A comedian (I forget who) once said, “I’m a trickle-up vegetarian. I only eat animals that eat vegetables.” LOL.
Is that relevant? Just because being prey is not the creature’s purpose (which is generally to live and reproduce) doesn’t mean that it isn’t prey.
But what about jaguars? Are you going to fight back against jaguars?
I don’t think anyone on here is stupid enough to look at those poll options and think they were meant seriously - really, you’d have to be brain-dead (a vegetable, heh) not to realise they were jokey. And that’d be an odd point for a meat-eater to make.
No, they were serious. I think they were intended to show that the possible choices of a meat eater were all stupid or wrongheaded.
Why not? Just get one of those monster trucks and you can drive right over those little imports.
The OP has stated that they were jokey. You reckon you know his intentions better than he does, even though the options were all absolutely ridiculous? Why?
Ah, true he made some remark along those lines. But of course, no one ever conceals their real agenda on a internet message board. :dubious: I don’t think I know his intentions better than he does, I am just saying what I think his actual agenda is. Why do you think *you know *what his real intenions were?
The majority of replies have been serious, and many people have expressed bafflement at the options presented, as well as surprise that X option is not in the list.
I guess you’re the only normal person, and everyone else should be subject to your name-calling.
Well the actual OP is quite sober. Following criticism, the person who wrote the OP has now claimed that the thread was meant as a joke.
I remain dubious. At least 5 of the 8 options basically boil down to “I’m a jerk / weirdo”.
Right, either we have a really misplaced sense of humor, or a anti-meat eater agenda. Or, perhaps both. I am willing to concede it was meant as humor, but the choices are strange for that.
Because he’s stated what they were and because the poll options are ridiculous. If he’s actually attacking meat-eaters, then he’s attacking himself, since he mentions in the OP that he’s not a vegetarian.
‘Never considered it’ is a serious option, but the others are just daft.
The only one that could be anti-meat-eater is ‘I’m a bad person,’ which is too extreme to be meant seriously, especially when it comes after ‘I like my food to have had a name and a face,’ ‘I have a moral objection to killing plants,’ and ‘I think vegetarians are self-righteous,’ which would be an attack on vegetarians as much as meat-eaters if it were actually an attack.
Nope, no name-calling going on here. Why would you rather believe that a copycat thread with ridiculous options, started by a meat-eater, is actually an attack on meat-eaters rather than, as he says, a joke? On balance, it seems to me that the latter is far more likely.
I have a moral objection to killing plants; they provide me with sweet, wholesome oxygen!
And since most of the animals which provide the meat I eat are predominantly herbivores, I’m actually helping plants (and thereby producing more oxygen!) by eating meat.
If I were ever in one of those situations where you’re stranded and have to resort to cannibalism, rather than draw straws, I think the vegetarians should just be sacrificed first, just to respect their lifestyle by not making them have to eat meat.
The jaguars seem to like it when I fight back 
Whereas the cougars prefer a willing prey.
I think you’re being obtuse. If this thread is so obviously just a joke, why have three long-time posters questioned the humour and motives of this thread? Why have others asked “Why isn’t <X> on the list?”.
As for the OP “attacking himself”, that is often the way. The most cruel descriptions of the obese, for example, are often made by people who are overweight or obese themselves.
I disagree. At least another 4 imply that the respondent is a freak.
So implying that I’m “stupid” and “brain-dead” is not name calling?
On TV and other media I’ve seen a number of debates where meat-eating is put up against vegetarianism.
The vegetarian position is often based on morals, and is given by an activist, philosopher or writer familiar with the arguments behind vegetarianism. The meat-eating defender is invariably just “some guy” whose argument ignores the moral issue and is just “I like meat and was raised eating meat”.
There are reasonable arguments for meat-eating, but they rarely get made.
I have a wonky digestive system and I can’t eat all the veggies and fruits I want, and I feel awful if I eat much in the way of grains, soooo, I’m kinda stuck with meat stuff to supplement what veggies and the like I can tolerate.
I don’t like eating meat. Yes, it tastes good to me, but I struggle to justify it to myself. Especially pork.
Really? Why is “Meat is delicious!” daft?
I think that’s fair too. Besides, they likely taste better.
I think you’re engaging in the Perfect Solution Fallacy. Just because a solution isn’t perfect doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth trying. From the point of view of someone wanting to prevent animal deaths, vegetarianism seems like a worthwhile alternative because it requires less animal deaths than meat eating.
In the long run, the aggregate effect of large numbers of people refusing to purchase meat will result in less animal deaths than the counterfactual alternative of those people eating meat. If the demand for meat goes down, farmers will breed less animals than they otherwise would have, meaning that there’s less death.
You may not agree that preventing animal deaths is a worthwhile goal, (that’s the philosophical dividing line between meat eaters and vegetarians), but it makes sense from the perspective of one who seeks to minimize animal cruelty and death.