A very Veggie Xmas [Archive] - Morrissey-solo Forums

Buzzetta

December 23, 2007, 06:51 AM

Yes, there are other problems in the world. Eating meat won't make them go away. Not eating meat won't make them go away. I'm not sure what I can do about events happening in some distant land, but I can control my own interaction with the world and the level of suffering in the world, and it's pretty simple.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I believe that you are confusing the issue here.

As far as the world dying of starvation, check the numbers. The amount of grain fed to animals that are bred for slaughter could be fed to people. If you want to talk about unjust situations, some people are starving for a lack of a small amount of food that is fed to an animal so that some relatively wealthy person can enjoy it. In fact, for every animal being fed the grain, if you believe the math, several people are starving.

Your position is one that is no doubt helpful to those in power that you hate, because you are asking people, apparently, to choose not to make a small difference that is possible. What can I possibly do about rape and torture in Iraq? I'm not there. My fellow Americans are still willing to go along with the illusion that we have an "elected" President, and that we are somehow doing something wonderful with our war in Iraq, though the story of what we are doing there has changed dramatically since we began.

Anyway, yes, you are right that people should be more upset about other issues, but the issue of what you choose to eat, and about the amount of suffering that you directly inflict by personal everyday choices is important. Choosing not to have that slice of ham won't solve the problems in Iraq, but it is a positive difference.

I understand what you are trying to say. However I went to Roosevelt Field Mall earlier today. While turning into the mall were people protesting in the cold about fur. They had large bedsheets or something to create their banner. As we drove by my friend lowered the window and screamed... "Now I am buying fur". I asked why would you do that... who cares?

His reply... go protest the war, protest the release of child abusers or something like that. Do something about the abuse of humans before you try to tell me how you need to something for the so called abuse of an animal.

hmm

I agreed so I could drive around again.

Hellie

December 23, 2007, 09:19 AM

Kris

December 23, 2007, 09:58 AM

It really saddens me that so many flock to this cause when there are so many more vital, and legitimate dilemmas. I've not seen this kind of excitement about the goddamn war in Iraq and Afghanistan... Or about the Congo where mortality rates are much higher than Iraq, where thousands die fron brutal warfare between rebels and the government forces who both engage in genocide and rape on a terrifying scale. Or how hundreds of thousands, probably millions, in the third world are dying of starvation, or from treatable ills like malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea, which is often fatal in children. Or the united states unequivocal support for Israel, a repeated human rights violator that holds thousands of prisoners without charges, and has been slowly annihilating the palestinian refugees. Or the crisis in Darfur, or global warming, or how the american economy is collapsing, debt and unemployment are exploding... No, it seems many of you would rather proselytize about the plight of species that aren't even endangered. I think some of us need to really rethink they're priorities.

and what are you doing about these causes?

I understand what you are trying to say. However I went to Roosevelt Field Mall earlier today. While turning into the mall were people protesting in the cold about fur. They had large bedsheets or something to create their banner. As we drove by my friend lowered the window and screamed... "Now I am buying fur". I asked why would you do that... who cares?

His reply... go protest the war, protest the release of child abusers or something like that. Do something about the abuse of humans before you try to tell me how you need to something for the so called abuse of an animal.

hmm

I agreed so I could drive around again.

They have a right to protest about anything they choose. If they feel strongly about it.

Do you protest about child abusers?

You seem to think yourself very superior.How do you know that many members on here don`t frequent other forums that are more suited to such discussions?.I for one go on lots of sites.

I care about many things - animals being just one of them.And as a mother i care about child cruelty as well.

Many things we can only contribute to as a voice or a signature such as the war.I donate to lots of charities- i fail to see how being a vegetarian means my prioroties are wrong.

You are a nice lady, Merry Christmas.

Dave

December 23, 2007, 10:28 AM

I understand what you are trying to say. However I went to Roosevelt Field Mall earlier today. While turning into the mall were people protesting in the cold about fur. They had large bedsheets or something to create their banner. As we drove by my friend lowered the window and screamed... "Now I am buying fur". I asked why would you do that... who cares?

His reply... go protest the war, protest the release of child abusers or something like that. Do something about the abuse of humans before you try to tell me how you need to something for the so called abuse of an animal.

hmm

I agreed so I could drive around again.

