Grim... wrote:
Cavey wrote:
But, we're certainly not eating meat for the pleasure of killing animals.
Yeah, but you're killing animals for the pleasure of eating meat. When you think about it rationally, there's not really any difference.
I'm sorry, but there's a world of difference. Look, the hypocrisy of myself personally, and every other meat eater who's criticising this man is wholly acknowledged and admitted, as indeed I said in my first post. But there are limits to the extent and scope of this hypocrisy; it most certainly isn't absolute.
Surely we can all agree that there IS a difference between sourcing meat from a supermarket to EAT, which factually will have been produced as under a legally binding animal welfare and husbandry set of laws and regulations (as imperfect as they may be, last I looked we weren't wounding cows with crossbows then coming back with shotguns to finish 'em off 40 hours later), and killing a wild, possibly endangered animal (within a protected, wild environment) not to eat, but for "pleasure"? As if a more wide distinction were even needed, I say again, the animal was willfully and purposely attacked with an inhumane, entirely inappropriate and unnecessary weapon, leading to 40 hours of pain, fear and suffering?
If anyone can't see the clear and absolute difference between these things in moral terms then frankly there's not much else I can add. Yes, I do feel guilt about eating meat as I've said, but I'll be damned if I'm pigeon holing myself in the same moral category as this
cunt for so doing.
As for Mimi's wider point about "just one lion" etc., yes of course, but if you're going to take that line we'd never do anything about anything - this whole 'perfect world or bust' argument falls flat for me. If I went round my neighbour's house and strangled their dog, or if I shot a bullock with a crossbow, I don't think it would cut much ice for me to say "yeah, well, YOUR A MEET EATER!!11 so ur just as bad" etc., now would it? The concept to grasp here, I suggest, is the notion of the 'standalone offence' which is entirely independent of and outwith the often much bigger shit that (sadly) goes on in the world.
This principle applies more widely of course, 'perfect world or bust' is oft applied to all other things besides animal welfare; we can't solve everything so there's no moral imperative (or indeed point) in doing
anything, so, next time I get pulled for speeding, I can tell the copper to "go and sort the starving millions in Africa before you issue me a speeding ticket for my ultimately inconsequential and victimless misdemeanor, officer".
Seriously, it's all pretty daft when you think about it, and people tie themselves in moral knots where it's really not needed. Look, it's really simple: this guy's an arse for what he's done and he deserves everything that's coming to him. The end.
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong