| Kurt Zouma and cats 14:11 - Feb 9 with 10605 views | homer_123 |
I'm posting this more out of interest as much as anything.
What he did was wrong and I've no idea why it was videoed etc. just bizarre.
That being said - I eat meat as do those pillorying him - we rear animals to slaughter, in fact we rear them on such a scale that is has devastating effects on the environment.
I find it interesting that, on the one hand, electrocuting and/or putting a bolt through an animals head and killing it doesn't seem to raise the same concern/outrage as the events of yesterday.
I wonder why that is? |  |
| |  |
| If Phil was here..... on 16:56 - Feb 9 with 671 views | Bloots |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:54 - Feb 9 by GavTWTD |
See, there you go.
I'm deliberately going to have a steak tonight for that comment alone.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
....you'd be getting a flashing red advising you not to get involved. |  |
| "The sooner he comes back the better, this place has been a disaster without him" - TWTD User (July 2025) |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:56 - Feb 9 with 668 views | giant_stow |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:50 - Feb 9 by monytowbray |
No, come on. You seem vocal enough to insult me and call me ignorant. Stop gaslighting me.
You are making out I'm silencing you, I'm literally inviting you to make your case. The floor is yours. |
You're not silencing me and I'm not insulting you - having had my say in the earlier thread, I just don't want to wind you up any more about something so close to your heart. I'm afraid we don't agree for the reasons I outlined earlier, but there's not a lot to be done about that, so I really will bow out now (only replying here out of respect). |  |
| |
| If Phil was here..... on 16:57 - Feb 9 with 666 views | Mullet |
| If Phil was here..... on 16:56 - Feb 9 by Bloots |
....you'd be getting a flashing red advising you not to get involved. |
I assume you mean a private message and that isn’t some sort of euphemism |  |
| |
| I would have said.... on 16:58 - Feb 9 with 658 views | Bloots |
| If Phil was here..... on 16:57 - Feb 9 by Mullet |
I assume you mean a private message and that isn’t some sort of euphemism |
...."angry purple" if I had. | |
| "The sooner he comes back the better, this place has been a disaster without him" - TWTD User (July 2025) |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:58 - Feb 9 with 657 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:52 - Feb 9 by Mullet |
Killing animals for food is absolutely fine. Torturing them to death or at all is not. It’s not a difficult moral quandary at all.
We live in the real world where rationalism and survival are factors that don’t exist in the hypothetical spheres of moral piety and blind spots.
You can’t follow a life where no animal dies to produce food, whether that’s agriculture or even some romantic notion of grazing off the land. |
"Killing animals for food is absolutely fine."
Why is it fine? and what is it fine for? The environment? The animals?
"Torturing them to death or at all is not."
What do you think slaughterhouses do?
As for the last sentence - A diet that drastically reduces that harm should be the goal surely? That seems to be a blindspot as animal suffering in the meat industry is not hypothetical. |  |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:58 - Feb 9 with 658 views | homer_123 |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:52 - Feb 9 by Mullet |
Killing animals for food is absolutely fine. Torturing them to death or at all is not. It’s not a difficult moral quandary at all.
We live in the real world where rationalism and survival are factors that don’t exist in the hypothetical spheres of moral piety and blind spots.
You can’t follow a life where no animal dies to produce food, whether that’s agriculture or even some romantic notion of grazing off the land. |
I do wonder how many of us would eat less or no meat if we had to kill and butcher our own meat? Or spent some time seeing how that whole process works?
That aside, I don't disagree with your points Mullers.
I guess another question is 'should it be a more difficult moral quandary.'?
Of course, there is also the wider issue with the intensive nature of animal farming - it's actually not sustainable at current levels. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:00 - Feb 9 with 639 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:56 - Feb 9 by giant_stow |
You're not silencing me and I'm not insulting you - having had my say in the earlier thread, I just don't want to wind you up any more about something so close to your heart. I'm afraid we don't agree for the reasons I outlined earlier, but there's not a lot to be done about that, so I really will bow out now (only replying here out of respect). |
you got involved though, without adding much but rudeness.
