- The Eagle23
- |
- Honorable Member
My counter argument as to why eating meat is better (At least with hunted animals, I'm not fond of slaughtering imprisoned cattle,) Is as follows:
Meat actually takes skill and effort to aquire. With you herbivores, what you're essentially doing is eating dirt. It's all just dirt, all you NEED to do to acquire your plant-based comestibles is dig them out of the ground. Only the lowliest, weakest of beings would sink so low as to pull the very food they eat from the mud and grit. Now then, with that established, let's take a look at carnivores: We carnivores invented one big societal leap forward: pack-hunting and co-operation. All you mudsuckers would never have needed to really work together, and the developement of any real socety in any organism would proceed more slowly in an herbivore than a carnivore. Lets look at the fruits of evolution in both sides, shall we... Cows, for example, typical herbivores, and also the absolute derpiest organism in existence by far. No strength, no agility, no co-operation, the cow does NOTING but graze, AKA, eat mud. Now ets look at a typical carnivore, wolves, we'll say. Wolves are extremely inteligent, and develope rudimentary social hierarchy that suggests a developing form of society in the making. They're agile, versatile, and they can work together. Which would you rather be? The cow, or the wolf?
In conclusion, your illusions of an absolute moral judgemenmt are flawed. Any supposedly "immoral" action is only labeled so based on ones personal opinion, or the common opinion of a society. Eating meat isn't wrong, nor is it right, you and I have no right to make such a judgement. Personally, I believe carnivores and omnivores are generally more civilized and intelignt, however, I respect your opinions, despite the fact that you needed to turn to poetry over logic to express them.
Good day to you, sir.