I am on high doses of warfarin. No greens for me.
Blithering idiocy.
Are we not to allow anything higher up the food chain than bacteria to live, so as to minimize the killing from “food” consumption?
Or draw the line at carnivores that should now be starved so as not to consume any animal-based food?
Yes, of course, we should be as humane as possible in our growing and killing of animals for food.
They are in species denial
Omnivores survive.
He’s a moral philosopher. They navel gaze a lot...
If you believe that it's wrong to eat animals because they're sentient beings, and you also believe it's right to abort babies because they're "just clumps of cells" ... you might be leftist indoctrinated num skull full of mush.
There is no viable moral argument against killing animals, in the normal manner, for consumption.
The only substantive reasoning against it is reducible to the aesthetic sense.
From what I’ve seen from Peter Singer over the years, he’s not an honest philosopher.
I think I see the problem.
Is this advisory connected to the same Peter Singer, he, a hard core vegetarian, formerly of Princeton, who now promotes euthanasia? Pete says if a person does not have a desire to live, then KILLING THEM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WRONG!
Peter Singer is about to become a Birthday Boy;
July 6, 1946.
being a vegan or a carnivore is not a good way to go
omnivore is the best choice
Who was the first one on record to kill an animal?
God (Genesis 3:21).
Why?
Because Adam’s fall ushered in death and, whereas in the beginning food was available on trees for meat, now because of Adam’s fallen state, animals had to be killed and were good for food (& in this case clothing) because God put Adam ahead of animals who were needed for Adam’s wellbeing (1 Timothy 4:3-4).
Howzabout minding your own business?
Read the first part, just to hear the argument against eating meat. Short version is, they start with a false premise that the value of a “chicken’s life” is equivalent to the value of a human’s life. In other words, they create a moral equivalence between chickens and humans. Therefore, killing a chicken to save a human is immoral, because a human cannot survive on just one chicken, therefore we have to kill a lot of chickens to support a human. Their “duty of easy rescue” towards humans then falls apart because we are creating greater harm to the chickens than good for the human.
It is humanism (i.e, man is god), with a weird bent that although they are humanists, they do not believe in human exceptionalism.
My wife and I are in our mid 80’s and so are our siblings.
We all eat real meat with real veggies and fruit. Nobody is labeled as fat.
Our basic diet would be labeled as a Med Type diet.
Our adult children are in their late 50’s to mid 60’s, and everyone eats like we do with a balanced diet, aka Med Diet.
None are overweight.
Two adopted children, raised in/with our families, died in their early to mid-late 50’s.
Maybe our DNA is responsible for our life spans not food.
Is this supposed to pass as a serious discussion? IMHO, who ever came up with this steaming pile of horse crap is one really sick unit.
Logical fallacy. False moral equivalence. Animals are not human beings. End of discussion.
Pale and frail is no way to go through life....Vegans don’t even look healthy.
Guess what’s on the menu at the UK’s Parliament: Meat.
Absolute nonsense.
Let the kid drown, I want my BACON!