8

votes

the NYT "Is meat eating ethical" essays are in - why not head over and cast your vote, peeps?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created April 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM

This is not really a question but more of a heads up...

They were hoping for hundreds of submissions, and they got THOUSANDS. So they had some drones pare down the field to 29, which were judged by the (albeit biased) panel. They honed it down to six. Now the readers get to vote. Of the six, I thought three were worthy of a win. The one with the most votes at the moment is extolling the virtues of test tube meat. We cannot let this happen!

I had a tough time choosing between "This is the deal we've made", and "Sometimes it's more ethical to eat meat than vegetables". I like having this sound argumentation in hand also should I ever need to defend my meat-eating ways.

So, to make this a question, which essay(s) did you like the most?

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/20/magazine/ethics-eating-meat.html#/#ethicistpoll5

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:13 PM

that it is plain wrong to kill someone or plain wrong to cause suffering and that's that. And if that was a real philosophical reason then Peter Singer's argument would be compelling. And maybe it should be compelling to those without any real basis to their philosophy, but not necessarily to us. However I think that everyone has an obligation to themselves to become the kinds of people that will be successful and lead fulfilling lives, and I don't think that animal cruelty is conducive to that, not because animals have intrinsic value but because it would be the lack of caring about the...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:09 PM

with regards to humans. The value of humans for humans is objective and significant, whereas the value of animals to humans is mostly subjective with a few digressions like that a guard dog is objectively valuable to a human by virtue of its protective potential. Although in many cases a human doesn't have an objective need for a guard dog, whereas a human always have a need for the protection, advocacy, and non-aggression agreement of other humans, and the more the better. And this is sometimes hard to get across to people because most people don't view it that way, they just think...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:06 PM

Reducio ad absurdum, beautifully play. I enjoyed it. I wouldn't take it to be a definitive argument, though. But I suppose it's the best you could muster in so few words. No anti-speciesists aren't speciesists! Lol. My one criticism is that your position isn't in fact speciesist, because the rational reason why we shouldn't tolerate killing humans comes from the social contract that we ought to pursue. It is best to have everyone protecting each other's rights, and afford the rights to others that you would like. But animals don't contribute to this in any way, they are not moral agents...

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:45 AM

That was my choice also.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:45 AM

I thought they were passable. It's hard to make a convincing argument given the contest rules and only 600 words.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:44 AM

I wonder how many good entries were "weeded out" before they even got to the panel.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:43 AM

Yeah, this is what I thought, too. It seemed like an impossible task to answer a question like that, when it was so skewed from the outset to be simply "tell us why killing isn't wrong". Ridiculous.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:16 AM

Me too, but overall I thought the writing was kind of disappointing in the whole lot. If this was the cream of the crop, did they not get many viable entries?

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:05 AM

I actually ended up voting for that one as well.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 04:01 AM

I definitely think it's biased, so yesss, enjoy your weekend!!

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:56 AM

And since they want to take away the local vs. organic argument, they wouldn't be able to use environmental reasons either.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:55 AM

I mean, I guess all they would have left is that killing anything is wrong.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:54 AM

"But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake." Okay, first...ugh, whyy do they keep asking about "carnivores"? I doubt all the answerers are all carnivores...Anyway, if that's their real question, then how would vegans and vegetarians respond? They often respond with either 1) but they're so cute or 2) horrible treatment of animals. Could they give a response that didn't talk about the value or quality of life of animals?

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:52 AM

"But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake." Okay, first...ugh, whyy do them keep asking about "carnivores"? I doubt all the answerers are all carnivores...Anyway, if that's their real question, then how would vegans and vegetarians respond? They often respond with either 1) but they're so cute or 2) horrible treatment of animals. Could *they* give a response that didn't talk about the value or quality of life of animals?

E68bdbd83e45fd5be130e393ace9c9a9

(2063)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:42 AM

You're probably right that the question is drawing a bigger-than-normal number of vegetarians... Oh well! Not something that's going to ruin my weekend, that's for sure!

