Surely, you mean that these domesticated animals wouldn't be on the land — petrichor

I consider domesticants animals too. Your problem seems to be that you confuse them with humans.

I read the rest of your tiatribe and you failed to even begin to address a world without meat animals and what would happen putting more land under the plough, and destroy the environment with more domesticated vegetables production. More factories making tasteless tomatoes. and endives.
I'm prefer to eat something with a bit of blood.

False analogy.
You are confusing humans with animals. — charleton

Humans are animals. Or do you subscribe to the idea that we have some special magical difference that makes our interests matter and theirs not, or leaves them without interests? Descartes thought we have souls and animals don't. Do you share a similar view?

Why? — charleton

If my enslavement and eating of a group of humans were to make their lives less painful, more secure, and their deaths sudden and painless, would that justify it? Would that make it okay? Why? Is comfort all that matters?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, these other beings simply do not belong to us to do with as we please.

I'm not making an argument for factory farms. I'm supporting the natural right of a human to eat meat. — charleton

Factory farming and humans eating meat these days pretty much go together. It is arguable that at current human population levels, factory farming is the only way to supply enough meat. At the very least, factory farming makes meat far more affordable.

making your point about factory farms completely irrelevant. — charleton

There isn't one single issue here. The evils involved are multiple. I said that if all the cattle were free-range, it would be better (less confinement, less pain, less fear, more natural behavior allowed, etc), but would still be wrong (they still don't belong to us and we have no right to take possession of them in any way).

You are ignorant here.
Please compare with natural death by predator or disease. — charleton

In the case of enslaving, abusing, and slaughtering them, I am the one responsible. In the case of natural death, I didn't cause it. But it isn't that it is all about me. Rather, it is about what I should do and what I have a right to do to other beings with interests of their own, and perhaps rights of their own.

Suppose soldiers are being wounded and killed on a battlefield in gruesome ways. If I go out and capture them and put them in pens and fatten them up before painlessly killing them before I eat them, even if their deaths are less painful under my "care", do I have a right to do this to them? Am I their benefactor?

It seems that you think we are eating meat in order to do all the animals a favor! And let's not forget, as you pointed out, these animals arguably wouldn't even exist in the first place if we weren't raising them for food, so we arguably aren't even saving them from some natural death that they'd otherwise have suffered. Perhaps the matter is different for hunters who hit their mark with a clear head shot.

But if you are going to defend eating meat by arguing that they suffer less when we eat them, is it really the case that you care about their suffering? Is this why you eat them? Supposing it were clear that they suffer more when we raise them for food and eat them, would you then think our eating them is still justified?

I consider domesticants animals too. — charleton

Where did I suggest that domesticated animals are not animals?

You said that "Without meat eaters there would be no animals on the land at all." I tried to be charitable in assuming you meant by "animals" only animals domesticated for human food, as obviously, without us eating any animals, even if there were no angus cattle for example, there would still be deer and rabbits and bears and so on. Or by "meat eaters", did you mean carnivores in general, including non-humans? Was your claim that without carnivore animals there would be no animals on the land at all? And by "on the land", do you mean to say that there might still be some animals in the ocean? What the heck are you trying to say? Taken on its face, what you said in that sentence is utterly absurd! But I read some implied qualifiers in there: human meat eaters and domesticated animals. And I was asking for clarification to see if that was indeed what you meant.

I consider domesticants animals too. Your problem seems to be that you confuse them with humans. — charleton

It might be argued that many humans aren't so different from domesticated animals! :wink:

I read the rest of your tiatribe and you failed to even begin to address a world without meat animals and what would happen putting more land under the plough, and destroy the environment with more domesticated vegetables production. — charleton

Environmental impact is a whole 'nother issue! And if you look into the matter, you'll see that it comes down in the end strongly in favor of plant-based diets. Many advocate plant-based diets not because of animal rights but because animal production is so bad for the environment. Cows produce lots of greenhouse gases and contribute in a big way to global warming. And we raise plants on farms to feed animals in feedlots, remember? Most of what we feed to animals consists of plants edible for humans that are grown on farmland that could be used for a variety of crops. We mostly feed our domesticated animals corn, even some in fish farms, of all things! Sometimes, we even feed the animals candy (derived from farmed plants)! It isn't like the cows are created ex nihilo! And there are inefficiencies in converting food we could otherwise eat into cow flesh. It takes less land to produce the same amount of food for humans if we eat it directly than it takes to first feed it to cows.

