Jump to content


Forum Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About AnonFalcFan

  • Rank
    Roster Player

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm out. I usually don't argue politics because people lack an open mind. And now I'm having people calling me stupid, yet they aren't willing to bother making their fantastic point, which shouldn't be so hard since I'm so unintelligent. I don't know. Maybe I simply wouldn't understand. My premises are such: 1. Suffering is bad and should be avoided if possible 2. We have the ability to keep animals from suffering by not eating meat Therefore, we should not eat meat. And my argument goes further in that people who eat meat are imposing immense suffering on animals and are almost as bad morall
  2. If you are eating meat in the west, you are eating meat for pleasure, not for nutrition.
  3. I'm not talking about Native Americans who were physically compelled to eat meat! How can I make it any clearer that I am not blaming people who MUST rely on animals for sustenance for their situation? I am talking about people who eat meat and have comparable options that are not meat. The only exclusive reasons for eating meat in that case is that it's slightly more convenient and it tastes better.
  4. I don't care if the pet was placed in his care or not, what he did is wrong, eating meat that went through suffering is wrong, and people who can't look in the mirror are wrong. Of course not, but there are so many alternate food sources that provide comparable sustenance, so it's definitely hard to justify that you are eating meat, in particular, for sustenance because the only sustenance available was in that meat. We could eat other humans for sustenance, but that doesn't mean it's justified.
  5. If you had prior knowledge that the chicken in your sandwich had to suffer before it made it to your plate then it really is the same, morally speaking.
  6. Whatever you say man. All I'm saying is that people in the west eat animals because they taste good. Their primary reason is not sustenance.
  7. Taste. I'm not saying people don't receive their sustenance from animals (duh). I am saying they do not eat animals FOR sustenance.
  8. People in the first world do not eat an animal for sustenance.
  9. Honestly, this isn't me being a "pseudo-intellectual contrarian". Sure, I like making an argument, and this is a controversial one, but I'm not doing this for attention. It's something I personally believe in.
  10. Look, I said that it's wrong. I'm not at all defending him so much as I'm pointing out how hypocritical it is for people to give their money to an industry that tortures animals and criticize this man at the same time.
  11. No, I'm just saying that it's a cultural taboo to eat dogs in the United States. I'll admit it wasn't the greatest point (for the sake of argument) because no one actually said that eating dogs is wrong. But I'm sure many of the people here believe that and would be outraged if a Korea Fried Dog opened up in Georgia.
  12. Yeah, and I'm not appalled at people who have to eat meat for sustenance. But I'm clearly not talking about poor third-world farmers. The point of bringing up dogs is that I know a ton of people would be appalled if a dog eatery opened up in GA, but who the **** cares about cows and chickens though? Many people have an irrational love of dogs. I don't care if some farmer has to, out of necessity, eat a dog. But this isn't about those people.
  13. May I remind you that you do not, in fact, have to eat meat for sustenance. If that were true then I wouldn't be arguing. But the fact is that "eating for sustenance" means "eating it because it's tasty".
  • Create New...