I'm here making a logical point about something I care about.
I'd say Gav is being a bit bias in his personal views to say I'm the issue. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:02 - Feb 9 with 631 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:54 - Feb 9 by GavTWTD |
See, there you go.
I'm deliberately going to have a steak tonight for that comment alone.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
But you did claim I said something I have not.
You can have a steak, it's not illegal. I'm just trying to explain in simple terms how that makes one a hypocrite in relation to animal welfare and where the problem lies in doing so. [Post edited 9 Feb 2022 17:03]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I would have said.... on 17:03 - Feb 9 with 628 views | giant_stow |
| I would have said.... on 16:58 - Feb 9 by Bloots |
...."angry purple" if I had. |
Nice to see you back. | |
| |
| I would have said.... on 17:07 - Feb 9 with 606 views | Mullet |
| I would have said.... on 16:58 - Feb 9 by Bloots |
...."angry purple" if I had. |
Would gab necessarily be angry about it? I dunno | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:07 - Feb 9 with 606 views | factual_blue |
There's a difference between killing for food, and harming and/or killing for pleasure.
See also fox-hunting. |  |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:14 - Feb 9 with 586 views | Mullet |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:58 - Feb 9 by monytowbray |
"Killing animals for food is absolutely fine."
Why is it fine? and what is it fine for? The environment? The animals?
"Torturing them to death or at all is not."
What do you think slaughterhouses do?
As for the last sentence - A diet that drastically reduces that harm should be the goal surely? That seems to be a blindspot as animal suffering in the meat industry is not hypothetical. |
Because my survival is more important.
The environmental impact is not a moral question in the same way either, it’s a common misconception. Management of any food production is where the environmental question lays.
Hence why campaigns around palm oil, water management or the ethical issues around vegan staples like avocados and cashews etc are rarely highlighted for ideological parity.
How many slaughterhouses have you been in? They are a business, efficiency is the aim. You’re talking nonsense if you think the aim is torture and abuse over production. Because you equate the two and have shown no ability to see the other side of the argument you fall into several logical and philosophical traps.
A diet that does less harm to what exactly? You don’t mention the huge amount of insects and smaller animals that are displaced, suffer or that die in agriculture, yet hold a position of sanctity of life. It’s hypocritical and flawed.
Life is messy. Life involves death. Killing animals is fine.
Veganism essentially a bourgeois philosophy of ego and pretence. It’s no better philosophically than the far more natural evolution of animal consumption.
The problem isn’t eating meat or not eating meat. It’s managing resources and agricultural practice. You don’t allow or possess the nuance to articulate that it seems. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:15 - Feb 9 with 585 views | J2BLUE |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:07 - Feb 9 by factual_blue |
There's a difference between killing for food, and harming and/or killing for pleasure.
See also fox-hunting. |
There is, but the point is, if you had the choice of killing one animal for one meal or having a meal made from plants and saving the animal is that ethical? Either way you can eat. |  |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:16 - Feb 9 with 582 views | GavTWTD |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:02 - Feb 9 by monytowbray |
But you did claim I said something I have not.
You can have a steak, it's not illegal. I'm just trying to explain in simple terms how that makes one a hypocrite in relation to animal welfare and where the problem lies in doing so. [Post edited 9 Feb 2022 17:03]
|
Thanks. What a shame you didn't reference anything else I wrote as that has far more relevance.
Anyway, I'm out. |  |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:19 - Feb 9 with 562 views | positivity |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:15 - Feb 9 by J2BLUE |
There is, but the point is, if you had the choice of killing one animal for one meal or having a meal made from plants and saving the animal is that ethical? Either way you can eat. |
kind of agree, but you wouldn't "save" an animal by not eating it, it would never have existed in the first place.
as someone more concerned with the environment than animal rights, that's a good thing for me! |  |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:24 - Feb 9 with 552 views | MattinLondon |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:16 - Feb 9 by GavTWTD |
Thanks. What a shame you didn't reference anything else I wrote as that has far more relevance.