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:34 AM

It seemed to me from reading that, that they had already dismissed any arguments regarding the relative treatment of the animals.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:33 AM

I got that from the following " Some of the more conscientious carnivores have devoted themselves to enhancing the lives of livestock, by improving what those animals eat, how they live and how they are killed. But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake." and "Rules: This is a very specific contest. Don’t tell us why you like meat, _why_organic_trumps_local_ or why your food is yours to choose. Just tell us why it’s ethical to eat meat."

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:22 AM

I also found it annoying that they were "calling in all carnivores." Dude, we don't all just chomp down meat like that. Why must it be either carnivore or vegetarian? I think it's a flawed question, but I am interested in the life of animals, but I don't think that has to do with whether eating meat is wrong.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:17 AM

Hm, I just looked up the initial prompt. I don't think there was anything against bringing up ethical treatment of animals, just no stuff like "I eat meat because it tastes good" type of stuff. I think the phrasing of the question is confusing. With that question alone, I think that no, there is nothing wrong with meat itself. But I do think there is a problem with the way that we raise animals (at least in many "developed" countries, has changed. Very different questions, if you ask me.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:49 AM

Don't feel too disappointed. Online polls are a poor method of data collection. They tend to attract biased audiences. The "leading" essay is promoted by some vegan boards and PETA. I just googled the essay title, and my suspicions seem to be confirmed...looks like a big organization with lots of followers tuned it. It is more a reflection of advertising than it is a reflection of what our society, as a whole, thinks

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:47 AM

Don't feel too disappointed. Online polls are a poor method of data collection. They tend to attract biased audiences. The "leading" essay is promoted by some vegan boards and PETA. I just googled the essay title, and my suspicions seem to be confirmed...looks like a big organizations with lots of followers tuned it. It is more a reflection of advertising than it is a reflection of what our society, as a whole, thinks.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:44 AM

Oo, I see. I just voted and you're right...they show you what's in the lead after you select an answer. My guess is that it's mostly vegetarians answering the question since that is a question that tends to draw their attention. It's a dividing topic that gets the most attention from those that "care" about it the most and my guess is that this made it on lots of vegan and vegetarian boards out there. I mean, the typical person at home probably doesn't think much of their burger.

E68bdbd83e45fd5be130e393ace9c9a9

(2063)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:31 AM

I know. I was basing my statement on the fact that the "I'm About to Eat Meat for the First Time in 40 Years" essay had the highest percentage of votes (which the website will only show you after you vote.) I just checked the site and that essay is still in the lead by far, with 41% of the vote as of 10:30 p.m. Eastern time.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 01:50 AM

I'm entertaining the slight possibility that everyone who disagrees with the central thesis thought that it would be a waste of time and didn't enter. Because maybe they really didn't have anybody making the arguments.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 01:49 AM

Quite so. I didn't see anybody trying to argue with his central thesis. You'd think that would have been important.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 12:12 AM

The articles aren't in "order" of most votes. I think it is randomized and refreshed each time you go on so that the order is scrambled in order to avoid a bias, as most people read the one on top first.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 21, 2012
at 10:24 PM

oops, I meant ***other judges**

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 21, 2012
at 10:23 PM

I know who Singer is. I just didn't know he was a judge, so I looked over the panel. I don't know the other judge, besides Michael Pollan. If you've read his books (I read The Omnivore's Dilemma), he eats meat and is fine with it, as long as we consider sustainability and humane treatment..basically, not eating meat blindly. The panel of judges isn't a bunch of vegans.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:40 PM

I agree with Gurlz above. It seems to me the entire purpose of this exercise is to allow Peter Singer, the vegan and anti-natalist, to reply to the "winning" essay with some of his famous arguments and thus "prove" that there's no moral or rational philosophy of meat-eating. If you are unfamiliar with Singer's philosophical arguments against humanity's existence and his radical defense of veganism, you might like to read his books. Pity the "winner" who will be humiliated by his response - rom the platform of the august NYT at that. If you think this thing isn't rigged, you may not know Singer

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:53 PM

What? Are you talking about Peter Singer? What "arguments" are you talking about? The essays don't suggest that meat eating is wrong, just that we need to be conscious about it.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:25 PM

I felt the same way. It is clear that vegetarian/vegan are both "politically correct" these days, like not smoking. It grieves me because I really like the NYT.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on April 21, 2012
at 04:15 PM

Interested ting how they chose essays whose arguments have already been demolished by Singer in his books. The entire charade's a set up. Now Singer can come in, demolish the winner, and everyone will say there's no possible justification for eating meat. It's a stunt by the bien pensants to crusade for the vegan agenda.

