Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Carnism & Rationalism

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    In other words it's reading out of context to take that interpretation. You have to distinguish between:
    Physiologically natural
    Ideologically natural

    You conflate ideological with physiological. They make a distinction between physiological & ideological &, considering the rest of the piece, it's clear they're trying to argue that it's not ideologically natural to eat meat. I mean to think they'd argue such a trivially obvious point, that humans aren't naturally (physiologically) able to eat meat, is ridiculous. If we're not immediately assuming the worst as a means to discredit then I think the more rational explanation, the one that coincidentally fits in with the entire thrust of the article & doesn't contradict reality, is what is being argued for. But even if they were it doesn't in any way affect the main point about it being ideologically natural.

    How can any ideology be unnatural? Where would it come from? What bearing does naturalness have on the validity of an ideology.
    I don't think it matters whether it talks about physiologically natural, or ideologically natural, its irrelevant. As I said before, the article is too wordy for its own good. It over-analyses certain things, attempts to bring in unnecessary terms and makes silly mistakes.
    The whole point of this is to question the validity of the concept of ideology, questions of physiology are irrelevant, both conceptually & because it's entirely possible for humans to physiologically flourish without meat as is easily verifiable on the net with tons of easily accessible information.

    And the validity of an ideology is unconnected to it being natural, as there is no way to measure if an ideology is natural.
    In other words, that ideologically it's not a neutral question where the default is, naturally, to eat meat with vegetarianism being the ideological deviance. Furthermore I think it's very important to be aware of the "contradictions between our values and behaviors" aspect of this discussion "allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical".

    Yes, but as I said, the word natural is unnecessary, it just complicates things.


  • Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    pH wrote: »

    So given this seems to be a moral question - about taking an animal's life so we can eat meat - I think it's entirely proper to look at it differently when we're responsible for giving them life in the first place.
    If we create the pig or not is irrelevant to an ethical stance to the pig though I hope you'd agree?
    Once the pig exists, for whatever reason, it is still an animal that can suffer. And as such it should have the same rights as a pig we didn't create.



    For me the difficult question is this: Is the mostly unnecessary pleasure we gain from eating meat justification enough to end, the ideally happy life, as painlessly as possible, of a conscious animal?

    One of the rationalisations I've found that help preserve the meat eating stance is that conscious animals do not have a full concept of a future. As such when we kill them we are not depriving them of this future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,939 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    recedite wrote: »
    are you making this up?

    As if!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    muppeteer wrote: »
    If we create the pig or not is irrelevant to an ethical stance to the pig though I hope you'd agree?
    Once the pig exists, for whatever reason, it is still an animal that can suffer. And as such it should have the same rights as a pig we didn't create.

    No I don't agree - and as a couple of posters above have done, who can't address this point, they've made it about animal welfare - I'm not arguing that animals such as pigs should suffer - they should not.


    For me the difficult question is this: Is the mostly unnecessary pleasure we gain from eating meat justification enough to end, the ideally happy life, as painlessly as possible, of a conscious animal?

    Ok - the argument here is that at some philosophical and moral level we shouldn't deprive an animal of its life just to have some meat on a plate - so for those who hold that view - let's imagine a world where we kept domesticated animals in a blissful freerange setting, wait for them to drop dead from natural causes - would it be OK to eat them? Then what about animals bred only to live 18 months before they dropped dead? Can we eat them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    pH wrote: »
    No I don't agree - and as a couple of posters above have done, who can't address this point, they've made it about animal welfare - I'm not arguing that animals such as pigs should suffer - they should not.

    Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.
    pH wrote: »
    Ok - the argument here is that at some philosophical and moral level we shouldn't deprive an animal of its life just to have some meat on a plate - so for those who hold that view - let's imagine a world where we kept domesticated animals in a blissful freerange setting, wait for them to drop dead from natural causes - would it be OK to eat them? Then what about animals bred only to live 18 months before they dropped dead? Can we eat them?

    That's an interesting question. Personally, I still wouldn't eat it (as well as welfare, I don't eat meat because I have an aversion to eating dead bits of animals), but there may be others who would have no issue, as you are letting the animal live out its natural biological life.
    Would you eat human meat, if it was from the same situation?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.

    I'm not going to wade in on this debate because I believe that meat is an important part of a varied and balanced diet and have no problem whatsoever eating dead things. They're delicious.

    Where I will interject is the first sentence of your post. Death is a form of suffering. I have to disagree. The threat of death, if you are aware of it, is a form of suffering. Prolonged painful death is suffering. But at the point of death all suffering ceases, as does everything else.