Anyway, I'm out. |
If you’re out does that mean I can call someone a prick and get away with it? |  | | |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:25 - Feb 9 with 544 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:14 - Feb 9 by Mullet |
Because my survival is more important.
The environmental impact is not a moral question in the same way either, it’s a common misconception. Management of any food production is where the environmental question lays.
Hence why campaigns around palm oil, water management or the ethical issues around vegan staples like avocados and cashews etc are rarely highlighted for ideological parity.
How many slaughterhouses have you been in? They are a business, efficiency is the aim. You’re talking nonsense if you think the aim is torture and abuse over production. Because you equate the two and have shown no ability to see the other side of the argument you fall into several logical and philosophical traps.
A diet that does less harm to what exactly? You don’t mention the huge amount of insects and smaller animals that are displaced, suffer or that die in agriculture, yet hold a position of sanctity of life. It’s hypocritical and flawed.
Life is messy. Life involves death. Killing animals is fine.
Veganism essentially a bourgeois philosophy of ego and pretence. It’s no better philosophically than the far more natural evolution of animal consumption.
The problem isn’t eating meat or not eating meat. It’s managing resources and agricultural practice. You don’t allow or possess the nuance to articulate that it seems. |
"Because my survival is more important."
Do you really believe packaged meat and gourmet burgers are essential to your survival? Will you literally die or suffer if you don't eat meat? Evidence will say otherwise. We both know this, so fairly odd point.
Environmentally, land usage and water usage means mass animal farming isn't sustainable. There are people far more qualified than either of us who will tell you that.
Avocados, Cashews and Plam oil are not exclusively vegan foods, they are trendy health foods. This is one of the laziest anti-vegan arguments going, considering veganism doesn't require you to eat any of that stuff. Although one could and would still have a lower carbon footprint.
Do you believe slaughterhouses are fun places animals enjoy going to? Do you believe farms delivering the level of produce supermarkets need are happy places the animals enjoy visiting? Whether I've been to one or not is irrelevant.
i am well aware no diet is perfect, hence why I said harm reduction. You get all that harm and more with a meat diet, that cow you eat still needs the same plant food farmed.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
None of my argument is hypothetical, it's backed with data and science.
"Veganism essentially a bourgeois philosophy of ego and pretence. It’s no better philosophically than the far more natural evolution of animal consumption."
That's factually nonsense. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:26 - Feb 9 with 546 views | jaykay |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 16:50 - Feb 9 by GavTWTD |
To be honest with you, I would love this discussion to continue without you. I would love a reasoned debate with people who are seeing this with "fresh" eyes and having someone shouting at us all the time and saying we're all evil.
I've got cats and dogs and love them to bits. I eat meat regularly and don't think anything of it. I'm not a bad human being. I have a lot of empathy for people and the animals around me. I TOTALLY get that I'm being hypocritical but the market isn't ready for the population to turn vegan/vegetarian.
I did have a McPlant the other day and we need so much more of this. I enjoyed it and I felt that it would be comparable to a quarter pounder. However, I never ever have a quarter pounder so they need a Big Mac equivalent. Vegetarian food needs to be better and more available to the masses without being a struggle to find. We're lazy. |
as someone who eats meat everyday ,i cant see how you can a discussion without the person who has been pro vegan from day 1.
i looked at most threads on meat eaters and vegans from the start and i can see their is more posters questioned they intake of meat since we had these debates.
on a side note how do we tell when people are shouting and others aren't |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:28 - Feb 9 with 539 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:19 - Feb 9 by positivity |
kind of agree, but you wouldn't "save" an animal by not eating it, it would never have existed in the first place.
as someone more concerned with the environment than animal rights, that's a good thing for me! |
Is a life born into suffering a life to be grateful for though?
Again, I think if more people changed the scenario to involve humans in their minds, the rational of veganism makes more sense. Assume vegans care about animals as much as humans and there you go. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:29 - Feb 9 with 535 views | Ryorry |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:14 - Feb 9 by Mullet |
Because my survival is more important.
The environmental impact is not a moral question in the same way either, it’s a common misconception. Management of any food production is where the environmental question lays.