7e1433afbb06c318c4d90860d493c49d

(5959)

on April 21, 2012
at 01:22 PM

That's the one I voted for, too.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32564)

on April 21, 2012
at 12:57 PM

Thanks for the heads up!

  • Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

    asked by

    (5043)
  • Views
    2K
  • Last Activity
    1402D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

8
E68bdbd83e45fd5be130e393ace9c9a9

(2063)

on April 21, 2012
at 03:52 PM

I found it annoying that the leading essay (at the time I voted) concluded that in vitro meat is "perhaps the only ethical meat." Only a small percentage of Americans are actually vegetarian... why do so many (presumably omnivorous) Americans seem to feel that eating any meat (even grass-fed, pastured, local) is unethical? (I'm basing this on the fact that this essay was leading in votes, but maybe it was skewed by a bunch of vegetarian voters, who knows.)

There's a strange disconnect here. I care about animals a lot and I work to ensure that all of the meat I buy comes from good, humane sources. And yet, everything has to die, including me one day. Didn't everyone see the Lion King? Death is unavoidable; quality of life is what matters. So why are people who buy crappy meat from horrible factory farms easily convinced that all meat is wrong? I think maybe most Americans are just uncomfortable with the idea of death in general. I'm disappointed that such a simplistic view of this issue dominates.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:44 AM

Oo, I see. I just voted and you're right...they show you what's in the lead after you select an answer. My guess is that it's mostly vegetarians answering the question since that is a question that tends to draw their attention. It's a dividing topic that gets the most attention from those that "care" about it the most and my guess is that this made it on lots of vegan and vegetarian boards out there. I mean, the typical person at home probably doesn't think much of their burger.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:49 AM

Don't feel too disappointed. Online polls are a poor method of data collection. They tend to attract biased audiences. The "leading" essay is promoted by some vegan boards and PETA. I just googled the essay title, and my suspicions seem to be confirmed...looks like a big organization with lots of followers tuned it. It is more a reflection of advertising than it is a reflection of what our society, as a whole, thinks

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:25 PM

I felt the same way. It is clear that vegetarian/vegan are both "politically correct" these days, like not smoking. It grieves me because I really like the NYT.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 12:12 AM

The articles aren't in "order" of most votes. I think it is randomized and refreshed each time you go on so that the order is scrambled in order to avoid a bias, as most people read the one on top first.

E68bdbd83e45fd5be130e393ace9c9a9

(2063)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:42 AM

You're probably right that the question is drawing a bigger-than-normal number of vegetarians... Oh well! Not something that's going to ruin my weekend, that's for sure!

E68bdbd83e45fd5be130e393ace9c9a9

(2063)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:31 AM

I know. I was basing my statement on the fact that the "I'm About to Eat Meat for the First Time in 40 Years" essay had the highest percentage of votes (which the website will only show you after you vote.) I just checked the site and that essay is still in the lead by far, with 41% of the vote as of 10:30 p.m. Eastern time.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 04:01 AM

I definitely think it's biased, so yesss, enjoy your weekend!!

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 02:47 AM

Don't feel too disappointed. Online polls are a poor method of data collection. They tend to attract biased audiences. The "leading" essay is promoted by some vegan boards and PETA. I just googled the essay title, and my suspicions seem to be confirmed...looks like a big organizations with lots of followers tuned it. It is more a reflection of advertising than it is a reflection of what our society, as a whole, thinks.

6
A31b063c5866c08aa9968a8f2f1e9949

(1721)

on April 21, 2012
at 10:55 AM

I go for "This is the deal we've made."

7e1433afbb06c318c4d90860d493c49d

(5959)

on April 21, 2012
at 01:22 PM

That's the one I voted for, too.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:45 AM

That was my choice also.

