KFC's new offensive, misleading and distressing TV commercial...

Oh gooseberry fool son. Karl's about to break out the sentient quota and statistics!

And then maybe he can explain it to me.

Lucien wrote:because you don't care about the suffering you cause

Sanctimony in a nutshell. You've decided that livestock are 'suffering' and if anyone else doesn't accept that it must be that they just don't care, right?

How are we supposed to take this 'suffering' seriously when you - the person trying to convince us it exists! - aren't bothered enough by it to even stop eating meat, let alone dairy?

Oh boo he's just on his moral high horse again. His oppressed and raped high horse.

Lucien wrote:I need to respond to this actually because of a few of the points here, specifically the first. But this will be my last post.

Good.

1. You think you're better than me (or any non-perfect vegan out there) because you don't care about the suffering you cause: like hell are you better than a girl working her way towards veganism who had a hamburger today. That attitude is completely arrogant and strawberry floated.

None of that is true. I don’t think I am better than you, I just think you are a hypocrite.

Nobody needs to “work towards” becoming a vegan/vegetarian. You just stop eating meat/using animal products.

I never said I didn’t care about suffering. I just don’t think it is wrong to farm and eat animals.

2. You did act as though you were better, and even said it in the first line of your above post. I'm not a hypocrite for being against the advert and eating meat, or hating how it's farmed and eating it. I'd be a hypocrite if I said nobody should eat meat (never did this), while I gobbled it down.

Where did I say that?

You are a hypocrite for thinking that farming equates to rape and oppression while still taking part in it. Unless you don’t think that rape and oppression are wrong?

Nevertheless, yes I hate how it's farmed and eat it. Sorry I couldn't go vegan overnight or be as good as you are.

It’s not hard to go vegan. And I never said I was good.

4. Saying how horrible animal agriculture is isn't the same as arguing you should go vegan, which I never did.

So you think it is horrible but still carry on eating it?

That's me actually done.

Good.

Did Lucien just admit to being a girl?

Mind blown.

Let's all be vegetarian with immediate effect just to show how easy it is.

Blue Eyes wrote:Let's all be vegetarian with immediate effect just to show how easy it is.

I've become Vegan and given it up 12 times in the last 5 minutes.

13 times now

Trying to keep the discussion balanced but I find it difficult to dispute that vegans have the moral high ground over those of us who choose to eat meat.

I’m trying to tread carefully because I’m no philosopher and morality is complex, so sticking with the basic definition that it means principles of right and wrong:

You can argue, as many of you would be able to do better than I can, that eating meat is not inherently wrong because animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc.

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right. The only reason to eat meat (that I can think of) is that it tastes good but that does not make it right. You can justify eating meat by arguing that animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc., but this is not a reason to eat meat, this does not make it right.

You could try to argue that your dietary choice was amoral and that it does not matter what you choose to eat but that would be to imply that our dietary choices have no consequences, which I think is demonstrably untrue. It is foolish to deny that many animals are kept in poor and uncomfortable conditions, regardless of current EU legislation. It is not a question of whether there are consequences or not, it is a question of whether you are bothered by those consequences or not.

I don’t think it is possible to argue that eating a vegan diet is wrong, although I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to that. ‘Bacon’ is not a counter argument.

However, I think you could argue that refusing to eat meat is right because there are clear benefits to doing so: benefits to your health; benefits to the environment; benefits to animal welfare.

I guess I’m saying neither is wrong but one is more right than the other.

Possibly. Cue loads of people calling me an idiot.

Hexx wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:Let's all be vegetarian with immediate effect just to show how easy it is.

I've become Vegan and given it up 12 times in the last 5 minutes.

Does that mean you've had twelve bites of a sausage in the last 5 minutes?

How do you know if someone's a vegan?

Pancake wrote:Trying to keep the discussion balanced but I find it difficult to dispute that vegans have the moral high ground over those of us who choose to eat meat.

I’m trying to tread carefully because I’m no philosopher and morality is complex, so sticking with the basic definition that it means principles of right and wrong:

You can argue, as many of you would be able to do better than I can, that eating meat is not inherently wrong because animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc.

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right. The only reason to eat meat (that I can think of) is that it tastes good but that does not make it right. You can justify eating meat by arguing that animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc., but this is not a reason to eat meat, this does not make it right.

You could try to argue that your dietary choice was amoral and that it does not matter what you choose to eat but that would be to imply that our dietary choices have no consequences, which I think is demonstrably untrue. It is foolish to deny that many animals are kept in poor and uncomfortable conditions, regardless of current EU legislation. It is not a question of whether there are consequences or not, it is a question of whether you are bothered by those consequences or not.

I don’t think it is possible to argue that eating a vegan diet is wrong, although I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to that. ‘Bacon’ is not a counter argument.

However, I think you could argue that refusing to eat meat is right because there are clear benefits to doing so: benefits to your health; benefits to the environment; benefits to animal welfare.

