Thoughts?

Well, his article is obviously flawed and totally cliche. Basically PETA's response sums it up pretty fine:

"[...] While millions of animals are killed each year in the harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat
industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every
year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat
eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced
in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we
would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during
harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the
suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the
majority of the animals killed during harvesting."

So, yes, I still believe that "we" (vegans as well as vegetarians, but also flexitarians and the like) are actually moraly superior (hate to call it that, but it's true) to anybody consuming meat/animal products more regularly (at least, concerning animal welfare and the environment). No, ofcourse we're not guiltless. Every human being kills animals and stresses the environment by existing, but trying to argue that this means there is no difference between someone who's vegan and someone who eats meat every day for breakfast, lunch and dinner is just nonsense.

I suppose this guy is actually feeling guilty for being an irresponsible consumer. This realisation is being 'forced' on him by the growing popularity of veganism/vegetarianism/flexitarianism and this is just a way of justifieing his bloodsoaked lifestyle.

Leander

I wonder if he left a tip.

EDIT: oh nevermind... ;-D

Also, I believe on the fact that I can have a sheep (or a cow, or a goat, etc, etc) as a pet, till it's natural death, and then eat it.

Why not? I don't give a fuck about what it's of my body when I'm gone, why would someone?

I don't look it as an karmic theme, or an espiritual thing. I don't believe in that stuff that the meat must go to the earth as manure.

@ XemonerdX - Seems like he has mistaken this thread for the "how strict is your diet" one.

@ Albent - It may be a valid thought to plan to have an animal as 'pet' and to eat it after it's natural death. I wouldn't do it because of my health, the disgust I feel when I smell meat and because I don't think of animals as food. But I guess I see your point there.
It is completely anthropocentric to assume that it would be a 'waste' to let a dead animal simply rot in the round and not eat it but even if you're okay with anthropocentrism than you'd still have to manage two other thinks.

If the animal really was your 'pet' than you'll most likely have a strong relationship/bond with it and that could make it quite hard to rip open its body, to gut it and cut off/out the meat and liver and whatever you'd want to eat.
You'd also have to do that really, really soon (therefore you would've no time to grieve over your pet/friend) and quite quick because (and that's the 2nd point) the rotting starts immediately after the death. Meaning exponentially rising amounts of agressive bacteriae, fungi, weak acids and so on.
If your pet dies at night and you'll find it in the morning... well, that's well too late to be suitable as food. If you'll find it right after its death and if the animal doesn't die in winter than you'll also have a problem with maggots and flies soon 'cause all the gutting, ripping and meat-cutting takes it time and every half hour in (warm) air makes the meat more poisonous to humans.
If you've managed all of this.... than you'll have some meat which may not be morally questionable by vegetarian standards.

Still, the whole process will break something inside of you that will heal only very, very slowly, if ever. I know what I'm talking about 'cause I butchered domestic rabbits, fishes and a duck in the garden of a friend of the family and in the kitchen of my grandma when I was way younger.

One has to assume some things to conduct a conversation. As most people strongly associate the body of a person with a personality even after death (which I don't), I assumed (by using the words 'most likely') that you might do the same. You don't, that's okay, but the majority of humans finds the ritual to say goodbye to a body helpful in the process of saying farewell to a person and to cut open and cut up that body would make the process a little complicated and weird.

You can't eat your grandma not only because of the laws of your country but also because it's a common value of human societies to concede people the right to decide on their bodies even after death. If your grandma would be okay with you eating her and if you'd really like to eat her, well then I'd be the last one to say anything against it. Don't think that you'd find a butcher for that, you'd have to cut her up yourself. ;)

Apparently you know some things about the stuff that happens inside of a corpse but you know too less to understand why flesh and other bodyparts gets poisonous to humans freakin' fast.
Not the whole cow rots to a carrion/cadaverous state in some hours, you're right and I said that nowhere and never. Nevertheless the whole body would be inedible because all the agressive/pathogenic bacteriea, fungi and not to be neglected amounts of cadaverine, botulinum toxin, putrescin and several other substances will be there by then.
Small parts of that can decoct/cooked out but the outweighing 'rest' would still be poisonous to some level.

Do not feign ignorance of the fact that mytilus edulis or oysters are by biological definition animals and you therefore are by strict defintion no vegetarian. We all know that most biologists follow the theory that those mussels/clams do not feel any pain and we've chosen to not want to eat them.
By that definition there would be no difference between eating mussels and eating insects because they are also rumoured to not be able to feel pain...
there would also be no difference between eating mussels and eating humans who suffer from CIPA and are in a lifelong coma as well.

I never say MUSSELS; I don't eat clams, octopus, neither other stuff on that line. I only eat that particular mussel (which, again, has no-name in english, but in spanish food is really important), because, AGAIN, it doesn't move. It's not about pain, it's about the fact that I don't eat things that move (and I don't mean animals which can't move 'cause of diseases); otherwise, why would I eat vegetables? They're alive too.

Also, I'm not making up arguments; I'm explaying how I work. You don't "make up" things when you explain why you don't eat animals, would you?

Albent sagte:
It's not about pain, it's about the fact that I don't eat things that move (and I don't mean animals which can't move 'cause of diseases); otherwise, why would I eat vegetables? They're alive too.
It's about the movement for you? o_O Well, never heard that before but... okay.
Where do make the distinction? You do know that (some) plants move in an animal-like way, do you? You do know, that mytilus edulis might not move from place to place but moves on the inside... or whatelse do you think muscles are for?
What is movement and what isn't? Where's the logic you talked about?

Albent, your definition of what makes an animal an animal and what makes a plant a plant isn't the common definition used by biologers/scientist/dieticians/etc (the link you provided also says the creature is an animal). You can't blame us for your biased and subjective definitions.

XemonerdX escribió:
Albent, your definition of what makes an animal an animal and what makes a plant a plant isn't the common definition used by biologers/scientist/dieticians/etc (the link you provided also says the creature is an animal). You can't blame us for your biased and subjective definitions.
I started saying "I don't eat animals except for this one"; why you repeat that's an animal when I already know it, and already said it?

Hahaha, why do you bother to continue this conversation with Albent... He obviously has no idea what he is talking about.