    When I die, I really don't care if somebody or something eats me. In fact I would like to have my body directly contribute to the food chain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.


    That's an interesting question. Personally, I still wouldn't eat it (as well as welfare, I don't eat meat because I have an aversion to eating dead bits of animals), but there may be others who would have no issue, as you are letting the animal live out its natural biological life.
    Would you eat human meat, if it was from the same situation?

    Frankly this seems irrational to me. Every living thing dies and get's eaten by something, ourselves included. When we die unless we're cremated our bodies decompose and are eaten by bacteria, fungus, insects and worms. This way our bodies are recycled and nothing get's wasted. It has always been this way and will be this way forever. I like it this way, it reminds me that I'm just another part of nature, there is nothing particularly special about me. I'm made of the same material as all life from beetles to butterflies. You seem to be in some sort of denial and rebellion, I can tell you with absolute certainty that resistance is futile.

    There are two arguments here that need to be separated, one is of animal welfare and the other is whether it right to eat dead things. You will find few arguing against the former and the latter is a foregone conclusion, the only question is eaten by whom or what.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Death is a form of suffering. Painless death is obviously a far far better prospect than a painful death (or even a painful-enough life), but we don't just accept human cases of painless death, we act to prevent them. Its empathy - if I have to die, I of course want it to be as painless as possible, but I want to live for as long as possible.

    Given that death, for the pig is inevitable, if you want to define that "death" as suffering then it's something the pig has to suffer that at some stage - by choosing the time of its death we're not adding any additional "suffering" to that pig's life. Once again I'd like to leave the welfare issue to a side - you may find some willing to argue that we've every right to treat animals as poorly as we like - I'm not one of them.

    I still can't get past the point that for a cow, specifically bred to be eaten they get two years of free range, predator free life, protected from the worst diseases and natural dangers. It's not a question of us cutting this animals life short for a steak - if we didn't eat meat it would never have been bred in the first place - it wouldn't have had two years of living on prime grassland in a safe environment being treated by a vet - it would have had no life at all. If it has a pleasant life, and is slaughtered humanely - I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument that no life at all is preferable to 2 years living in a field in Ireland and then ending up on a plate.

    I've no real problem with vegetarians, even militant ones arguing from an emotional perspective as to why they don't eat meat and why others shouldn't either, I just find the idea that somehow vegetarianism can be arrived at as a rational or logical conclusion somewhat bizarre.
    That's an interesting question. Personally, I still wouldn't eat it (as well as welfare, I don't eat meat because I have an aversion to eating dead bits of animals), but there may be others who would have no issue, as you are letting the animal live out its natural biological life.
    Would you eat human meat, if it was from the same situation?

    Again why draw human analogies - it's pointless - if you're really interested then the answer is no - I have no desire to eat a dead human - however if people who were happy to have their bodies eaten after death were cooked and eaten by those happy to eat them then I'd have no problem with that happening - it's just not for me.

    And what's so important about "its natural biological life" - this seems a very specific point you've thrown in to justify your position - animals can die from accident and disease too - is it OK to eat roadkill?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    How can any ideology be unnatural? Where would it come from? What bearing does naturalness have on the validity of an ideology.

    Unnatural in the sense that it creates "contradictions between our values and behaviors, allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical". I just don't see how any other interpretation of the word natural makes sense frankly, you're right that it's not the best word in this context.
    I don't think it matters whether it talks about physiologically natural, or ideologically natural, its irrelevant.

    It's not irrelevant, the distinction matters when you try to claim that the article makes "silly mistakes" like claiming humans don't naturally eat meat by referring to biology. This is incorrect, the article didn't do that.

    As I said before, the article is too wordy for its own good. It over-analyses certain things, attempts to bring in unnecessary terms

    I don't think it's an unnecessary term, can you offer up another term already commonly used that specifically refers to the idea that it's not only vegetarians/vegans/... that bring their ideologies to the dinner table? Again as you can glean from the article, words like carnivore don't reference ideology. Furthermore this argument is ridiculous anyway, I mean it could have been used against words like racism, sexism, speciesism, teaspoon etc... & basically calls for the end of creativity with language if taken seriously...
    and makes silly mistakes.

    You have yet to point out one of these silly mistakes, thus far the only silly mistake you referred to was due to your own misreading of the article.
    And the validity of an ideology is unconnected to it being natural, as there is no way to measure if an ideology is natural.