Hence why campaigns around palm oil, water management or the ethical issues around vegan staples like avocados and cashews etc are rarely highlighted for ideological parity.
How many slaughterhouses have you been in? They are a business, efficiency is the aim. You’re talking nonsense if you think the aim is torture and abuse over production. Because you equate the two and have shown no ability to see the other side of the argument you fall into several logical and philosophical traps.
A diet that does less harm to what exactly? You don’t mention the huge amount of insects and smaller animals that are displaced, suffer or that die in agriculture, yet hold a position of sanctity of life. It’s hypocritical and flawed.
Life is messy. Life involves death. Killing animals is fine.
Veganism essentially a bourgeois philosophy of ego and pretence. It’s no better philosophically than the far more natural evolution of animal consumption.
The problem isn’t eating meat or not eating meat. It’s managing resources and agricultural practice. You don’t allow or possess the nuance to articulate that it seems. |
Agree with a lot of that.
Seems a few haven't read this link which I posted in the locked thread -
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/livestock-ghg-emissions-science-1.4753165
"Campaigns to abandon meat sometimes ignore the reality of small-scale farmers in Asia, Africa and South America who depend on animals for their health and livelihoods, according to experts ... if you're living in certain regions in Africa, livestock provides you with essential nutrition you can't get somewhere else," he said.
The animals are also used to transport water and plough land, as well as producing manure to fertilize crops, said FAO's Mottet. What is needed is balance, she said."
In this country, the 'balanced farming' approach is the traditional mixed farm, where soil health is maintained by spreading animal manure. Without that, soil is impoverished when land is kept to exclusively arable production. There's a beautiful graphic on that which I'll try to find later. |  |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:37 - Feb 9 with 519 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:29 - Feb 9 by Ryorry |
Agree with a lot of that.
Seems a few haven't read this link which I posted in the locked thread -
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/livestock-ghg-emissions-science-1.4753165
"Campaigns to abandon meat sometimes ignore the reality of small-scale farmers in Asia, Africa and South America who depend on animals for their health and livelihoods, according to experts ... if you're living in certain regions in Africa, livestock provides you with essential nutrition you can't get somewhere else," he said.
The animals are also used to transport water and plough land, as well as producing manure to fertilize crops, said FAO's Mottet. What is needed is balance, she said."
In this country, the 'balanced farming' approach is the traditional mixed farm, where soil health is maintained by spreading animal manure. Without that, soil is impoverished when land is kept to exclusively arable production. There's a beautiful graphic on that which I'll try to find later. |
Of course a developing nation is going to need a bigger hand in adjustment to greener living than the developed world though. That's largely been a point the global discussion around climate change has said budget wise for years.
The Americas grows endless soy and the diet of Asia is no where near as dependent on meat. Africa I'm not so sure on but vegetables aren't that hard to grow, those animals they are rearing have to eat something. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:40 - Feb 9 with 513 views | positivity |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:28 - Feb 9 by monytowbray |
Is a life born into suffering a life to be grateful for though?
Again, I think if more people changed the scenario to involve humans in their minds, the rational of veganism makes more sense. Assume vegans care about animals as much as humans and there you go. |
i'd agree that it's better that a farmed cow is never born, that way it can't burp and fart all that methane into the atmosphere!
i don't like the line that a human life is of less value if they are born into suffering, veers far too close to a eugenicist standpoint (and i'm sure that's not what you're getting at).
i'm interested by the grey areas, more than the black and white, i can't assume "vegans care about animals as much as humans" as some will kill ants or wasps. what is an animal? | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:44 - Feb 9 with 507 views | Mullet |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:25 - Feb 9 by monytowbray |
"Because my survival is more important."
Do you really believe packaged meat and gourmet burgers are essential to your survival? Will you literally die or suffer if you don't eat meat? Evidence will say otherwise. We both know this, so fairly odd point.
Environmentally, land usage and water usage means mass animal farming isn't sustainable. There are people far more qualified than either of us who will tell you that.
