Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just to point out the obvious - a vegetarian wouldn't pillory a lion as a 'murderer,' because they would point out that the lion can't make an educated rational judgement. It's just doing what it comes naturally.


The differentiation that the vegetarian makes in that context is sufficient to demonstrate that vegetarians consider humans and animals to have different moral standing.


In other words they are being inconsistent when they claim the killing of a human being has equivalence with the killing of an animal. By their own affirmation, meat CANNOT be murder, because humans CANNOT be judged the same as animals.


Alternatively, if vegetarians insist that they are being consistent, then in claiming that the death of an animal has equivalence to the death of a human they are consciously REDUCING the value of a human life to that of an animal.


That's a sociopathic judgement - and reinforces what I've always suspected about vegetarians (that they're secretly on a misanthropic self affirming quest to kill us all - a suspicion reinforced by the recognition that like any dangerous religion it requires self-enforced and tortuous abstinence as part of its rapacious mental discipline). ;-)


BTW - I'm just having fun at the end there!

Malumbu:

"But if you choose to justify eating meat, as some of you seem to want to do, kill it, and eat everything edible. Sweetmeats, brains, tripe, the whole lot."


If you're making a distinction between meat eaters and 'vegetarians', shouldn't that rule be applied equally ?

When you eat a potato or other root vegetable do you eat the leaves, shoots and fibrous tendrils - ideally not peeling them so you don't waste ANY part (which, I presume, is your entire point) ?

Sweet corn would be an interesting one, that's a lot of plant to chew through to get to the little nubs of corn at the top !

And of course, there's never anything left on your plate, you devour EVERY morsel, scraping nothing into the bin, right ?

And don't eat your veg unless you're prepared to pull on some wellies, trudge across acres of muddy field and uproot the lucky spud all by yourself.


Is that what you really meant to say Malumbu ?

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Following on from Aquarius Moon's points yesterday

> at 9.23pm, all vegetarians should think twice

> about putting slug pellets down in the garden,

> because they might poison your tortoises or birds

> which pass through the garden.



If I rescue snails from the pavement,

I'm hardly going to use slug pellets am I ?!

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't eat meat but I kill wasps - they appear to

> be pretty pointless and can cause harm if they

> sting.



They're not pointless - a lot of wasps (huge number of varieties) pollinate plants. They also eat aphids so they should be the vegetarian's friend (as aphids cause so much damage to vegetable crops).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...