View Single Post
  #14   ^
Old Tue, Dec-18-18, 09:07
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,300
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I remember years ago on the board we discussed an essay looking at whether carnivores in the wild should be somehow separated from innocent herbivores.

As far as the ethics goes--I think they're just wrong. I don't really respect those ethics, although I do respect the attempt to be ethical itself.

Should I compromise my health, and those of others, to keep human babies off the diet? I'd say yes. Lets go way down, to clams and shrimp. Should I compromise any human's health so that these animals can live to a healthy old age? Not likely. I can see at some point saying, I don't want to eat the fluffy bunny, or the pig or something, at some point saying, this animal just seems too aware. Not saying I agree, but at least the argument can be made. The only reason I can see for drawing a solid line at such an extreme point that even the smallest, least likely to have any semblance of sentience animal is protected is the slippery slope argument. Sometimes lines are inescapably fuzzy. What should the legal drinking age be? Clearly wine cooler sippy cups are a bad idea. At what point are you needlessly encroaching on the freedom of an adult? 19? 21? 25?
Reply With Quote