3 ms·

Not going to downvote you as everyone has an opinion, but this argument is ridiculous. If you're saying everything dies so it doesn't matter, why is it wrong to

Not going to downvote you as everyone has an opinion, but this argument is ridiculous. If you're saying everything dies so it doesn't matter, why is it wrong to kill another human? And dying isn't cruel (or the problem - once I'm dead I probably won't care exactly how I died), it's humans killing them that's the problem for people like me. The fact is it's completely unnecessary. We don't need meat and we waste far too many resources rearing cattle and other animals just to kill and eat them.

pembrook 8y ago
Using your logic, everything we do can be considered an unnecessary waste of resources. We don't need the internet and cars and air conditioning and plane travel and television and houses and land ownership and governments and militaries, etc. etc. To continue down your slippery slope, you'll find the only proper way to live is to revert to the woods and live as a hunter-gatherer society. Where you chose to draw the line is just as arbitrary as where the OP chooses to draw the line. To claim yourself as morally superior is ridiculous.
- sjy 8y ago
  It's not 'arbitrary' to weigh the cost of an activity against its benefit just because it's hard to quantify them. Most vegetarians would eat meat if their lives depended on it, and most people today consider it unacceptable to euthanise profoundly disabled humans. But different attitudes prevailed in the past. Perhaps the slope is not that slippery.
- Accacin 8y ago
  I mean, I understand where you're going but it's adsurd. Most people if they don't have a car or internet access would suffer some detriment to their life be it social, work related, etc. Everything you mentioned provide benefits to society for existing. Not growing meat? The big disadvantage to that would be we'd no longer be able to enjoy the taste of meat and the farmers would probably need to find something else to farm.

pembrook 8y ago

Using your logic, everything we do can be considered an unnecessary waste of resources. We don't need the internet and cars and air conditioning and plane travel and television and houses and land ownership and governments and militaries, etc. etc. To continue down your slippery slope, you'll find the only proper way to live is to revert to the woods and live as a hunter-gatherer society. Where you chose to draw the line is just as arbitrary as where the OP chooses to draw the line. To claim yourself as morally superior is ridiculous.

sjy 8y ago
It's not 'arbitrary' to weigh the cost of an activity against its benefit just because it's hard to quantify them. Most vegetarians would eat meat if their lives depended on it, and most people today consider it unacceptable to euthanise profoundly disabled humans. But different attitudes prevailed in the past. Perhaps the slope is not that slippery.
Accacin 8y ago
I mean, I understand where you're going but it's adsurd. Most people if they don't have a car or internet access would suffer some detriment to their life be it social, work related, etc. Everything you mentioned provide benefits to society for existing. Not growing meat? The big disadvantage to that would be we'd no longer be able to enjoy the taste of meat and the farmers would probably need to find something else to farm.