If you believe that something is fundamentally morally wrong, then you have a duty to try and stop that practice, surely? If you saw someone setting fire to a cat, would you argue that it's not for people to tell others how they should or shouldn't entertain themselves? Disagree with the moral case by all means, but this line of argument isn't rational. As is any form of morality, surely? Again, this is meaningless.
Hmmm, you're right on your example. But surely stopping an immoral practice should involve it's removal entirely. There are laws against setting cats on fire, as there are now banning fox hunting, which I support (the laws, not fox hunting). I don't disagree with the moral stance of vegetarianism, I respect it. But at the same time, I don't personally believe that it is morally wrong to eat meat, as long as the animals are treated well and have a good life, and are killed to be eaten, not for the purposes of pleasure. Which is why I encourage free range and organic farming through my spending. Therefore, what I don't agree with is being told I'm a bad person because I eat meat. If people want to think that, it's up to them, but not to shove it down my throat, so to speak. I'm happy to discuss it, but not to be told what to do....
Well it seems to me it is ok to speak your mind as long as it fits into what you see is right or wrong. Sal, you "shove" issues down peoples throat when it suits you, dearest My fave fry up is sosmix sausages with mushrooms, hash browns, tomatos and ketchup
I bet the author of this thread wouldn't have guessed that mentioning what they had for breakfast would turn into a huge moral debate.. lol
I'll speak my mind on issues, but I'm not going to tell someone they're bad because they disagree with me, dearest. Some of my best friends supported the war, and are prejudiced against asylum seekers. I don't agree with them, but we're not going to fall out because of it, and we're happy to keep our disagreements within friendly debate. I also disagree with the policies of Nestle in third world countries, but I don't believe everyone who eats Nestle is bad. It's just a disagreement....
I want to get involved in this debate, but I am not sure there is a middle ground in which to really have the debate in...One group of people feels that killing animals for food is wrong, the other feels that eating meat is not a problem....I am not sure the two sides of the debate can be reconciled..I do not think either side is wrong, but some of the accusations being levelled are a little harsh..... Not eating meat is a moral choice some people have made, and good I am glad you have decided to make that stand in your life....But and this is a big but people have the right to choose....Yes we have to try to make people aware of things we believe in and the moral choice we have made, but then once someone is armed with all the facts they must be allowed to make their decision with their own free will....Otherwise we are becoming a dictatorship where people are told what to think..... You may think that killing animals for food is morally reprehensive, but where is a line drawn...Everyone has their limit as to how, where etc they protest.....Some people extend to vegetarianism, some to vegan, some people shun all society and never use tv's or anything that promtes consumerism.....Everyone has a level and must be respected..... I know I know there are flaws in this argument about is someone who is racist etc ok cos they are "at their level" but I have just done a 12 hour shift and this is the best I can do for now.... *Stands back waiting to be shouted at*
Ah, but isn't that exactly what other people would say to you regarding a whole plethora of issues? I'm not debating your right to believe something different, but you should respect the right of others with strong moral convictions to attempt to further their cause. If they weren't to do that, it wouldn't be much of a moral conviction, would it? If you someone kept slaves, would you have a problem with Claire challenging their right to do so and expressing her anger and outrage? You can't say it's OK for someone to express their anger and outrage only if you agree with them.
Again though, this is no real argument. 'Personal choice' is just a justification for doing what we want regardless of the effect it has on other lives. I largely agree with this. My philosophy is to live my life in the way that I fond most morally acceptable. For me, this means not eating meat. For others, this means living half way up a Welsh hillside and subsisting off wild carrots. Who's the better person? I think so long as you're genuinely trying to live a moral life, then you're no better or worse than another person following a similar path. We all have our own lines in the sand that we choose to draw. That doesn't make meat-eating right though
Eghhh, that sounds horrible. I havnt eaten meat for nearly 2 years, and i dont intend to ever again. Thats my choice. None of my friends are vegetarians and does that bother me? No. I dont preach my vegetarianism.
Now I'm on the fence here, but this approach does raise some interesting questions. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you decide that your 'friends' hold views that are too extreme for you to associate with them any longer? Do they actually have to be herding people off to the concentration camps, or is the line a little closer to home? If so, where?
Well that would be where I draw my line, when my friends start doing that I am starting lining them up against that wall..,.... Good question though
I just have a cheese salad cob, with some monster munch crisps.. washed down with either milk or pepsi max..i don't do fry ups.
I agree with people wishing to further their moral cause. Actually, I agree with pretty much everything Koolaid has said. People taking a moral stance on a strongly held personal belief have a right, even a duty, to make everyone they can aware of the facts and of their opinion and why they believe that they are right to hold that opinion. But further to that, where do you go? Shun someone for disagreeing with you? Personally I would rather not. Once all the facts and reason have been discussed, people can then only make their minds up, and their minds alone. I've made my choice. It's not set in stone, it may be changed. But as for this debate, I don't want to fall out with anyone on it. I'll just have to agree to disagree....
If someone's a friend, I'll debate with them, disagree with them, but try not to fall out with them. I have a friend who voted for the BNP. She's not racist, which is why she's still friends with me, but she did so on asylum grounds. As to where I draw the line, outright racism is an obvious place to draw the line, and it is drawn by the other person here, because a racist person would actively not want to be friends with me. Homophobia and sexism also test my loyalties quite severely. Maybe I'm just more of a people orientated person, than an animal one....
So you'd draw the line when someone actively attempted to put their distasteful views into practice? So if you had a homophobe as a friend, would you disown them if they actively avoided gay people? Not being awkward here.... just curious, because I think that line is a very difficult one to define.
That's a difficult one, isn't it? But then what would you do if you had a friend who was raping people? You'd shun them, surely? I think meat-eaters often fail to understand just how passionately many vegetarians feel about the barbarity of the meat industry. For you, it's just something you eat. For vegetarians, it's cruelty on a plate. Not that I'm advocating disowning all meat-eaters, but you should understand that the issue is slightly more complex than you attempt to paint it.
I think there are certain instances where I would shun someone's friendship based on their beliefs or acts.
I'd better not let you catch me eating my burgers in front of the animal rights protester stalls. Honestly, people who put THAT much time and energy into a thing really couldn't multi-task. not if they have jobs as well anyway.