For me, the pain issue seems secondary to the idea that other sentient beings belong to themselves and not to me. They simply aren't mine to do with as I please. It would be wrong for me to use them as a means to my ends like that without some serious justification even if I cause them no pain or even if I cause them pleasure. — petrichor

The nature of reality for life on earth is not like this. No one is free really because no one asks to be born and we are it seems forced into existence.

The kind of freedom doesn't seem to exist where we can really metaphysically control our destiny. Animals appear to act more on instinct than rational goals or desire. I don't know what purpose there is for animals that we can thwart.
Can you imagine being a cow wandering around eating grass drinking water and not much else? Even the most sophisticated animals has far less options for cognitive pursuits and diverse behaviours than us.

I think the kind of morality your espousing is a for another reality not this one.

How can you convince someone to not eat meat if you are not concerned with presenting them a valid argument? — Andrew4Handel

The same way most persuasions are done in the real world - by making them feel they do not want to eat meat - by telling a story that changes how they feel about it.

Validity has nothing to do with how nearly all persuasion is done in the real world, Trump/Putin is not the current US/Russian president because his arguments in the campaign were valid. Britain is not leaving the EU because the arguments for doing so were valid.

I am not sure what grounds you have for trying to change someones behaviour if they are not valid or rational? — Andrew4Handel

I see the quest for moral grounds as pointless and ultimately doomed. Our moral decisions are grounded in our values. Our values are personal and cannot be justified by reason. Lack of identified grounds is no reason for lack of action. To not explicitly act is as much a decision as to act, and each is as groundless as the other.

Humans are animals. — petrichor

Yes, but you're still confusing them with what they're not, more specifically other animals, like chickens or pigs. I wouldn't treat humans like we do chickens or pigs, and I wouldn't treat chickens or pigs like we do humans, and there's nothing wrong about that.

Given that chickens and pigs are not like humans, it's a different argument. That they're useful to us, and can be farmed, is not to suggest the same of humans.

No one is free really because no one asks to be born and we are it seems forced into existence. — Andrew4Handel

If you are born against your will, does that negate any interests you might have once alive? Does that make ridiculous any argument that I ought to respect your rights? Does your being born against your will give me a right to exploit you, to steal from you, to cage you, to torture you, to eat you? Don't you in some sense belong to yourself and not to me? Is there nothing wrong with putting you in a cage?

Animals appear to act more on instinct than rational goals or desire. — Andrew4Handel

Humans are driven more by instinct than I think most appreciate. And most desire is instinct.

I don't know what purpose there is for animals that we can thwart. — Andrew4Handel

I am not sure about purpose. That's a thorny issue. But consider a porpoise instead. In one case, a porpoise is out engaging in all its natural behaviors unmolested by humans. In another, it is put in a tiny enclosure where it can barely move, separated from its kind. No difference worth caring about? Are we not thwarting this animal's interests by capturing it and putting it in such an enclosure? Would this animal not rather be out swimming in the open ocean with its own kind, doing what it is instinctually driven to do?

Do I have a right to just take any number of porpoises out of the ocean and place them in enclosures and poke and prod them for my amusement? Is there no sense in which they, as sentient beings, have a right to be left alone by people like me?

What if we take a chimpanzee and lock its head in a vise and stick needles in its eyes? Do you think there is nothing here like an interest belonging to the chimp that we are really thwarting? Is it simply okay to do absolutely anything to animals? If yes, why? Because they don't reason at a sophisticated level?

Can you imagine being a cow wandering around eating grass drinking water and not much else? — Andrew4Handel

Cows do more than just that. They actually have a richer social life than most realize, for one thing. Regardless, cows are constituted such that they enjoy wandering around freely eating grass and drinking water, just as we enjoy eating and drinking and moving around freely. Don't you think it would be a drag to be a cow confined in a tiny enclosure in which you can barely move, indoors, packed amidst many other such enclosures among a multitude of distressed cows, prodded, branded, and so on?

Is it the case that the fewer the options for cognitive pursuits and diverse behaviors, the more it is okay for us to take possession of and abuse a creature? Do more intelligent and complex humans have more rights than those with serious disabilities and cognitive deficits?

