Which one is worse?
Im just bored so Im bringing this up for debate. Im open to suggestions.
Vegetarian prochoicers.
Side Score: 14
|
 |
Meat eating prolifers.
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Hippys are funny, save the animals because it's mean to eat them.. But dam you I have a right to abort my baby! Ok so funny or not, I see the humor. Same goes for the big time cattle ranchers who are pro-life.. But I do see how humans have this idea that we are at the top of our food chain. Saving a baby to them is way more important than an animal. Either way both are messed up Side: Vegetarian prochoicers.
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
this one worse because abortion is basically murder its not the womans body its the baby's body. Also, being a vegetarian is terrible because if you don't eat the meat the animals died for nothing. They died for you to eat and you might as well eat it to make their death worth something. Side: Vegetarian prochoicers.
1
point
The idea is that as a vegetarian animals won't have to be killed anymore... the obvious flaw is that the whole world isn't going to go vegetarian, so the meat's still going to be killed regardless of their decision not to eat it. In other words, they are not making a change, they are just being different, for their own reasons. Side: Vegetarian prochoicers.
I agree with Stickers, the only reason i pick this side is because I don't prefer vegetarians. I understand giving up meat for health reasons (sort of anyway) and I can definitely understand not having a taste for it, me personally will never ever again try deer or rabbit. However, it would be perfectly fine with me, if the majority (not all, but damn near) of vegetarians I met weren't taking a stand for animal rights. Animal rights? That's a laugh. They probably own pets, drink milk, and wear shit tested on animals. Not to mention the fact that we, as humans, are animals. Where's my right to eat other animals? They get to! Animal rights aside, I have to mention the fact that if we stop eating animals, nothing will change... not for the better anyway. If we are eating anything to extinction, they are the exception, but every thing else has coped with our presence and would then thrive too much if we were to stop eating them. Side: Vegetarian prochoicers.
|
Ye shall know them by their fruits. How? because you need to measure them to a standard, i.e. judge. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that deeming someone of not following a standard imposed is being "judgmental". The judge not thing though, that only applies to non-Christians. The person who wrote this debate is (apparently) a jew. Although one might argue that Christians are a variety of jew, it's unlikely that a Christian would call themselves one. My point is that the second that you start referring to them in the context of being "worse" people than each other, you're clearly judging them. Side: Vegetarian prochoicers.
1
point
That is not my reasoning for claiming that you are judging. Saying that their actions are inconsistent with their moral code is not judging them. Inquiring "which is worse?" is judging them as you are referring to them as people. Asking "whose actions are more blatantly more inconsistent with their respective moral codes" would not be judging, and is quite different than asking "which is worse?". Side: Meat eating prolifers.
|