    Yeah but if you mean natural in the sense that naturally you wouldn't just do things that contradict with your own values & ethics then I think the validity of an ideology is connected. Just chalk it down to a poor choice of words I guess.
    Yes, but as I said, the word natural is unnecessary, it just complicates things.

    Agreed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    pH wrote: »
    I've no real problem with vegetarians, even militant ones arguing from an emotional perspective as to why they don't eat meat and why others shouldn't either, I just find the idea that somehow vegetarianism can be arrived at as a rational or logical conclusion somewhat bizarre.

    Why? Again the claim is that it's irrational to eat meat because of "contradictions between our values and behaviors, allowing us to make exceptions to what we would normally consider ethical". Furthermore the claim is that most likely it's not a rational choice to eat meat, it's because you brought up that way in a manner similar to religious indoctrination, but again, like religion, even if you chose to do so at some stage in your life it still goes against values & ethics. I fail to see how starting with an open mind, valuing life etc... can lead one to thinking it's alright to start slaughtering living beings. The rationalizations have to come in, like "humane slaughtering" in order to try to convince ourselves that we aren't contradicting our own values doing what we know clearly does, or convincing ourselves that our empathy doesn't apply on case X despite it applying in case Y etc... But no, obviously it's the vegetarians who are illogical & irrational...
    pH wrote: »
    I have no desire to eat a dead human - however if people who were happy to have their bodies eaten after death were cooked and eaten by those happy to eat them then I'd have no problem with that happening - it's just not for me.

    If you were indoctrinated as a child into believing this was alright then you'd certainly be doing it, in other words it's just irrational for you to feel some aversion (not you, doesn't matter whether you're a "carnist" or not, just in general as a concept).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    fitz0 wrote: »
    Where I will interject is the first sentence of your post. Death is a form of suffering. I have to disagree. The threat of death, if you are aware of it, is a form of suffering. Prolonged painful death is suffering. But at the point of death all suffering ceases, as does everything else.

    Maybe suffering is the wrong word. But its as close as I can figure out. Death, painless or otherwise is something which all creatures try to avoid if they are able to and aware of it. If you were told you were going to die by following through on some action, but the death would be painless, you would still alter you actions to try to avoid death. That's the point I'm trying to get across - you may give an animal every pleasure in life, but if sudden early death is payment then its not a fair trade, even if its painless. Would you take it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    sink wrote: »
    Frankly this seems irrational to me. Every living thing dies and get's eaten by something, ourselves included. When we die unless we're cremated our bodies decompose and are eaten by bacteria, fungus, insects and worms. This way our bodies are recycled and nothing get's wasted. It has always been this way and will be this way forever. I like it this way, it reminds me that I'm just another part of nature, there is nothing particularly special about me. I'm made of the same material as all life from beetles to butterflies. You seem to be in some sort of denial and rebellion, I can tell you with absolute certainty that resistance is futile.

    :confused: Actually this seems in irrational to me. Yes death is certain, but we still have medicine to stave off death for as long as possible and we criminalise the act of killing other humans in society. If recognising that death is not a desirable act or physiological disposition, then I think nearly every human on the planet is in denial.
    sink wrote: »
    There are two arguments here that need to be separated, one is of animal welfare and the other is whether it right to eat dead things. You will find few arguing against the former and the latter is a foregone conclusion, the only question is eaten by whom or what.

    I think you have missed the incredibly obvious question of "is it right to kill something so that you an eat it?".


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    pH wrote: »
    Given that death, for the pig is inevitable, if you want to define that "death" as suffering then it's something the pig has to suffer that at some stage - by choosing the time of its death we're not adding any additional "suffering" to that pig's life. Once again I'd like to leave the welfare issue to a side - you may find some willing to argue that we've every right to treat animals as poorly as we like - I'm not one of them.

    Death for humans is inevitable too, so what difference does inevitability make.
    pH wrote: »
    I still can't get past the point that for a cow, specifically bred to be eaten they get two years of free range, predator free life, protected from the worst diseases and natural dangers. It's not a question of us cutting this animals life short for a steak - if we didn't eat meat it would never have been bred in the first place - it wouldn't have had two years of living on prime grassland in a safe environment being treated by a vet - it would have had no life at all. If it has a pleasant life, and is slaughtered humanely - I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument that no life at all is preferable to 2 years living in a field in Ireland and then ending up on a plate.

    Would you do it to a human? Is two years for a human child better than none at all? How about 20 years? 40 years? What if we didn't eat them, what if we did it to harvest organs for transplant. Would it be ok then?
    pH wrote: »
    Again why draw human analogies - it's pointless - if you're really interested then the answer is no - I have no desire to eat a dead human - however if people who were happy to have their bodies eaten after death were cooked and eaten by those happy to eat them then I'd have no problem with that happening - it's just not for me.