4
D7cc4049bef85d1979efbd853dc07c8e

(4029)

on April 22, 2012
at 12:35 AM

So very disappointing. The chosen array of essays indicts the integrity of the whole endeavor. Mr. Singer must be proud.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 01:49 AM

Quite so. I didn't see anybody trying to argue with his central thesis. You'd think that would have been important.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 01:50 AM

I'm entertaining the slight possibility that everyone who disagrees with the central thesis thought that it would be a waste of time and didn't enter. Because maybe they really didn't have anybody making the arguments.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:45 AM

I thought they were passable. It's hard to make a convincing argument given the contest rules and only 600 words.

3
78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

on April 21, 2012
at 01:54 PM

I like the ones others voted for, and I also really like "Sometimes it's more ethnical to eat meat than vegetables."

I think the underlying theme that the essays I like share center not just on the circle of life, the reality of farming, but also the idea of respect and humane treatment of animals in this "system" of human-animal relationships. I was afraid that the essays would focus on, "Of course, we need meat for the nutrition!" I think it's far more than that, because as humans with the capacity for higher-order thinking, meat is more than just an object or an item on a shelf. We have the ability to impact the earth, which won't last forever.

I like the closing paragraphs of the two. I haven't voted yet, ha.

Almost 25 years after deciding it was wrong to eat animals, I now realize that it???s not that simple. There is an ethical option ??? a responsibility, even ??? for eating animals that are raised within a sustainable farm system and slaughtered with the compassion necessitated by our relationship. That, in essence, is the deal.

And...

For me, eating meat is ethical when one does three things. First, you accept the biological reality that death begets life on this planet and that all life (including us!) is really just solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form. Second, you combine this realization with that cherished human trait of compassion and choose ethically raised food, vegetable, grain and/or meat. And third, you give thanks.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on April 21, 2012
at 04:15 PM

Interested ting how they chose essays whose arguments have already been demolished by Singer in his books. The entire charade's a set up. Now Singer can come in, demolish the winner, and everyone will say there's no possible justification for eating meat. It's a stunt by the bien pensants to crusade for the vegan agenda.

80890193d74240cab6dda920665bfb6c

(1528)

on April 21, 2012
at 06:40 PM

I agree with Gurlz above. It seems to me the entire purpose of this exercise is to allow Peter Singer, the vegan and anti-natalist, to reply to the "winning" essay with some of his famous arguments and thus "prove" that there's no moral or rational philosophy of meat-eating. If you are unfamiliar with Singer's philosophical arguments against humanity's existence and his radical defense of veganism, you might like to read his books. Pity the "winner" who will be humiliated by his response - rom the platform of the august NYT at that. If you think this thing isn't rigged, you may not know Singer

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:53 PM

What? Are you talking about Peter Singer? What "arguments" are you talking about? The essays don't suggest that meat eating is wrong, just that we need to be conscious about it.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 21, 2012
at 10:23 PM

I know who Singer is. I just didn't know he was a judge, so I looked over the panel. I don't know the other judge, besides Michael Pollan. If you've read his books (I read The Omnivore's Dilemma), he eats meat and is fine with it, as long as we consider sustainability and humane treatment..basically, not eating meat blindly. The panel of judges isn't a bunch of vegans.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 21, 2012
at 10:24 PM

oops, I meant ***other judges**

2
E05b8d2c9ae8a9a92341785f342f131d

(346)

on April 22, 2012
at 04:17 PM

I actually entered this myself - one of the thousands that didn't make it. My argument focused on the problems within the anti-meat argument.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:09 PM

with regards to humans. The value of humans for humans is objective and significant, whereas the value of animals to humans is mostly subjective with a few digressions like that a guard dog is objectively valuable to a human by virtue of its protective potential. Although in many cases a human doesn't have an objective need for a guard dog, whereas a human always have a need for the protection, advocacy, and non-aggression agreement of other humans, and the more the better. And this is sometimes hard to get across to people because most people don't view it that way, they just think...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:13 PM

that it is plain wrong to kill someone or plain wrong to cause suffering and that's that. And if that was a real philosophical reason then Peter Singer's argument would be compelling. And maybe it should be compelling to those without any real basis to their philosophy, but not necessarily to us. However I think that everyone has an obligation to themselves to become the kinds of people that will be successful and lead fulfilling lives, and I don't think that animal cruelty is conducive to that, not because animals have intrinsic value but because it would be the lack of caring about the...