Far from living at their expense; we guarantee their survival and they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. — charleton

Have you worked on a kill floor before? Because I have, for hogs, and I can tell you that no, not at all, the beasts do not die well or cleanly. Even in a plant where we have a gakload of regulations in place.

I have seen people beat up hogs, I have seen people disrespect the flesh by playing "organ tag" (yes, exactly what it sounds), I have seen people get their hard-on from cutting the heads of the animals.

The industrial meat plant is the modern incarnation of Hell.

Yes, but you're still confusing them with what they're not, namely other animals, like chickens or pigs. I wouldn't treat humans like we do chickens or pigs, and I wouldn't treat chickens or pigs like we do humans, and there's nothing wrong about that.

Given that chickens and pigs are not like humans, it's a different argument. That they're useful to us, and can be farmed, is not to suggest the same of humans. — Sapientia

X are useful to us

X can readily be made use of

Therefore, it is right for us to use X

I hope you aren't making that argument.

Do you think that their usefulness to us and the fact that it is possible to farm them justifies our using and farming them? Consider the possible consequences of such a line of justification. Slaves are useful too. And people can be enslaved. It worked for many centuries. Does that justify anything?

Like us, these animals have the capacity to suffer. And they have interests. They may not the have the potential to become mathematicians, but they are better off not being in such conditions as the following and we have no right to do such things to our fellow sentient beings. The idea that our pleasure justifies all this is monstrous.

Cows do more than just that. They actually have a richer social life than most realize, for one thing. Regardless, cows are constituted such that they enjoy wandering around freely eating grass and drinking water, just as we enjoy eating and drinking and moving around freely. — petrichor

I don't think that the default existence for life is pleasure. It certainly is not for me.

If we forget other creatures and just focus on humans there is a lot of problems in the nature of human life.

Humans have suffered from the same fate as animals through their history such as mass starvation, diseases, premature death and natural disasters. From a natural perspective as opposed to any human intervention we have had famines that have killed millions and tsunami's and earth quakes that have probably killed millions through out history. So there is no sentimental default state for being alive.

When it comes to purpose humans have been clever at inventing meanings including religions

....but many people have suffered from a horrible sense of futility and purposelessness including myself which effects every day life. In on one sense other life forms maybe lucky never to be exposed to existential dilemmas or to have the same heightened awareness of their future death.

There is a lack of justice in humans affairs and a persistent irrationality and hypocrisy we are not a good model for a moral exemplar.

Human suffering is very nuanced including the existential stresses I just mentioned. I was forced to go to church up to 5 times a week as a child and found that very stressful and boring. I was bullied in school and by local young people so I have not ended up with a positive perspective on humans.
Reflecting on all my experiences there has been a lot of distress and harm caused by existing and in this social framework. Another anecdote is that my older brother has had progressive M.S. for 20 years and has been paralysed by it, he has had pressure sores, pneumonia at least 6 times and so on.

This is another "gift" or reality of life. Personal moral conduct does not at all ensure positive outcomes. For the phenemonologists here I could give vivid descriptions of the 20 years of my brothers illness and my own problems if you like the tactic of invoking emotions.

However bad we might think life is for humans or animals, that doesn't give us the right to do bad things to other sentient beings. On the contrary, we ought, as much as possible, to bring some kindness into the world. The worse the world is, the more this is needed! Why add bad to bad when it isn't necessary?

I am sorry you've suffered so. And I too have a sibling with progressive MS who is quite disabled. It is a horrible disease for sure. But what does this have to do with vegan ethics? How does any amount of suffering in the world justify adding to it?

X are useful to us

X can readily be made use of

Therefore, it is right for us to use X

I hope you aren't making that argument. — petrichor

No, I'm not. There are hidden premises and I'm not committed to that conclusion. It may well be wrong. I'm just pointing out that they're different, that they're treated differently based on these differences, and that, therefore, the same set of arguments do not apply.

Do you think that their usefulness to us and the fact that it is possible to farm them justifies our using and farming them? — petrichor

No, it would have to be something more than, or other than, that. It might or might not be justified. My own stance, as I've explained, is that I'm either on the fence - which I think I am to some extent - or I consider it wrong - which I think I do to some extent - but I am a meat eater nevertheless. My behaviour doesn't always conform with morality - no ones does. And it doesn't in this case, if you're right about this. There are other important things in my life besides the moral status of eating meat, and they might conflict with a proscribed course of behaviour based on the immortality of eating meat.