    Last I checked humans were animals and edible as much as any cow, so how is it pointless?
    pH wrote: »
    And what's so important about "its natural biological life" - this seems a very specific point you've thrown in to justify your position - animals can die from accident and disease too - is it OK to eat roadkill?

    When I said "natural biological life" I simply meant that its life wasn't ended by a human so it could eat it, so roadkill (as its accidental) would be the same as an animal that died of old age in terms of being ok to eat.
    Lets say a man needed an organ transplant for something that wasn't life threatening. Two acceptable options are to wait for someone to die naturally or die from an accident. But if the man killed someone so he could take their organs, would that be ok? Is it ok for man to decide when someone else should die, to suit him? What rational reason is there to justify humans control of animals up to the point of deciding when they should die simply to sate our savoury desires?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    It's not irrelevant, the distinction matters when you try to claim that the article makes "silly mistakes" like claiming humans don't naturally eat meat by referring to biology. This is incorrect, the article didn't do that.

    I meant it doesn't matter to the basic point of the article - just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we automatically have to eat meat. Thats all the article should have talked about, it doesn't need to label ideologies.
    I don't think it's an unnecessary term, can you offer up another term already commonly used that specifically refers to the idea that it's not only vegetarians/vegans/... that bring their ideologies to the dinner table? Again as you can glean from the article, words like carnivore don't reference ideology. Furthermore this argument is ridiculous anyway, I mean it could have been used against words like racism, sexism, speciesism, teaspoon etc... & basically calls for the end of creativity with language if taken seriously...

    Thats a bit of a non sequitor. There is a difference between useful creativity, defining something that hasn't been defined before in a concise and useful way, and defining something that doesn't need to be defined.
    You have yet to point out one of these silly mistakes, thus far the only silly mistake you referred to was due to your own misreading of the article.

    Misreading of it, assuming you are correct. The fundamental silly mistake is the authors verbosity. A notion such as "natural ideology" is kind of silly. The reason we shouldn't fall afoul of this ideology is because it's illogical (because its a form of cognitive dissonance), describing it as unnatural is completely unnecessary and leads people to wonder if the "naturalness" didn't apply to something else the author said.
    Yeah but if you mean natural in the sense that naturally you wouldn't just do things that contradict with your own values & ethics then I think the validity of an ideology is connected. Just chalk it down to a poor choice of words I guess.

    It takes two minutes reading the Hazards of Belief and Religious Humour threads to see that, naturally, people do just do things that contradict with their own values & ethics quite a bit :).


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Death for humans is inevitable too, so what difference does inevitability make.

    Before this all gets too tedious - I could rewrite all your stuff comparing animals to plants and I'd win - it's not obvious why you continue to bring human analogies into it - they're meaningless - animals aren't humans - they aren't treated the same - we don't arrest them for murder - we don't have a police investigation if a frog dies - I have no idea why you continue to bring up "well it's this way for humans ..." - so what?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    pH wrote: »
    Before this all gets too tedious - I could rewrite all your stuff comparing animals to plants and I'd win

    Win at using copy-paste maybe. How exactly are plants like animals in the same way that humans are like every other animal?
    pH wrote: »
    - it's not obvious why you continue to bring human analogies into it - they're meaningless - animals aren't humans - they aren't treated the same - we don't arrest them for murder - we don't have a police investigation if a frog dies - I have no idea why you continue to bring up "well it's this way for humans ..." - so what?

    :confused: Really? Humans aren't exactly the same as every other animal, therefore we don't have treat any other animal similar to a human? (ignoring how we do actually put animals through a form of due process for serious crimes against people and usually end up putting them down).

    I bring in humans into this type of debate because humans are very analogous to animals in the context of this debate and everyone knows it, its why every time I've done it I get back the same massive non sequitors along the lines of "we shouldn't eat plants because they, somehow, compare to animals in the way that humans do" or "animals don't compare to humans because they can't drive". Its as stupid as saying we should animals because they are made of meat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,948 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    My first thought was "astroturfing" - the attempt to create a "movement" where there is none. Starting with the hypothesis that eating meat is irrational. I mean, of all the forums to post such nonsense, the OP picks one full of people who don't just take what other people write at face value ... :rolleyes:

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    bnt wrote: »
    My first thought was "astroturfing" - the attempt to create a "movement" where there is none. Starting with the hypothesis that eating meat is irrational. I mean, of all the forums to post such nonsense, the OP picks one full of people who don't just take what other people write at face value ... :rolleyes:

    I post something that makes plenty of arguments & attempts to justify it's claims but you ignore all that, refering to it all as nonsense, & just boldfacedly claim the opposite of what the article claims without a tap of justification & to top it all off try to insult me for posting this in a forum where other people apparently don't take what others write at face value - all the while offering a counterargument that would practically be the first example given in an argument/rhetoric text of what it means to make an argument begging to be taken at face value, & in such a short amount of text too...


