needed the protein meat provides, otherwise supplements are required!

You made a specific argument based on normality, an ad populum fallacy

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people  still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are not equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?

[Nearly Sane]

We force people to watch what they think of as something as bad as child abuse, happen every day. Just as we force people who see abortion as murder to have society support it. No one on this thread has said anything that supports violence but why care about truth?

[floo]

Nothing is as bad a child abuse when it relates to animals, imo!

[cyberman]

Yes they are entitled to their opinion, buts that's all it should ever be...... Just an opinion.

So what are you objecting to? Them expressing their opinion? In what way has their opinion been forced on you? You mean the way they came into your house with guns and made you search "vegan opinion" on YouTube, and then made you watch a couple of the videos you found? Don't be so ridiculous. They force nothing on you. You seem to think everyone has the right to their opinion but you draw the line at disagreeing with you in public.

Yes, basically!

They are entitled to their opinion and to be able to live according to what they believe and so am I.

If they publicly attack me, express their unwanted opinion in a restaurant, or blow me up in a MacDonalds then they have crossed a line. One that I am not going to excuse or find justification for.

Just like I would have done if I pass aggressive comment on their food choice in a restaurant or do the equivalent.

It's a balance.

So in your mind, blowing up McDonalds and "expressing an unwanted opinion in a restaurant" are of the same ilk?

Sorry, Rose, if you want to be sure you'll never hear an unwanted opinion, you're in the wrong country!

[Outrider]

Nothing is as bad a child abuse when it relates to animals, imo!

I'd agree, but there are people who say that any living thing is worth protecting, those that can't have an informed say in their own destiny only more so.

At the same time there are people that say some of the disabled are 'less' than some animals because they have less capacity for communication, abstraction etc.

It's a difficult place to legislate in, and it's worth remembering that the people making these claims are doing it from the best of intentions: they want to reduce suffering. If the suffering they see in animals is, to them, the equal of the suffering of abused children that doesn't mean they value children any less than anyone else, just that they don't see other animals than human as being any less.

I disagree with them, but at an intellectual level: I understand their motivation.

O.

[cyberman]

They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.

This woman believes that it is terribly wrong to kill animals; as wrong as it is to kill humans.
You and I disagree with her, but that is irrelevant.

Given that that is what she believes, why would she adopt a live and let live attitude? Why wouldn't she do everything she could to try and persuade people to stop killing animals?

If you really believe that a dreadful tragedy is occurring, it isn't enough to simply think "well it's ok, because I have the freedom not to join in", is it?

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people  still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are it equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?

It's a loser NS.

Perhaps I best just claim plants are also equal, just to throw a spanner in the works. How far that could go, just look up fruitarians.

We need to eat, everything we consume is composed of living matter.

Being Omnivours my argument is that diet is a matter of personal choice.

No argument is ever perfect.

A horse is just meat really, but some people get very upset about eating it.

The French have a different opinion about it.



My key points are.

Human beings are equal regardless of things like sexuality, colour etc.

Animals are not equal and are not able to make choices so are not responsible the way a human being is, so is not considered to have the same rights or responsibilities.

We are Omnivours, which means we can up to a point choose what to eat And modern life allows us the ability ( and luxury) to follow our choice. ( clothing made of furs was essential in some places). It's not just about food.

Eating meat is a natural part of our diet, as is shown by the diet of chimps our nearest cousin.

Therefore eating meat is justified, for those who want to.

Those that want to force a restricted diet on others, are the oppressors, especially when they employ aggressive tactics of one sort or another.

Hence I don't like it!

In the video the woman was talking about taking it a step further, as in not being prepared to accept the choices of others, in restaurants etc. basically harassing others. She didn't agree with the live and let live philosophy.

For me, it's a step to far.
I see people like her as a threat to my freedom, ultimately.

Hence I get het up.

Some of my best friends are veggie, and I will cook veggie for them. The difference is in the attitude.

They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.

That we are omnivores is n appeal to nature fallacy. The question then would be can we survive without meat?

[Nearly Sane]

oh and btw a person is just meat really

[floo]

oh and btw a person is just meat really

Yep so I don't see a problem in using human carcasses, which have died naturally, as fodder for zoo animals, for instance!