Consider the possible consequences of such a line of justification. Slaves are useful too. And people can be enslaved. It worked for many centuries. Does that justify anything? — petrichor

Nope, that's not possible, given what I've just argued and made clear.

Like us, these animals have the capacity to suffer. And they have interests.They may not the have the potential to become mathematicians... — petrichor

Yes, they are similar in some respects, and different in others. You seem to want to trivialise or understate the differences.

...but they are better off not being in such conditions as the following and we have no right to do such things to our fellow sentient beings. The idea that our pleasure justifies all this is monstrous. — petrichor

That's an underhand tactic and is not at all relevant to anything that I have given my support to or accepted. Another member has already objected to this. It just makes you look like a fanatic with a single-minded agenda. This is a philosophy forum, not a protest against keeping animals in those kinds of conditions.

I think that the moderators should consider deleting those pictures - not for graphic content, but because they're unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism.

Humans are animals. — petrichor

DUH.
Animals are not humans. Think that through a minute!

If my enslavement and eating of a group of humans — petrichor

Animals are not human.

other beings simply do not belong to us to do with as we please. — petrichor

Yes they do!!

Cows produce lots of greenhouse gases and contribute in a big way to global warming. — petrichor

Cows are carbon neutral. This is a false argument and quite a desperate ploy to traduce herbivores in general. The planet is capable of making x amount of biomass. All plant matter eventually rots or passed through an animal, cows, monkeys, or widebeasts; human too, makes no difference. If a cow had not eaten the food the greenhouse gasses would have been farted out by a vegetarian, or eventually rotted away expressing the gas then. A cow is just a part of the carbon cycle.

The only exception to this of any consequence on land is trees. I'm an advocate of growing more tress and humans producing fewer vegetarian babies.

I note you like to look at pictures of animals suffering. I'm not an advocate of battery farming or any kind of intensive farming, certainly not the sort of farming that modern vegetarianism needs in the northern hemisphere, which is destructive of the environment.

I do not advocate these buildings in our countryside.


I prefer to see this.

Cows produce lots of greenhouse gases and contribute in a big way to global warming.
— petrichor

Cows are carbon neutral. This is a false argument and quite a desperate ploy to traduce herbivores in general. The planet is capable of making x amount of biomass. All plant matter eventually rots or passed through an animal, cows, monkeys, or widebeasts; human too, makes no difference. If a cow had not eaten the food the greenhouse gasses would have been farted out by a vegetarian, or eventually rotted away expressing the gas then. A cow is just a part of the carbon cycle. — charleton

Have you worked on a kill floor before? — Akanthinos

I've killed several animals that I have reared personally; chickens. geese, ducks, rabbits. I also killed a monsterous goat, as it was born in pain.

Where the law prevented me doing the job myself I took the animals to be killed and observed the process, personally.

Some killing floors are poorly regulated, but best practice in the UK reduces suffering to a minimum.
But even with poor practice the death of an animals in such circumstances would be preferable to ANY natural death.

give us the right to do bad things to other sentient beings. — petrichor

Define sentient!

I am challenging the view of nature you appear to have.

Humans are not just relaxing in the sun by a pool lazily feasting away on meat. The context of meat eating is brute survival in a far from perfect morally ambiguous world.

I am trying to fix the debate in the context of the real world. My initial point is that meat eating is innate in life not an aberration. And there is no default Utopia for us to return to or achieve.

The question of how we should treat animals is different to whether or not we should eat them and veganism is a diet excluding meat. So I would have no problem with a philosophy of keeping animals in as painless as possible situations.

I don't think life lawfully gives us any obligations and we are just as much a victim of nature as the rest of life.

Because I have, for hogs, and I can tell you that no, not at all, the beasts do not die well or cleanly. — Akanthinos

Maybe you were not doing your job properly?
Maybe the country you live in has poor standards?
Maybe the boss you worked for did not comply with the standards that were his legal responsibilities?
I've seen animals die of natural causes. I know which I would prefer.

It is not a straightforward case of asking a patient whether they want to be kept alive. There is a wide variety of medical procedures and caring strategies that effects someones longevity in hospital. — Andrew4Handel

You're comparing apples and oranges: A doctor using medications that may have harmful side-effects, uses them because s/he believes the chances are greater that they will help the patient live longer and better than going without the meds. And the doc still has to have your consent to give you the meds unless you are incapacitated in some way. The farmer/butcher kills an animal for the farmer/butcher's good and not that of the animal. The animal benefits in no way from having it's throat slit, nor is it asked for consent.

