Is this a fair analogy?

Question

Anyone else see a parallel between meat-eaters and the so-called religious moderates?

Both claim to be opposed to extreme expressions (killing, cruelty) of their beliefs, tend to distance themselves from the "fanatics," but at the same time, are very defensive of the hollow mythic belief systems which give allowance to these actions.

To clarify, religious moderates claim to shun "terrorists," yet draw upon the same core set of beliefs as a foundation for their "faith," a slippery slope of interpretation which leads to the killing of people.

Meat-eaters claim to despise acts of wanton cruelty against animals, yet draw upon the same core set of beliefs as a foundation for their "right to eat animals," a slippery slope of degree which leads to tortured existence for the animals.

Answer 1

yes i can see that..both activities appear to be hypocritical opposing their foundation.



@daisy do you just paste that nonsense about field mice into your answers or do you actually type it every time. my vegetables and grain would still kill less than your vegetables and grain because as well as you directly eating them they also get fed to your food..BUT ANYWAY ILL TAKE YOU UP ON YOUR OFFER. please post statistics because im interested to know how many field mice my vegetables kill. if you can get actual statistics ill cross reference it against my diet and start cutting out the things that kill the most mice and you can "start caring" about the animals you kill and cut them out of you diet. sounds fair.

Answer 2

No because you are neither a meat eater nor a religious moderate and therefore your perception of how both behave or their views are to say the least inaccurate. Therefore you conclusion is also inaccurate.



In fact, your "analogy" can also be used against vegetarians and vegans. To edit your own post: "Both claim to be opposed to extreme expressions (killing, cruelty) of their beliefs, tend to distance themselves from the "fanatics, (groups like PeTA)" but at the same time, are very defensive of the hollow mythic belief systems which give allowance to these actions. Many vegetarians and vegans, in their zeal to protect the "rights" of animals, have taken to either directly or indirectly supporting actions, legal or illegal, that tend to mimic their own desire to free animals from human "oppression". Often being very defensive and downright hostile when this core belief system is challenged, a behavior publicly exhibited by the poster who took offense at daisy's answer regarding field mice and other pests. A painful truth that vegetarians and vegans can't seem to accept and turn a blind eye to.

"Vegetarians and vegans claim to despise acts of wanton cruelty against animals, yet draw upon the same core set of beliefs as a foundation for their "right to eat" a slippery slope of degree which leads to tortured existence and death for the animals.who happen to exist in fields where vegetarians and vegans find their food. Again as demonstrated by that same poster, it seems apparent that vegetarians and vegans ignore (make excuses) the deaths of animals so they can eat while protesting the killing of animals so others can eat. Vegetarians and vegans already know that animals by the billions even trillions are being killed deliberately with no other purpose than to protect this supposed "cruelty free" food supply. Yet have made this "slippery slope of convenient excuses.



Tip to you: leave people to their own devices and they, on their own will see the error of their ways or die soon enough (if as you claim, meat is indeed a poison for our bodies). All this "cool slogans" and "analogies", name calling, false facts and "studies" don't work.After all these years, one would think you wold see something so obvious.

Answer 3

In some ways your analogy is sound and makes sense. However, I don't feel that such animosity towards people who eat meat is necessary. I am a vegetarian, but I understand that humans by nature (if you would care to look at them as animals as well) are meant to consume meat, and have bodies and teeth that are prepared for it. Since humans are of a higher intelligence I believe we have the responsibility to be kind to any animals that we consume and avoid animal cruelty to the fullest. In saying that, I agree with people who buy free-range meat, obtained from animals that have been treated fairly in life and in how they were slaughtered. The consumption of meat does not always equal animal cruelty, and that's where your analogy falls apart.

Answer 4

religion and eating animals have nothing directly to do with the treatment of animals in slaughter houses. those who inflict the pain on those animals are the most to blame. meat dieters are more aware of what's going on than you think but it takes the "majority" of people to get things changed. and people won't bother these days because they are too lazy to actually do something for themselves and/or they can't because, again, it take the "majority" to get things changed.



just leave it be. people have a right to choose what they eat and fighting about which diet is better ain't going to change anything it's just going to alienate people. no diet is better than another. all of them requires balanced proportions to be healthy.

Answer 5

No, I`m sorry, it`s not a fair analogy. Human rights and animal rights are two completely distinct concepts.

Answer 6

Yawn. More blather from a troll who is trying to make all veg*ns look as ignorant and foolish as himself.

Answer 7

No,it's hot air and hype.



When YOU stop killing animals for your vegetarian diet (field mice, ground nesting birds, snakes, voles) and deliberately poisoning them to keep them out of grain storage bins (rodents and birds), I'll start worrying about the animals killed BY LAW in the most humane manner possible in commercial slaughterhouses.



Why is it ok for a field mouse to be crippled, maimed, killed in the fields of veggies/grains, but wrong for a cow to be killed in a slaughterhouse?

Answer 8

Nope.