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I meant it doesn't matter to the basic point of the article - just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we automatically have to eat meat. Thats all the article should have talked about, it doesn't need to label ideologies.

    Yeah it doesn't really matter to the basic point of the article, just matters with regard to the claim about the article making stupid mistakes.

    However the difference between this article & all the others is the emphasis on ideologies, hence why it's posted in this forum. I really don't think this should turn into a discussion on vegetarianism in the utilitarian sense, that's like one sub-argument in the general framework as regards this whole thing but the specific issue is the ideological suppositions that lead humans into contradictions with their values as a means to justify eating meat, & the "carnistic defenses" that rationalize such contradictions & the implications of all this.
    Thats a bit of a non sequitor. There is a difference between useful creativity, defining something that hasn't been defined before in a concise and useful way, and defining something that doesn't need to be defined.

    Again, I haven't heard another word with the utility this one has, have you? I'm guessing you either deny or don't appreciate it's utility since you don't seem to really appreciate the emphasis/importance of ideology in this conversation. Just think about it a bit more.
    Misreading of it, assuming you are correct. The fundamental silly mistake is the authors verbosity. A notion such as "natural ideology" is kind of silly. The reason we shouldn't fall afoul of this ideology is because it's illogical (because its a form of cognitive dissonance), describing it as unnatural is completely unnecessary and leads people to wonder if the "naturalness" didn't apply to something else the author said.

    Well poor choice of words perhaps, as they obviously can lead to confusion, but we know what it means now.

    It takes two minutes reading the Hazards of Belief and Religious Humour threads to see that, naturally, people do just do things that contradict with their own values & ethics quite a bit :).

    Absolutely, but I think that in both cases you can locate the reasons for such contradictions & people usually correct these kinds of things unless there's some reason not to.




  • Steak this evening. Roast chicken yesterday, and a braised lamb shank on Saturday night. Nom nom.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,948 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I post something that makes plenty of arguments ...
    I did read it; however, your post starts with a false proposition in the very first sentence. All those arguments you refer to stem from that. What is left for me to engage with? No insult was intended, and everything I said was addressed at what you posted, not at you. But there's just nothing there that I can say any more about, than has already been said by other responses.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    bnt wrote: »
    My first thought was "astroturfing" - the attempt to create a "movement" where there is none. Starting with the hypothesis that eating meat is irrational.

    Why is it rational? (not saying I agree with the hypothesis).
    bnt wrote: »
    I mean, of all the forums to post such nonsense, the OP picks one full of people who don't just take what other people write at face value ... :rolleyes:

    The OP did ask people to offer their opinions on it, so the one forum that doesn't take articles at face value is probably the best one to discuss it, no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Again, I haven't heard another word with the utility this one has, have you? I'm guessing you either deny or don't appreciate it's utility since you don't seem to really appreciate the emphasis/importance of ideology in this conversation. Just think about it a bit more.

    I think the utility is undermined by how people are likely to react to it. I understand what the author is trying to convey, but people really hate having their ideologies labelled for them - just look at how many people call themselves catholic despite having religious beliefs that line up more with protestantism (assuming any religious label actually applies at all). The label doesn't change what they believe, and if they were rational in this context then they could just accept it when someone points out that they actually align with a different label than they first thought. But people aren't, so its better, imo, to just concentrate on how they are wrong and were their logical inconsistencies are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Ah no.
    Are atheists becoming vegans and vegetarians?
    I'm out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,460 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Ah no.
    Are atheists becoming vegans and vegetarians?
    I'm out.

    Yeah! I thought we were just against lame stuff like churches and boogeymen.

    Eating meat though! Next thing you'll tell me it's irrational to have my 10 pints on a Friday night when I'm clearly biologically designed for it!




  • Zamboni wrote: »
    Ah no.
    Are atheists becoming vegans and vegetarians?
    I'm out.

    There's actually a prayer about that, well sort of, written by Rabbie Burns, but I'd better not post it. :eek:


Advertisement