ForumsWEPRAnimal Slaughter

588 148694
Skipper8656568
offline
Skipper8656568
324 posts
Peasant

I my self am a proud veg and im a guy i dont see any thing wrong with that, however my peers constantly put me down for it. I question others about it and some say that animals are kiled to keep the population under control, then shouldnt we do that to humans? are there any other vegetarians on armor? if you are a caravor responding to this please try not to be insultive i get enough from my freinds and family

  • 588 Replies
hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

Yes, I know that. But at least then PETA would not be "terrorrists", and they would be helping the government.

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
902 posts
Peasant

And then I'd fight the government which would have become overly oppressive. And just about everyone down south would, too. We'd have a second civil war if the government made the laws PETA wants them to. Second amendment prevents them from making laws that would upset a bunch of people. Which is another topic entirely that I won't get into. Point is that they won't make laws preventing eating meat, wearing fur, hunting, or fishing because they'd make too many people mad.

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

I never said anything about preventing meat being eaten. I'm talking about animal slaughter. There would still be meat to eat, and fur coats, as long as we got the animals ourselves.

David858
offline
David858
181 posts
Nomad

well, killing a FEW animals for meat is ok. But just slicing them for the fun off it A.K.A animal slaughter, is just plain horribul

P.S. i am a omnivore

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

Hunting to SURVIVE is fine, but killing them the way they do.. *shudder*.

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
902 posts
Peasant

I don't really care, as long as I get my thick juicy steak. I'm lazy, though, and I don't want to have to hunt my own food. It's not that I couldn't, just that I don't WANT to.

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

Which is because we don't get enough exercise. If we hunted, we would be in alot better shape. Although, if we used guns, we wouldn't acctually get exercise.

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
902 posts
Peasant

Eh. But what you're basically saying is ban the sale or distribution of any animal product. Which kills a MASSIVE portion of our economy. We can't afford that, especially with things they way they are now.

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

No, you can't seem to grasp my point. My point is that we should not kil the way we do. We should kill the way that "god Intended"(I'm not religious, I'm just making a point).

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
902 posts
Peasant

Ah, but that WAS how it started. However, with the sheer number of people that we have alive, that manner of hunting simply wouldn't support everyone the way that it used to, and species would be driven to extinction.

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

Which is our fault. If we hadn't destroyed survival of the fittest, we wouldn't have that problem.

Strategy_guy
offline
Strategy_guy
290 posts
Nomad

I don't think we destroyed survival of the fittest since it still happens all over the world in nature. Also I don't think you can destroy survival of the fittest since there will always be the bigger thing triumphing over the littler thing.

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

Acctually, with humans it's survival of everyone, not survival of the fittest, and thats our fault. So we should take the consequences.

Strategy_guy
offline
Strategy_guy
290 posts
Nomad

So your saying if some bigger, stronger and smarter guy took everything you owned you'd be ok with cus its survival of the fittest?

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

Thats not survival, thats getting what they want. Survival of the fittest means we don't cure people, so only the strongest or smartest survive.

Showing 196-210 of 588