I guess I’m saying neither is wrong but one is more right than the other.

Possibly. Cue loads of people calling me an idiot.

Pancake wrote:

Trying to keep the discussion balanced but I find it difficult to dispute that vegans have the moral high ground over those of us who choose to eat meat.

I’m trying to tread carefully because I’m no philosopher and morality is complex, so sticking with the basic definition that it means principles of right and wrong:

You can argue, as many of you would be able to do better than I can, that eating meat is not inherently wrong because animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc.

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right. The only reason to eat meat (that I can think of) is that it tastes good but that does not make it right. You can justify eating meat by arguing that animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc., but this is not a reason to eat meat, this does not make it right.

You could try to argue that your dietary choice was amoral and that it does not matter what you choose to eat but that would be to imply that our dietary choices have no consequences, which I think is demonstrably untrue. It is foolish to deny that many animals are kept in poor and uncomfortable conditions, regardless of current EU legislation. It is not a question of whether there are consequences or not, it is a question of whether you are bothered by those consequences or not.

I don’t think it is possible to argue that eating a vegan diet is wrong, although I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to that. ‘Bacon’ is not a counter argument.

However, I think you could argue that refusing to eat meat is right because there are clear benefits to doing so: benefits to your health; benefits to the environment; benefits to animal welfare.

I guess I’m saying neither is wrong but one is more right than the other.

Possibly. Cue loads of people calling me an idiot.

Dick.

Nar your about right I'd say, it would be better for the environment if we all ate plants instead. Personally, I like meat and the taste so I kind of just accept that for that to happen animals gots to die.

If there was a way to "grow" meat I would be fine with it, it doesn't have to be an animal.

Conditions they are raised in could be better, but I'm guilty of buying cheaper less well-raised meat pretty often just because my budget doesn't allow for me to not too and I don't really know enough about veggie cooking to come up with meals and things that feel "substantial" enough for a meal.

Errkal wrote:However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right.

Bacon.

It's not an argument it's a fact

If there was a way to "grow" meat I would be fine with it, it doesn't have to be an animal.

.

Oddly enough if there were a cheap and effective way to "grow meat" (and the e-mails I get assure me it's possible) then it's likely the millions of animals in the production line would all be sterilized and killed...potentially pointlessly if it's too cost to do so cleanly and to process for food.

You're a monster.

mmm bacon.

I guess though if everyone only eats "a bit" of meat now and then it would be possible to raise it well and give it the best possible life while it was alive.
It is only because we want so much meat all of the time that it has had to become this big manufacturing line style of farming.

Errkal wrote:

Pancake wrote:

Trying to keep the discussion balanced but I find it difficult to dispute that vegans have the moral high ground over those of us who choose to eat meat.

I’m trying to tread carefully because I’m no philosopher and morality is complex, so sticking with the basic definition that it means principles of right and wrong:

You can argue, as many of you would be able to do better than I can, that eating meat is not inherently wrong because animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc.

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right. The only reason to eat meat (that I can think of) is that it tastes good but that does not make it right. You can justify eating meat by arguing that animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc., but this is not a reason to eat meat, this does not make it right.

You could try to argue that your dietary choice was amoral and that it does not matter what you choose to eat but that would be to imply that our dietary choices have no consequences, which I think is demonstrably untrue. It is foolish to deny that many animals are kept in poor and uncomfortable conditions, regardless of current EU legislation. It is not a question of whether there are consequences or not, it is a question of whether you are bothered by those consequences or not.

I don’t think it is possible to argue that eating a vegan diet is wrong, although I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to that. ‘Bacon’ is not a counter argument.

However, I think you could argue that refusing to eat meat is right because there are clear benefits to doing so: benefits to your health; benefits to the environment; benefits to animal welfare.

I guess I’m saying neither is wrong but one is more right than the other.

Possibly. Cue loads of people calling me an idiot.

Dick.

Nar your about right I'd say, it would be better for the environment if we all ate plants instead. Personally, I like meat and the taste so I kind of just accept that for that to happen animals gots to die.

If there was a way to "grow" meat I would be fine with it, it doesn't have to be an animal.

Conditions they are raised in could be better, but I'm guilty of buying cheaper less well-raised meat pretty often just because my budget doesn't allow for me to not too and I don't really know enough about veggie cooking to come up with meals and things that feel "substantial" enough for a meal.

You could Google how to cook vegetables. I fry the banana splits in goose fat.

Pancake wrote:Trying to keep the discussion balanced but I find it difficult to dispute that vegans have the moral high ground over those of us who choose to eat meat.

I’m trying to tread carefully because I’m no philosopher and morality is complex, so sticking with the basic definition that it means principles of right and wrong:

You can argue, as many of you would be able to do better than I can, that eating meat is not inherently wrong because animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc.