I would say the sheep were expressionless showing no specific joie de vivre. — Andrew4Handel

And what does an animal have to do in order to show joy in your book? I see animals in my backyard all the time enjoying life: sunning themselves, playing with each other, taking naps, caressing each other, etc, etc. Anyone who's had a dog knows that dogs enjoy life--especially when there is a warm lap, a yummy cookie, and an ear scratch to be had. But then, don't take it from me--take it from any actual ethologist: animals enjoy life.
Furthermore, since homo sapiens enjoy life, evolution dictates that other animals must have this capacity too.

I'm not sure you are quite understanding Dawkins' quote: the universe, being something which cannot think or act, obviously is indifferent (really not even that, since being "indifferent" implies the capacity to care, which the universe cannot). That, however, does not mean that the individuals (human and non-human) within the universe do not, or cannot care. To argue thus would be a fallacy of division.

I think crime is natural and moralising about it is pointless. I would tackle the causes of crime rather than focus on vilifying people. — Andrew4Handel

I'll ignore the contradiction in saying it's pointless to moralize, but we ought to stop crime from happening...

This means that you can identify those things that would count as crimes: which implies you do understand the difference between things one ought to do, and what one ought not to do. But we can use your lingo if you insist (even though it doesn't make a difference really; you're just giving a different name to the concept): the debate then is whether killing animals for food, when we could reasonably do otherwise, is a crime (or should be considered as one)--the answer is still yes. Taking the life of an autonomous, sentient, intelligent being without his/her consent and purely for one's own pleasure is a crime.

That's how it's beginning to seem, and I'm getting sick and tired of it. — Sapientia

Getting so upset about what a stranger says on the internet in a philosophical debate, especially when they did not say anything personal to you, is a sign that you have lost objectivity about the subject (at least for the moment).

Now, since you have not given me the courtesy of sticking to the point, in return, I will not give you the courtesy of even reading the rest of your post, let alone giving it a considered reply. — Sapientia

Like we don't all know that actually means "I can't think of a way to counter your arguments, but I don't want to admit it." :cool:

Can, hypothetically, occasionally does... — Sapientia

Why does that change the essence of what I was saying? Even IF you could hypothetically keep a cow for it's natural lifespan (20+ years), it doesn't happen. They are killed before three years of age (dairy cows get to live a whopping 4 years before being killed). And even IF one in a million cows gets treated like a lifelong pet by some farmer who has a soft spot--how does that justify the treatment of the other 999,999? That doesn't even justify it's own killing--because it does not want to be killed.

indication of evangelism. — Sapientia

People post pics and vids on this forum all the time--it's just prop material, get over it.

"Evangelism," "proselytizing," "ideologues" etc, etc are all terms people use against animal rights when they are tired of being proven wrong and just want to cling to their own ideology without having to recognize it as such. You're debating your side, we're doing the same-- if we're evangelists or whatever, so are you. I think neither of us is: we're just debating in a forum created for that very purpose.

:wink:

Animals are not humans. Think that through a minute! — charleton

Yes, but evolution dictates that anything and everything we are innately capable of, other animals can do as well in varying degrees (some better, some worse than us). Such as, but not limited to: suffering when being held captive.

Define sentient! — charleton

"Able to perceive and feel things"

This means that you can identify those things that would count as crimes: which implies you do understand the difference between things one ought to do — NKBJ

I was only using the term crime because you brought it up. I have said I am a moral nihilist... so I am only referring to things that have been socially labeled crimes and saying that if they were to be dealt with I would not deal with them in a condemnatory and punitive way. You are trying to commit people to behaving in the same way in a diverse set of circumstances however.

I don't have one default way of categorising and dealing with what may be harm. The "natural" issue was an issue of to what degree our behaviour accords with natural survival, functional behaviour. Eating animals and dead organisms is an essential part of the life cycle so that is a big mitigating circumstance.
........

The issue about pets and humans needing medical treatment is to point out that death is not a consent issue or straightforward. My brother who has been intensive care more than once and had pneumonia several times & nearly was allowed to die by a doctor because they thought that to keep him alive might not be the best option because of his profound disabilities.
So my Dad had to advocate on my brothers behalf and my brother hadn't expressed his wishes. Then the next time he was becoming unconscious through pneumonia I had to make sure I asked my brother did he want to be kept a live at all costs and convey that to the medical staff.

