How can libertarians justify eating meat?MOD WARNING

We don't need to eat vegetables either so long as we take the right vitamin and mineral supplements. There is no logic to your argument.

Au Contraire. Hunter gatherers have eaten meat throughout history. Even pre-homosapians ate meat, frequently raw. Bones of animals with trace of knife cuts tells us a lot about early humans and meat eating.

Wrong answer!

It doesn't have to be justified as to why meat is eaten, rather there is no logic or reason why not.

Why should anyone say why it is ethically valid? It is certainly not ethically valid
to forbid the eating of meat. (except on Friday during Lent)

I find it hilarious that anyone should suggest that eating meat is unethical or wrong. In fact I find it quite asinine as well.

 

Why is it a nonsensical expectation?

Lol that's not how philosophy works. Try again. First justify yourself then I will explain myself, again.

 

Exactly, so your argument before was wrong. next.

What the argument you just agreed with? Lol

Yes but today it would not be possible meet demand by hunting.

why is that?

.
...?... look ip the burden of proof. You have yet to substantiate it.

Because that's the purpose of this thread haha

Why is that?

lol!

Why?

Why?

 

Bevause no society could function without some aggressive application of force, for example in the form of organized law.

Why shouldn't they?

I feel really sorry for you and your ignorance with regard to logical fallacies. You've called about 4 logical fallacies 'logical.' It's funny but I feel embarrassed for you.

 

I don;t want to convince you . I want to ban you . I want you thrown in jail and in 100 years time we may well have evolved to this level

I doubt if you know any 'serious thinks' I think you know a bunch of idiot rednecks..the sort of people that say 'Peta stands for people eating tasty animals' then laugh at their own trite little joke.

 

Pretty much

 

If for no other reason, meat eaters out number you and have always outnumbered vegetarians (except in India)

I have justified myself totally. All you do is ask ridiculous question. Meat eating is the norm. You are on the outside looking in.

 

Executionw as the Norm and now civilised countries don;t do it. We also decided that women could vote, slavery was a terrible idea..as is child abuse. History is on our side. Even in the USA which stubbornly clings to Idea like executing people, believing in Creationism and using absurd systems of measurement you will change. Your great grandchildren will find your meat eating disgusting.

 

so you think number of supporters determines the validity of a practice?

Only with fallacies, which is not persuasive in the slightest.

So what? Slavery used to be normal, now it isn't. Times change.

 

I have no need argument for argument with nonsensical people are spouting garbage.

The one where I said eating vegetables was unnecessary.

That that is a wild butt remark. Of course it is possible. I give away meat, much more than I buy of varieties not present in our area wild.

Because the majority like to eat meat, so forbidding it would be unethical.

One does not have to substantiate an opinion in opposition to a stupid assertion.

Which means nothing. It is still a stupid assertion.

Because a stupid assertion is a stupid assertion.

It hasn't changed, it is still a stupid assertion that meat should not be eaten. To ask why again will reflect intellectual dishonesty since all the whys you have asked are obvious to any sane person.

 

This guy is quite appallingly ignorant of basic logical fallacies.

 

Yet I have not expressed a single logical fallacy.

 

I can stand up to the best of you in logic. It is ignorance to suggest otherwise.

And yes, when a practice is legal, and culturally and traditionally acceptable the majority does rule. Amazing that you don't know that and you think you are logical? All girls wear panties, Medadeth wears panties, does that make you a girl? Of course not, that would be a logical fallacy.

Your entire premise is garbage. Have a good night playing in the sand box with the other kindergarteners.

 

You've expressed many. Your favorite seems to be argumentum ad populum. Next favorite of yours is argumentum ad antiquitatem.

In fact I can't recall an argument from you that WASNT a fallacy. Says a lot

 

I accept your surrender

 

quite.

All his arguments are fallacious.

 

They're funny though, in a sad sort of way.

 

They are similar in style to the arguments for the existence of God..all based on nonsense as well.

 

You care about the lives of the animals you're eating. I don't. That's the only ethics that apply here.

The consumption of meat has not been sparse. The eating of meat declined with the advent of agriculture, as more edible plants were available, then came back when we figured out how to domesticate animals. Now that we have industrial farming, mass consumption is easier than ever.

We don't eat meat because we choose to, we eat it because it is hard-wired into us to eat them. A few of us have our brains wired differently so they do not feel this compulsion (people like you).

From an evolutionary standpoint it is foolish to not eat meat when there's so much around. We're not evil or brutish for eating animals, there's a perfectly valid survival reason. The only reason that we in the west can choose not to is because of an environment of our own design - the starving kid in Africa doesn't have much of a choice. You are arguing against natural selection here - it doesn't matter if it's "right", only that ti works.

 

Really? Why is that?

Mass consumption of meat has been an extremely recent phenomenon.

So?

Lol! What a load. Do you have any scientific evidence to validate this? I doubt it.

Why is that?

The manner in which we acquire and eat meat in the overwhelming majority of cases is brutish and evil.

I agree. so we should stop.

Lol I'm arguing for logic and reason not impulse and might. If you think might makes right dont bother engaging in an ethics debate.

 

NAP does not apply to non human animals. Your argument is absurd and your protein deprived brain can offer nothing more than cliched ad hominems.

 

There's no logic. You're simply trying to justify why we should all violate our instincts. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating animals unless you value their lives enough to not want them killed. As evidenced by the fact that almost no one is vegetarian, most people do not.

Animals kill animals and eat them. We are no different, I see no reason to stop. Absolutely none.

 

You think the metric system is just like ending slavery?

If you don't want to eat meat then don't. It is juvenile and narcissistic to rationalize your preference into a moral virtue.

 

Hows that? theres clearly a logical sequence in what im saying. if you think that is lacking in logical substance/reasoning please point out where.

To a certain extend yes I am. But you haven't shown how that is wrong.

So you think right action is in personal preference? If I don't value the life of a child, for example, I can kill them, according I what you've just said.

Almost no one? LOL you are very ignorant on this matter and wrong once again. In the US alone as of 2013, 10% of people follow a vegetarian diet and its growing. Another 5% are thinking about becoming vegetarian.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/vegetarian-statistics/

So?

That just means you are ignorant.

Ignorance, or worse

 

Lol why is that?