Avocados, Cashews and Plam oil are not exclusively vegan foods, they are trendy health foods. This is one of the laziest anti-vegan arguments going, considering veganism doesn't require you to eat any of that stuff. Although one could and would still have a lower carbon footprint.
Do you believe slaughterhouses are fun places animals enjoy going to? Do you believe farms delivering the level of produce supermarkets need are happy places the animals enjoy visiting? Whether I've been to one or not is irrelevant.
i am well aware no diet is perfect, hence why I said harm reduction. You get all that harm and more with a meat diet, that cow you eat still needs the same plant food farmed.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
None of my argument is hypothetical, it's backed with data and science.
"Veganism essentially a bourgeois philosophy of ego and pretence. It’s no better philosophically than the far more natural evolution of animal consumption."
That's factually nonsense. |
I don’t eat packaged meat or burgers because I’m a snob who gets the best I can afford. I never said I would die, but given the choice you were presenting I choose meat every time like the rest of the natural world who has evolved to eat it. Efficiency of nutrition and quality affects my survival. Living miserably on soy blocks because of some pseudo spiritualism does not really help with the quality of my life.
If you want to be pedantic there, I’m happy to change the wording but it’ll not bode well for the rest of the car crash rebuttal you’ve cobbled together there.
I never said those foods were exclusively vegan, there’s plenty of processed sh1te too. Again you misunderstand the most basic of arguments from a factual and philosophical point of view, yet mix the two clumsily throughout the thread. The environmental impact of global supply chains and seasonal produce on demand to areas around the world is a massive blind spot you’ve failed to deal with.
I never said slaughterhouses were fun. Again you’re not presenting equivalence and arguing from bad faith sloppily. Neither are you willing to concede your lack of knowledge over your philosophical prejudices.
Your “harm reduction” is nonsense and no different to being selective in the same manner of those you are criticising. The harm is merely displaced but your misguided beliefs aren’t. It’s not about saving animals it’s about harming ones unseen further down the food chain.
Much if your argument is weak and delusional let alone impractical. Hence why you engaged with an Op that is philosophical and dealt with any resistance in such a cackhanded manner. Even this response of yours is selective and poorly put together with some Googling.
I never said that last bit was factual, it’s observational and borne out by real life experience. Not your hypothetical frame of reference. Again you’re arguing in bad faith from a place of ego and dogma.
Understanding that your want is not superior to others here will help you tremendously. As it is you’re showing why the standard advocacy for veganism is so destructive and flawed. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:49 - Feb 9 with 497 views | GavTWTD |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:26 - Feb 9 by jaykay |
as someone who eats meat everyday ,i cant see how you can a discussion without the person who has been pro vegan from day 1.
i looked at most threads on meat eaters and vegans from the start and i can see their is more posters questioned they intake of meat since we had these debates.
on a side note how do we tell when people are shouting and others aren't |
Easy, because I'd like that discussion without being judged. I'd like to learn how I can make small changes that other meat eaters have tried. And I'm not talking about excluding all vegans from the discussions, just ones that aren't interested in listening to you. | |
| |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:50 - Feb 9 with 493 views | monytowbray |
| Kurt Zouma and cats on 17:40 - Feb 9 by positivity |
i'd agree that it's better that a farmed cow is never born, that way it can't burp and fart all that methane into the atmosphere!
i don't like the line that a human life is of less value if they are born into suffering, veers far too close to a eugenicist standpoint (and i'm sure that's not what you're getting at).
i'm interested by the grey areas, more than the black and white, i can't assume "vegans care about animals as much as humans" as some will kill ants or wasps. what is an animal? |
I did not say a human life born into suffering of less value. Nor an animals for that matter. Nothing I said is close to eugenics.
What I said was "Is a life born into suffering a life to be grateful for?" And that was in context to the point "you wouldn't "save" an animal by not eating it, it would never have existed in the first place."
It was more philosophical in relation to the curse of existence - A life of abuse and premature death is what it is, but it's certainly not justified to say "well at least they had a life" in defence of it. Although evidently something got lost in translation and I could have been clearer. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
