Many years before this meat licence was proposed, and completely unknown to me, there was a heated debate on the "hip forums" website.
Below is an early exchange from the post's originator dhARmaMiLlO (who's avatar says he was based in Manchester, UK) and another poster DoktorAtomik.
Originally Posted by dhARmaMiLlO
modern education and ethics are more developed when it comes to animals in Britain since before the mass meat industrial age, do you not think?
Not really, no. Animals are abused far more now than they ever have been. We've just moved it behind closed doors. All that's changed are our sensibilities. No offence, but you know what goes on in factory farms, and you still eat meat, right? I'm not knocking you, just illustrating how our principles often play second fiddle to our desires.
|fur is not so common place.|
But leather is. And fur's making a big comeback.
|Britain is famous on the continent as a land of animal lovers|
We're also famous for being hypocrites. You'll notice how the Brits get very angry about foreigners eating horses and dogs, but we're quite happy for our cattle to be reared for the table in despicable conditions. So long as we don't have to see it.
|I really do think people will be put off.
There would definately be a decrease on meat purchase as a whole I'm sure.
We'll never know for certain, but I really doubt it. Most people would quickly adapt, learn to stomach the violence, and keep stuffing flesh down their throats.
The entire dialogue went on for 7 pages, lasting about 6 months, and it ended on this gem which sums up the curent scenario very precisely:
It's the act of killing that I find immoral, not the act of consuming the consequences of the killing.
I understand your point of view perfectly now. Thanks for clearing that up...i understand .