Reposte

[treehuggerjd]

Since responding to ya'll in comment form is tough due to word limits, I'll respond in this form.

I'm not so sure I can agree with all ya'll.  The main argument I'm seeing here is that "animals do it, so why can't I?"  Granted, I did say that we're all the same, but that wasn't exactly what I was going for.  What I meant is that we are all sentient

Comments

[gaffneys_wrath]

It's always going to come down to a personal choice. As you say, there's nothing right or wrong about it. Fortunately for people who share your oppinions, we live in a time where it's pretty easy to be a vegitarian or veagan, so it's an option for sure. In fact, it's likely that as the green movement sweeps America, the production and consumption of meat will diminish and maybe even dissappear. Personally, I feel the same ammount of remorse eating a steak as I do swatting a mosquito. I'm probably wrong, but that's just the way I am. I'd say it's a lot easier to make the moral argument than the ecological argument. There are a lot of easier ways to reduce your footprint than becomming a vegitarian. In any case, hellbound though I may be, I will continue to eat delicious beef and poodle.

P.S.
If Tawny gets tired of your VAGitarian ways, she's welcome to come bunk with a real omnivore.

[gaffneys_wrath]

P.S. please ignore my multiple atrocious spelling errors, since it's not nice to make fun of illiterate people.

[treehuggerjd]

A "real omnivore." God dammit, Evan. Where do you come up with this stuff? Pure gold

[soaring_flames]

I think you are thinking about it too much. I agree with evan, this is a time of choice about what we eat because we are lucky enough NOT to be starving and forced to eat everything and anything. One thing I want to point out though, is this: You first made the distinction that we are the same as animals, we have emotion, need for life, etc, and I agree with that in most cases. Although, you have now brought up that we (perhaps) have a higher level of thinking, and can therefore CHOOSE to kill for sustainance or not. Therefore, we are leaving it as a moral obligation to eat or not eat another being, correct? What do you have to say to the moral obligation of saving a life vs. taking one for food? Because as a society, we can choose to eat meat or not, and we can also choose to let a dying man continue to die, and walk away. the catch here is that morally, you think ," WHAT??!! how can you let someone die when you are there to help it!?!?" this is because you have that higher sense of thinking. but in nature, things don't always work