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:06 PM

Reducio ad absurdum, beautifully play. I enjoyed it. I wouldn't take it to be a definitive argument, though. But I suppose it's the best you could muster in so few words. No anti-speciesists aren't speciesists! Lol. My one criticism is that your position isn't in fact speciesist, because the rational reason why we shouldn't tolerate killing humans comes from the social contract that we ought to pursue. It is best to have everyone protecting each other's rights, and afford the rights to others that you would like. But animals don't contribute to this in any way, they are not moral agents...

2
F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:06 AM

Didn't they specifically state that discussing the relative merits of ethical treatment of the animals was not allowed? How did these entries get to be the finalists then?

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:43 AM

Yeah, this is what I thought, too. It seemed like an impossible task to answer a question like that, when it was so skewed from the outset to be simply "tell us why killing isn't wrong". Ridiculous.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:34 AM

It seemed to me from reading that, that they had already dismissed any arguments regarding the relative treatment of the animals.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:54 AM

"But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake." Okay, first...ugh, whyy do they keep asking about "carnivores"? I doubt all the answerers are all carnivores...Anyway, if that's their real question, then how would vegans and vegetarians respond? They often respond with either 1) but they're so cute or 2) horrible treatment of animals. Could they give a response that didn't talk about the value or quality of life of animals?

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:56 AM

And since they want to take away the local vs. organic argument, they wouldn't be able to use environmental reasons either.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:52 AM

"But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake." Okay, first...ugh, whyy do them keep asking about "carnivores"? I doubt all the answerers are all carnivores...Anyway, if that's their real question, then how would vegans and vegetarians respond? They often respond with either 1) but they're so cute or 2) horrible treatment of animals. Could *they* give a response that didn't talk about the value or quality of life of animals?

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:33 AM

I got that from the following " Some of the more conscientious carnivores have devoted themselves to enhancing the lives of livestock, by improving what those animals eat, how they live and how they are killed. But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake." and "Rules: This is a very specific contest. Don’t tell us why you like meat, _why_organic_trumps_local_ or why your food is yours to choose. Just tell us why it’s ethical to eat meat."

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:17 AM

Hm, I just looked up the initial prompt. I don't think there was anything against bringing up ethical treatment of animals, just no stuff like "I eat meat because it tastes good" type of stuff. I think the phrasing of the question is confusing. With that question alone, I think that no, there is nothing wrong with meat itself. But I do think there is a problem with the way that we raise animals (at least in many "developed" countries, has changed. Very different questions, if you ask me.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:22 AM

I also found it annoying that they were "calling in all carnivores." Dude, we don't all just chomp down meat like that. Why must it be either carnivore or vegetarian? I think it's a flawed question, but I am interested in the life of animals, but I don't think that has to do with whether eating meat is wrong.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 03:55 AM

I mean, I guess all they would have left is that killing anything is wrong.

1
D5a52362ba91628833829a52acf1c227

on April 22, 2012
at 04:58 AM

I voted for "Sometimes it's more ethical to eat meat than vegetables" although there were I think 2 other ones that came very close.

Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:44 AM

I wonder how many good entries were "weeded out" before they even got to the panel.

78cb3c4f70de5db2adb52b6b9671894b

(5519)

on April 22, 2012
at 05:05 AM

I actually ended up voting for that one as well.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on April 22, 2012
at 06:16 AM

Me too, but overall I thought the writing was kind of disappointing in the whole lot. If this was the cream of the crop, did they not get many viable entries?

-2
0e3e5c533d6a778f44106e841ef61814

(-4)

on April 28, 2012
at 01:06 AM

I've been eating paleo for years now, a vegan version. Simply because killing animals is unnecessary and morally unjustifiable and wrong

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!