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

This thread is just a perfect example of how far people will try and twist things as to not damage their egos.

It's okay to eat animals. Eating animals usually ends up with them suffering one way or another. That's just how nature works, don't act like you're doing them a favour

I'm an environmentalist, but plenty of stuff I do has a negative impact on the environment, that's just the world we live in. But I acknowledge that and try and minimise it as much as I can.

Lucien wrote:The examples aren't as important as the point. You said you're fine with animals being eaten because they're bred for that purpose - so if we breed animals for the circus, or for bull fighting or anything else you should be ok with that, but since you aren't, it shows what you said has no grounding.

If your first thought was to compare human slavery to the raising of nonsapient livestock then I think that does tell us something interesting about how you overvalue animal lives. (EDIT: Sorry, this sentence was a bit mangled when I submitted this. My bad.)

Fade wrote:I'll admit that my consumption of eggs and milk still causes suffering to animals. I just find it funny how some people can't admit that. It's not a big deal, just be honest with yourself.

I don't believe nonsapient beings 'suffer'. They can feel discomfort. In the livestock industry presently, I'm sure there are some farms where the discomfort is significant and some where it is less so, though within the EU it should all be subject to EU livestock welfare regulations. I feel no real personal responsibility for any such discomfort -- it is a problem that needs to be solved by the legislature. Livestock welfare regulations will continue to improve iteratively over time.

Fade wrote:This thread is just a perfect example of how far people will try and twist things as to not damage their egos [...] don't act like you're doing [animals] a favour

Who is doing this? You should engage them in direct debate rather than grandstanding, else it looks like you're making up a convenient strawman.

I just edited that last post because it got a bit mangled when I submitted it. Sorry about that, not sure what happened there.

Fade wrote:I'm an environmentalist, but plenty of stuff I do has a negative impact on the environment, that's just the world we live in. But I acknowledge that and try and minimise it as much as I can.

I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

An animal being bred for slaughter doesn't wholly justify the act, but it does help -- part of the reason it's not OK to eat someone's pet is the sentimental value they attach to it as a beloved possession, which isn't a relevant consideration in livestock.

EDIT: Ultimately you've got to weigh the inherent value of the animal's comfort (lowish), plus the sentimental value we attach to the animal's comfort (can be quite high in the case of pets, less so for livestock), against the value extracted if we cause the animal discomfort (variable depending on purpose).

Most people hope to cause minimal discomfort to a cow in getting a glass of milk, to gain something of moderate value in drinking a nice glass of milk, which works out net positive. By most people's assessment bull fighting turns out net negative, with maximal discomfort for minimal value.

Mafro wrote:Vegetarians that also keep plants and do gardening

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

I think the point was to do what you can. You can be an environmentalist and drive a car still.

It's quite easy to stop eating meat or eat less of it. It's not as easy to stop breathing or going to work each day.

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

I think the point was to do what you can. You can be an environmentalist and drive a car still.

It's quite easy to stop eating meat or eat less of it. It's not as easy to stop breathing or going to work each day.

Stopping breathing is a little extreme.

He said if you eat meat you cannot be an animal lover.

Therefore you cannot be an environmentalist if you do things that harm the environment.

Why drive a car if you love the environment? Walk, if you love the planet so much then you would be willing to walk a few miles every day. And if you work too far away then change jobs, it's quite easy.

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

I think the point was to do what you can. You can be an environmentalist and drive a car still.

It's quite easy to stop eating meat or eat less of it. It's not as easy to stop breathing or going to work each day.

Stopping breathing is a little extreme.

He said if you eat meat you cannot be an animal lover.

Therefore you cannot be an environmentalist if you do things that harm the environment.

Why drive a car if you love the environment? Walk, if you love the planet so much then you would be willing to walk a few miles every day. And if you work too far away then change jobs, it's quite easy.

You know there's a difference being facetious to get a raise out of people is boring

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

I think the point was to do what you can. You can be an environmentalist and drive a car still.

It's quite easy to stop eating meat or eat less of it. It's not as easy to stop breathing or going to work each day.

Stopping breathing is a little extreme.

He said if you eat meat you cannot be an animal lover.

Therefore you cannot be an environmentalist if you do things that harm the environment.

Why drive a car if you love the environment? Walk, if you love the planet so much then you would be willing to walk a few miles every day. And if you work too far away then change jobs, it's quite easy.

You know there's a difference being facetious to get a raise out of people is boring

There isn't really a difference. Somebody can love animals but eat meat and somebody can love the environment but drive a car.

Fade suggests that you cannot call yourself an animal lover if you eat meat. Using that logic it's not therefore unreasonable to expect an environmentalist to stop using cars. Plenty of people don't drive and function perfectly well in society.

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

I think the point was to do what you can. You can be an environmentalist and drive a car still.

It's quite easy to stop eating meat or eat less of it. It's not as easy to stop breathing or going to work each day.

Stopping breathing is a little extreme.

He said if you eat meat you cannot be an animal lover.

Therefore you cannot be an environmentalist if you do things that harm the environment.

Why drive a car if you love the environment? Walk, if you love the planet so much then you would be willing to walk a few miles every day. And if you work too far away then change jobs, it's quite easy.

You know there's a difference being facetious to get a raise out of people is boring

There isn't really a difference. Somebody can love animals but eat meat and somebody can love the environment but drive a car.

