- XII CIUTCH IIX
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. ~ Mark Twain
Posted by: Trace007
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
Posted by: Trace007
Posted by: WyIdfyre
Posted by: Trace007
Alright, I'll try to put this simply.
The reason why people eat animals for protein is because they don't lose sleep at night over it. It's a moral decision.
You wonder how we could possibly kill an eat another animal? Because we don't care.
Non-vegetarians see it as two roads leading to the same location, so they make the decision that has a taste that they like, which you can't blame them for. They live with the "cons" because they believe that there aren't any.
Vegetarians believe that there IS a con, which is much worse than the "pro," so they choose the other road.
...That's it, people.
That's actually quite a good analogy.
I heard I'm good with those. <.<
Anyway, so regardless if I eat meat or not, my argument is that this debate is useless. Morals can't be used as points, so all of the points are useless. The argument is invalid.
Ancient Romans understood this. They put dictators into power in times of crises just so something could be done, because they knew that they could debate the morals forever.
If we ignored morals, we wouldn't have a society.
Do we punish murderers, yes. This is based solely on the opinion that murder is wrong. So morals do have a place within an argument as they are not irrelevant.
I never said anyone was "ignoring morals," I said that each person has their own set.
Although that's true, we still treat a set of morals as fact (that murdering another human is wrong). Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean it can't be acted upon.
You are saying that anything that isn't pure fact, can't be treated with any seriousness.