There are a couple of aspects of this discussion that I think are getting confused. First of all, it isn't one or the other. Because you are protesting fur doesn't mean that you are for the war or the release of sexual predators, child abusers, or what have you. I know that you know that, it's obvious, but I have to say it because it comes up again in different ways. There is no conflict between being pro-animal awareness, and these other issues.

My grandfather's saying about this was "Don't these protesters have a job?" He had to work and could not imagine having the time to protest something, so to him all protesters of anything were suspect. Of course the people at the top of the capitalist pyramid that keep most of us as wage slaves, obsessed with our consumer lifestyles, would have heartily agreed with him, although he didn't see it that way. He thought it was his choice to work 5 or 6 days a week for enough to get by. Of course, back then people without much education could still buy a house and raise a family with one income.

Anyway, people are concerned about different issues which I would say is right, natural, and as it should be. With different people being dedicated to different issues, then all issues receive some boost in the level of awareness.

Notice that the causes which people use as examples, of what the fur protestors should protest, never seem to be anything that would cause the angry person to think about and possibly alter their behaviour.

Anaesthesine

December 23, 2007, 02:25 PM

I am just about to head out to buy this year's Tofurkey feast. It's a yearly tradition. I'm not so fond of tofu myself, which is problematic for a long-time vegetarian. Still, I've learned to enjoy it in a hair shirt kind of way.

It really saddens me that so many flock to this cause when there are so many more vital, and legitimate dilemmas. I've not seen this kind of excitement about the goddamn war in Iraq and Afghanistan... Or about the Congo where mortality rates are much higher than Iraq, where thousands die fron brutal warfare between rebels and the government forces who both engage in genocide and rape on a terrifying scale. Or how hundreds of thousands, probably millions, in the third world are dying of starvation, or from treatable ills like malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea, which is often fatal in children. Or the united states unequivocal support for Israel, a repeated human rights violator that holds thousands of prisoners without charges, and has been slowly annihilating the palestinian refugees. Or the crisis in Darfur, or global warming, or how the american economy is collapsing, debt and unemployment are exploding... No, it seems many of you would rather proselytize about the plight of species that aren't even endangered. I think some of us need to really rethink they're priorities.

My vegan brother-in-law is heading over to Iraq just after new year's. He has been a strict vegan for more than a decade. He will not be able to maintain this over there, so he is going vegetarian instead. You have to eat the same four meals over and over again, but I suspect that that is going to be the least of his problems.

Being vegetarian is not some silly, self-indulgent whim. It is a serious commitment, and a spiritual choice. The absurdity of being a vegan/vegetarian in a war zone is obvious - the irony is not lost on any of us. This is a complex world, and we all make the best choices we can, and do what we must, and hope that we can make a difference in a positive way.

I hate to quote Ghandi, but he did say it well: "Be the change that you want to see in the world."

On a lighter note - Happy Solstice, everyone.

:(:)

pandora_cocteau

December 23, 2007, 04:53 PM

so are most humans but we dont go round eating then do we?

I understand what you are trying to say. However I went to Roosevelt Field Mall earlier today. While turning into the mall were people protesting in the cold about fur. They had large bedsheets or something to create their banner. As we drove by my friend lowered the window and screamed... "Now I am buying fur". I asked why would you do that... who cares?

His reply... go protest the war, protest the release of child abusers or something like that. Do something about the abuse of humans before you try to tell me how you need to something for the so called abuse of an animal.

hmm

I agreed so I could drive around again.

That's a silly argument- how are animals any less worth than we are? I personally put murder and abuse of animals equivalent to that of humans- just because we don't understand their means of communication and intelligence does not automatically imply that they are inferior to us. So protesting people who buy and wear fur is a legitimate protest, and isn't a waste of time.

Buzzetta

December 23, 2007, 05:01 PM

I personally put murder and abuse of animals equivalent to that of humans-

See now... others thought you were nuts because of the dress and pacing around by the Hammerstein. I can at least say that I have my own separate reasons.

lottie

December 23, 2007, 07:00 PM

post of the day award to Dave,
(thankyou, for being so calm and logical, i would have probably just sworn a bit!! LOL)

lottie

December 23, 2007, 07:06 PM

See now... others thought you were nuts because of the dress and pacing around by the Hammerstein. I can at least say that I have my own separate reasons.

thats ok, 'cause i put the murder and abuse of animals ABOVE...
stick that one in your pipe ;)

lottie

December 23, 2007, 07:07 PM

oops!!

pandora_cocteau

December 23, 2007, 07:19 PM

thats ok, 'cause i put the murder and abuse of animals ABOVE...
stick that one in your pipe ;)

you know...i actually have to agree. some people deserve it- most animals don't at all. horrible actions done by some humans surpass anything an animal could do.
so you're right lottie.

