- 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: tjs0620
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
Posted by: Lies
Posted by: XII CIUTCH IIX
That's what they do to animals. Not all, but it clearly is happening.
Whether this is illegal or not, it happens.
And have you not seen how chickens are kept? Commonly? Actually in vast majority?
You know that the video shows common occurrences, because there are no real rules protecting animals in slaughterhouses from cruelty.
And the fact you make up that it was illegal (which doesn't change anything) and that it's not commonplace (which is not necessarily true) yet again proves my points. You just can't accept that it's evil, you have to lie to justify it to yourself.
So let's recap this thread:
- You start out claiming that humans are not meant to eat meat.
- After that argument failed, you switched to the position that the killing of other animals for food is cruel.
- Now that the above argument has been shown to make no sense, considering that ALL predatory animals kill for their meals, you moved onto abandoning the so called facts you were voicing earlier, and now claim that it's an issue of morality. Like the above argument, it makes no sense because other animals kill for their meals. Suddenly it's immoral for humans to abide by the laws of nature that apply to other animals?
- And now, finally, you have taken the position that all of that other stuff you spent 40 pages on is irrelevant, and that the real reason eating meat is cruel is because of the conditions that animals are kept in are unnecessarily deplorable.
Do you plan on keeping the same argument for more than 2 pages, or are you going to keep grasping at more straws every time your argument is countered?
Why don't you read the OP? It clearly shows that it's a topic of morality. Just read the title and you can see that.We read the OP, his point is you keep switching arguments when they are proven wrong, instead of admitting your defeat.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
My main point is that it's morally incorrect. I also stated that I think it's naturally incorrect, but I conceded this point. You see I admitted my defeat in that field.
But you've admitted your defeat in a number of ways, but you refuse to do it directly (on the moral issue that killing animals for the taste is wrong).