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right. The only reason to eat meat (that I can think of) is that it tastes good but that does not make it right. You can justify eating meat by arguing that animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc., but this is not a reason to eat meat, this does not make it right.

You could try to argue that your dietary choice was amoral and that it does not matter what you choose to eat but that would be to imply that our dietary choices have no consequences, which I think is demonstrably untrue. It is foolish to deny that many animals are kept in poor and uncomfortable conditions, regardless of current EU legislation. It is not a question of whether there are consequences or not, it is a question of whether you are bothered by those consequences or not.

I don’t think it is possible to argue that eating a vegan diet is wrong, although I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to that. ‘Bacon’ is not a counter argument.

However, I think you could argue that refusing to eat meat is right because there are clear benefits to doing so: benefits to your health; benefits to the environment; benefits to animal welfare.

I guess I’m saying neither is wrong but one is more right than the other.

Possibly. Cue loads of people calling me an idiot.

I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I think you are an idiot. We all have different opinions after all.

Blue Eyes wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Pancake wrote:

Trying to keep the discussion balanced but I find it difficult to dispute that vegans have the moral high ground over those of us who choose to eat meat.

I’m trying to tread carefully because I’m no philosopher and morality is complex, so sticking with the basic definition that it means principles of right and wrong:

You can argue, as many of you would be able to do better than I can, that eating meat is not inherently wrong because animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc.

However, it would be extremely difficult to argue that eating meat is right. The only reason to eat meat (that I can think of) is that it tastes good but that does not make it right. You can justify eating meat by arguing that animals are not sapient, cannot be oppressed, etc., but this is not a reason to eat meat, this does not make it right.

You could try to argue that your dietary choice was amoral and that it does not matter what you choose to eat but that would be to imply that our dietary choices have no consequences, which I think is demonstrably untrue. It is foolish to deny that many animals are kept in poor and uncomfortable conditions, regardless of current EU legislation. It is not a question of whether there are consequences or not, it is a question of whether you are bothered by those consequences or not.

I don’t think it is possible to argue that eating a vegan diet is wrong, although I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to that. ‘Bacon’ is not a counter argument.

However, I think you could argue that refusing to eat meat is right because there are clear benefits to doing so: benefits to your health; benefits to the environment; benefits to animal welfare.

I guess I’m saying neither is wrong but one is more right than the other.

Possibly. Cue loads of people calling me an idiot.

Dick.

Nar your about right I'd say, it would be better for the environment if we all ate plants instead. Personally, I like meat and the taste so I kind of just accept that for that to happen animals gots to die.

If there was a way to "grow" meat I would be fine with it, it doesn't have to be an animal.

Conditions they are raised in could be better, but I'm guilty of buying cheaper less well-raised meat pretty often just because my budget doesn't allow for me to not too and I don't really know enough about veggie cooking to come up with meals and things that feel "substantial" enough for a meal.

You could Google how to cook vegetables. I fry the banana splits in goose fat.

I mean like "proper" meals and things, I have done a few and they always leave me feeling not quite full or satisfied. There is something about meat in food that just makes the meal seem complete.

Occasionally I get something that works well, like I have a curry pie recipe that works brilliantly, and things like tomato pastas and such are great.

I could probably manage as a veggie with cheese and such but to go full on Vegan would be cutting out way way way too much of what I enjoy.

Lucien wrote:I've decided it the way I've decided on the shape of our planet. Because it's an *objective fact others studied to find out. If you don't accept it you're wrong, and may or may not care. What else do you need convincing of btw, the name of this games forum?

*Don't you work with those enough, to know what they are?

And quote things fully, eh?

I selectively quoted because it was the premise of your statement that I found sanctimonious.

Since you happen to bring up my IRL role as a scientist and mathematician, sure: I am happy to inform you that a statement like "Eating a burger contributes to animal suffering" is not, as it stands, even close to objectively true. You would have to carefully define "suffering" and "contributes to" for one, and then you have to show it is true for all burgers. I heartily encourage you to have a go at making that statement objective and would be happy to critique your working.

For starters, I think 'suffering' is probably an intrinsically misleading term to apply to livestock; I disagree that all livestock feel uncomfortable; I remain unconvinced that in the EU most livestock feel 'badly' uncomfortable; and I'm also not convinced that a consumer can be expected to feel 'responsible' for livestock welfare in a society where there is reasonable expectation that livestock welfare will be a target area for legislation.

Good luck.

Yes, animals for sure feel pain. But an animal would have to be in at least moderate pain quite a lot of the time before I would even colloquially concede it is 'suffering'. (For instance, a dairy cow that gets sore udders but is otherwise comfortable clearly isn't 'suffering'.) I would still feel uneasy about the word 'suffering' because I think that word implies a depth of feeling that probably isn't there in cattle and definitely isn't there in fowl.

EDIT: You evidently deleted your response as I was replying but I'm not going to delete mine as I think it contributes to the discussion regardless.