But even after getting a clear advocacy or consent for keeping some one alive the medical procedures are a life or death matter and to which extent you persist in treating someone. So there have been long court cases about whether someone should be kept alive (babies/people in vegetative state etc)

This is in response to you saying "It is not for us to decide for the animal when it should die".

I think life is ambiguous and there is no clear cut moral framework to apply consistently.

I don't think Harm equals Wrong or Bad. And that kind idea was what was being attacked by G.E.Moore with his "Naturalistic Fallacy" (Although he focused on Good and Pleasure).

You would have to have another premise to get from one to the other. But if you did define harm as bad it would outweigh the good and make a lot of neutral things or natural things immoral..... It seems we are to believe only humans harming animals is a moral evil.

More on moral non-naturalism in this rather wordy article. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/

I don't think Harm equals Wrong or Bad. And that kind idea was what was being attacked by G.E.Moore with his "Naturalistic Fallacy" (Although he focused on Good and Pleasure). — Andrew4Handel

I've read G.E. Moore: he was not arguing against explaining types of wrong or good, he was arguing against reducing the good or the bad to one type of thing. Along the lines of, you can say an apple is a type of fruit, but you cannot say all fruit are apples--that was Moore's argument for goodness and pleasure.

It seems we are to believe only humans harming animals is a moral evil. — Andrew4Handel

Um, no? I didn't say that. But humans harming animals is one kind of moral wrong. If you're suggesting it could be immoral for a lion to kill an antelope--lions are not moral agents and so cannot be the perpetrators of moral acts.

I was only using the term crime because you brought it up. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe. But you still argued that we ought to stop crimes--which flies in the face of your supposed moral nihilism.

You are trying to commit people to behaving in the same way in a diverse set of circumstances however. — Andrew4Handel

In some ways, yes I am: I have no qualms about admitting to wanting to commit people to not being murderers or rapists. :snicker:

But even after getting a clear advocacy or consent for keeping some one alive the medical procedures are a life or death matter and to which extent you persist in treating someone. So there have been long court cases about whether someone should be kept alive (babies/people in vegetative state etc) — Andrew4Handel

Yes, and if you had read my post more carefully, you'd know I said those are exceptions. In cases where a patient cannot make their wishes known, or is not capable of having wishes, others must make choices for them. But a cow is neither a baby nor in a vegetative state. Let a cow choose between pain and no pain, death or life--they can and will choose no pain and living. Duh. No cow voluntarily walks into a knife merely for our pleasure.

Getting so upset about what a stranger says on the internet in a philosophical debate, especially when they did not say anything personal to you, is a sign that you have lost objectivity about the subject (at least for the moment). — NKBJ

Nonsense.

Like we don't all know that actually means "I can't think of a way to counter your arguments, but I don't want to admit it." :cool: — NKBJ

My way of countering your red herrings is to disregard them.

Why does that change the essence of what I was saying? — NKBJ

It changes it massively. It's the difference between all and some. How can that not change the essence of what you're saying? Get it right.

Even if you could hypothetically keep a cow for it's natural lifespan (20+ years), it doesn't happen. — NKBJ

No one anywhere on the planet, in modern times, has kept a cow for the duration if its natural lifespan? There's not a single exception? Yeah right. That would be extremely unlikely. So, why should I believe that?

They are killed before three years of age (dairy cows get to live a whopping 4 years before being killed). — NKBJ

Pointing out what is generally the case doesn't rule out the exceptions that we have been trying to get you to address.

And even IF one in a million cows gets treated like a lifelong pet by some farmer who has a soft spot--how does that justify the treatment of the other 999,999? — NKBJ

Did I make that argument? No. So why are you asking me that?

well... the thing so many damn people like to eat meat that in order to get to everyone they need to quicken things up a bit. But treating the animals in montrorous ways.

I think vegetarians are all absolute hypocrites because I've never meat a kind vegetarian.

I think that the moderators should consider deleting those pictures - not for graphic content, but because they're unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism. — Sapientia

:lol:

Funniest shit I've seen all day.

Thinking about what the moderators should do? Yeah, maybe I should not have bothered. But they are unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism.