There seems to be almost a hatred of veg*ns here.
Really??
I actually think that the discourse has been quite
respectful... but in the experience of many omnivores, like many atheists, discussions like this one seem to inevitably turn to who holds the moral high ground and why such positions are "right" or at least superior or more enlightened.
Inherently, this IS a matter of opinion, rather than facts... because if one tries to parse it
factually, there are some very odd conclusions to be drawn, and no clean black-and-white lines. Even a discussion of "pain" and pain-perception becomes far more complicated than it might appear from a philosophical perspective. Again, anthropomorphism says one thing, and what science exists says (in some instances) quite another.
Ergo, people who see it in black-and-white terms are seeing it through a lens of
belief, just by definition. That may be fine, but attempting to impose that set of beliefs as a larger truth probably isn't. That's proselytizing.
I respect that some people really DO feel that there is only one 'right' way to view some things... but it complicates things when you don't have an authentic choice but to do "wrong" anyway. Is it still morally reprehensible to eat your pet if your only legitimate alternative is starvation? How close to starvation? What about malnutrition?
If not, then is it truly morally reprehensible to begin with? Why?
I'm truly not being snarky in asking. I'm serious.