Fade suggests that you cannot call yourself an animal lover if you eat meat. Using that logic it's not therefore unreasonable to expect an environmentalist to stop using cars. Plenty of people don't drive and function perfectly well in society.

I imagine most environmentalists walk/run/swim/cycle when they can. Some will take public transport or drive electric vehicles. Some will be the first to ditch their combustion engines when they have the luxury of being able to afford an electric vehicle.

Being an environmentalist can be expensive so it's not possible to do every single thing you perhaps would like to. As time goes on though, more environmentally friendly alternatives become available and you can already see the uptake in these. That's really not comparable to cutting out meat which doesn't come with the same implications.

I can't believe the topic of conversation here has fallen so far into the realm of fantasy. It's so obvious that you can like animals but also eat meat. Living in Wales I know hobbyist farmers - primarily academics who have ended up buying houses in the countryside with a lot of land! - who absolutely adore their sheep and make sure they are very comfortable during their (yes, often short!) lives.

It must be horrible living in your world where 95% of people are apparently evil and hate animals.

I eat organic meat, therefore I am superior to Karl, but under Fade. I one day aspire to be vegan, eating only chickpeas and prunes for sustenance, and ultimately superior to all other beings.

KK wrote:I eat organic meat, therefore I am superior to Karl, but under Fade. I one day aspire to be vegan, eating only chickpeas and prunes for sustenance, and ultimately superior to all other beings.

Chickpeas? You just can't stay away from it can you.

I will one day live in the vacuum of space and eat no living thing, drink nothing that contains living things and breathe in no living thing. Microbes have the right to life and so I will then be the ultimate superior being.

Chickpeas and Prunes are the seeds, you are preventing new generations of the plant growing and by eating them eating their literal children, you monster!

It is the same as kidnapping children!

Errkal wrote:Chickpeas and Prunes are the seeds, you are preventing new generations of the plant growing and by eating them eating their literal children, you monster!

It is the same as kidnapping children!

You can't love the rainforest if you have any wooden doors in your house.

Moggy wrote:

Errkal wrote:Chickpeas and Prunes are the seeds, you are preventing new generations of the plant growing and by eating them eating their literal children, you monster!

It is the same as kidnapping children!

You can't love the rainforest if you have any wooden doors in your house.

You can have doors mate, they stop the flow of air and in the air are bacteria and organisms, if you have doors you are imprisoning life!

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Errkal wrote:Chickpeas and Prunes are the seeds, you are preventing new generations of the plant growing and by eating them eating their literal children, you monster!

It is the same as kidnapping children!

You can't love the rainforest if you have any wooden doors in your house.

You can have doors mate, they stop the flow of air and in the air are bacteria and organisms, if you have doors you are imprisoning life!

When Treebeard and the Ents besiege and destroy your home, you might then see the error of your dead tree displaying ways. Trees are not trophies to be hung up on display.

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:I don't have a problem with people eating meat so long as they don't try and pretend they care about animals

By your own definition you are not an environmentalist - you can't pretend to care about the environment while you do plenty of stuff that has a negative impact on it.

I think the point was to do what you can. You can be an environmentalist and drive a car still.

It's quite easy to stop eating meat or eat less of it. It's not as easy to stop breathing or going to work each day.

Stopping breathing is a little extreme.

He said if you eat meat you cannot be an animal lover.

Therefore you cannot be an environmentalist if you do things that harm the environment.

Why drive a car if you love the environment? Walk, if you love the planet so much then you would be willing to walk a few miles every day. And if you work too far away then change jobs, it's quite easy.

You know there's a difference being facetious to get a raise out of people is boring

There isn't really a difference. Somebody can love animals but eat meat and somebody can love the environment but drive a car.

Fade suggests that you cannot call yourself an animal lover if you eat meat. Using that logic it's not therefore unreasonable to expect an environmentalist to stop using cars. Plenty of people don't drive and function perfectly well in society.

There's a difference between loving animals as a whole and loving animals that you keep as pets though. When I say animal lover I'm referring to the former.

The environmental examples is a bit different, because the reason vehicles have a negative impact on the environment is because there are so many of them. Me getting the bus or train still has a negative impact because of the cumulative effect.

Plus if I want to visit my family in Australia a plane is my only real option, if I go to a restaurant or a supermarket it's not that difficult to just by something vegi. They don't really compare.

People just seem to have a massive disconnect between the food they eat and where it comes from. Animals suffer and live a short life when they are bred for food. That is the reality, if you're okay with that then I don't have a problem. And just to be clear I don't feel morally superior, it's just a personal choice. I just dislike it when people try to distort facts.

KK wrote:I eat organic meat, therefore I am superior to Karl, but under Fade. I one day aspire to be vegan, eating only chickpeas and prunes for sustenance, and ultimately superior to all other beings.

Moggy wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Errkal wrote:Chickpeas and Prunes are the seeds, you are preventing new generations of the plant growing and by eating them eating their literal children, you monster!

It is the same as kidnapping children!

You can't love the rainforest if you have any wooden doors in your house.

You can have doors mate, they stop the flow of air and in the air are bacteria and organisms, if you have doors you are imprisoning life!

When Treebeard and the Ents besiege and destroy your home, you might then see the error of your dead tree displaying ways. Trees are not trophies to be hung up on display.

oh yes the eating grass and mud argument scientific.

Just say "mmm bacon" as it's probably more constructive to the discussion