Was this a bad argument or what vegetarians?

There are places where they think nothing of eating cats and dogs. I've no problem with it. It's only societal norms that determine what we should or shouldn't eat. I've no problem with people eating meat or being vegans or vegetarians. I only have problems with somebody telling me what I should or should not eat.

I don't think this crowd is being touchy. I believe you're just mistaken.

As mentioned before, when the argument is based upon and ONLY upon the intelligence of an animal, then yes, it should be widely accepted for small children and mentally retarded people. Their intelligence (this is not including instinct) are about on the same level, and sometimes, the intelligence of animals can be even /higher/ than that of a small child's. I think that was a very honest argument.

Furthermore, those who think Vegetarians as extreme sometimes think like that because they dislike being pulled out of their cushy environment of double-standards. Other times it's because the particular veg'n really IS over-the-top (and I've met quite a few). People just need to be tolerant of others' opinions and realize that not everyone can convey their thoughts in a way that will please everyone. If they could, war would be a thing of the past.

For animal rights people, who believe that a human life is equal to an animal life, eating meat basically is cannibalism in the way they view it.

And I think that when you compare eating meat to cannibalism, some people are automatically going to scratch you off as "that extreme animal rights annoying vegan". For that reason and that reason alone, they could have been more subtle. Though they could be simply pointing out that the method of judging whether you could eat something based on its intelligence is incredibly faulty reasoning.

Movies make extreme examples of everyone.

Ok at least you are being civil :)

I totally agree with the person who wrote the above quote. What makes anyone think it is ok to eat a living breathing creature (before it's been killed)? I really do not see the difference. Animals are sentient creatures which is generally agreed by the scientific community. And more evidence is coming to light about animal intelligence. It is true that a lot of animals are as (if not more) intelligent than a small child - the same applies to the severly mentally retarded.

I truly do believe the fundamentalists are the ones that think it is ok to send animals to slaughter. This is not a personal insult, just what I believe.

As for movies always portraying vegans in an extreme manner - I think Judge Dredd was a vegan (I could be wrong) and they didn't portray him in that way. I am sure there are many other examples too. I get what you are saying about people thinking and sometimes portraying vegans as hippy types but I really don't think being a hippy is bad. Im not a hippy by the way but actually quite fancy the idea. What's wrong with living in a tree or whatever it is that hippies do.

Aside from that, veganism is growing and becoming more mainstream. There are loads of celebs and sportspeople following a vegan diet nowadays. Anyway, I'm off on a tangent.

I'd say that the argument is quite effective, when it is properly understood. The idea is not that it is okay to eat babies or people who are handicapped. The idea is to point out how ridiculous it is to consider the intelligence level of an animal a criterion of whether or not it is friend or food. It also is designed to point out that DON'T actually consider intelligence when deciding whether or not to eat an animal. If that were the case, pigs would not be eaten. They're pretty bright critters.

Sometimes, pointing out a faulty claim/warrant is a better way of countering it than is offering a conflicting viewpoint.

The quote expresses a good sentiment, but the wording could have been improved.

No, it's not a bad argument and it's not fundamental either.

She was saying that to justify eating an animal based on their intelligence is a bad argument. That's all that I'm seeing here; nothing more, nothing less. That's certainly not "out there" and I think you're making more out of it than she intended.

Yeah...movies portray everyone in an extreme manner. Homosexuals, vegans, frat boys etc...that's kind of what the media and Hollywood do best. They play off of stereotypes and they're definitely not fair; haven't you ever noticed that?

She's serious about the rights of animals and she's honest about it. There's a lot that you could learn from her.

You probably should have just messaged the person and asked her yourself to have her clarify the quote. I'm sure she would have answered you.

Posting this out for everyone to read kind of seems like a low blow.

Edit: This is what I consider a lacking in common courtesy, that doesn't make me touchy to point out what seems obvious. And you seem to be a fan of pointing out things yourself. You' re calling her a fundamentalist because you failed to understand what she was saying.

If you don't understand something, PM them. This is somewhat personal and against regulations.

That's all I'm saying.

Yes... "lol, etc..."

Your friend's argument that meat eaters are helping to reduce the farting cow population is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If people didn't eat meat, the factory farms on which most cows are pumped full of hormones and slaughtered for the meat-eating public would lose their financial incentive to produce beef and could theoretically use their land to plant grains or crops. On the contrary, EATING MEAT IS TERRIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!! Don't take my word for it, read a recent UN report titled "Livestock's Long Shadow" which I've linked below. They conluded that eating meat is "one of the most significant contributions to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." Eating meat causes almost 40% more greenhouse-gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and planes in the world combined.

Is this a personal attack or what?

I'm not a vegan to convince other people to follow my beliefs...nor do I think my argument is extreme in the least. Please don't put all of us vegans and vegetarians in to one big lump of people trying to convince people that eating meat is wrong, isn't that PETAs job? The person asked for an opinion and I gave it. I'm simply saying that if someone were to eat an animal (humans are animals) solely for the reason of the animal being "dumber" than themselves than I don't see how their argument is rational, as some animals (pigs for example) have been proven to be as intelligent as 3 year old children. Yes, some vegans are "extreme", if you veiw me as one of those people, so be it. But please please please don't assume that we're all going to think the same and have the same opinions simply because of our eating habits.

I don't know if that's a good or bad argument but I must admit I don't understand why meat eaters choose to eat one animal and not the other. The only thing they bring up is taste...but have they really tried puppy balls? No probably not. Eating meat is not logical...it's an animalistic instinct. I swear if you tested the brains of true vegetarians you would see we are more evolved.

I saw that answer and I answered the question too! Actually I agree. Animals and humans both are living things and should be treated the same. If it is wrong to eat humans, it should be wrong to eat animals. If it is a big deal when a human is murdered, hit by a car, or dies of old age, it should be as a big of a deal for animals. There's my thoughts :)