(no subject)
Mar. 21st, 2004 01:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I shouldn't read the internet so soon after waking. It only pisses me off.
Fuck that vegan moral superiority bullshit. There's something delightfully evil about knowing that in order to sustain large crops of grains you end up with a lot of dead field mice. Oh, I am so going to use that line on the next self righteous vegan who tries to make me feel guilty for eating meat.
Thankfully my friends who are vegetarian/vegan/whatever who are not militant about their choices and don't feel the need to run around trying to guilt others into adopting their behaviour. I will kindly eat their share of the world's meat so they won't have to. Everyone wins!
Fuck that vegan moral superiority bullshit. There's something delightfully evil about knowing that in order to sustain large crops of grains you end up with a lot of dead field mice. Oh, I am so going to use that line on the next self righteous vegan who tries to make me feel guilty for eating meat.
Thankfully my friends who are vegetarian/vegan/whatever who are not militant about their choices and don't feel the need to run around trying to guilt others into adopting their behaviour. I will kindly eat their share of the world's meat so they won't have to. Everyone wins!
no subject
Date: 2004-03-23 08:47 pm (UTC)See Gaverick Matheny’s “Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davis’s omnivorous proposal”, forthcoming in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, available online at: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/leastharm.htm)
I cannot think of an ethical theory that equates ‘harm’ with ‘number of deaths.’ All the theories of which I am aware are quite concerned with the treatment of animals up to their deaths. Davis, in discussing the number of animals killed rather than their treatment prior to death, ignores an important question that must be answered in order to assess which system of agriculture causes the least harm.