I never thought my fabulous, glam dress could spark such controversy. Oh well..Bjork had her swan outfit...I have my dolly jolly yellow silksreen dress!

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 02:52 AM

thats ok, 'cause i put the murder and abuse of animals ABOVE...
stick that one in your pipe

you know...i actually have to agree. some people deserve it- most animals don't at all. horrible actions done by some humans surpass anything an animal could do.
so you're right lottie.

I never thought my fabulous, glam dress could spark such controversy. Oh well..Bjork had her swan outfit...I have my dolly jolly yellow silksreen dress!

Nope... I will stick two burgers in my mouth.... I am serious when I say I was going to go get a veggie delight from Subway. (I actually do get them from time to time as I like the idea of a salad between two pieces of bread.) Instead .... in your honor I bought not one but two burgers... one for each of you. I remember the story that NRITH told of someone who eats double (or was it triple) the amount of meat he normally would when told of the theory of meat being murder. Enjoy what you have done.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo172.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo179.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo175.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo177.jpg

nugz

December 24, 2007, 03:42 AM

Nope... I will stick two burgers in my mouth.... I am serious when I say I was going to go get a veggie delight from Subway. (I actually do get them from time to time as I like the idea of a salad between two pieces of bread.) Instead .... in your honor I bought not one but two burgers... one for each of you. I remember the story that NRITH told of someone who eats double (or was it triple) the amount of meat he normally would when told of the theory of meat being murder. Enjoy what you have done.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo172.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo179.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo175.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo177.jpg
HAHA omg, you didnt just do that!!! bahahahaha.....

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 03:50 AM

HAHA omg, you didnt just do that!!! bahahahaha.....

I call the last picture....

"So good... so good....."

nugz

December 24, 2007, 03:52 AM

I call the last picture....

"So good... so good....."

haha. yeah i think the last one is my favorite too

mell

December 24, 2007, 03:54 AM

omg now I want a McD's cheeseburger :(:eek:

nogodsnomasters85

December 24, 2007, 04:09 AM

Some responses to my responses.
DAVE: "Your position is one that is no doubt helpful to those in power that you hate, because you are asking people, apparently, to choose not to make a small difference that is possible. Choosing not to have that slice of ham won't solve the problems in Iraq, but it is a positive difference."
First of all, any difference is POSSIBLE. The American people could end this war if they wanted if they just used the 1960's as a blueprint, admittedly it took years of effort, and wasn't as effective as one might hope, but Bush doesn't have Nixon's pre-watergate approval ratings. You could do a LOT of other things to make a difference, donate to amnesty international (which I have.) even if it's just a few bucks, hell, it's in the christmas spirit. Working class folks like myself can't afford to be philanthropists, but you CAN do something. Theres' a lot of other organizations, too, Doctors Without Borders, Unicef, Save Darfur, etc, etc. You could write you're congressman, as i do and have, and get others to do the same, sign petitions, recycle, etc. Of course the focal point of our disagreement, which is unfortunately an unbridgeable chasm, which is that I don't see eating meat, in and of itself, as immoral, and have never heard a sound philosophical argument to the contrary that held enough water to make me think twice.
Hellie "You seem to think yourself very superior."
Not superior, just a better prioritizer.
"How do you know that many members on here don`t frequent other forums that are more suited to such discussions" It's called off-topic, hence being a place for NON-morrissey discussion, so it's suited for EVERY topic. I'm not saying anybody doesn't care about the causes I mentioned, but of ALL the issues they COULD have chosen they only saw fit to write about this one, which I think speaks volumes.
KRIS "What are you doing about these causes?" While this is meant as derogatory I admire how you've cut to the heart of the issue. Short answer: Not enough! But THIS is the question we should ALL be asking ourselves.
DAVE-"Notice that the causes which people use as examples, of what the fur protestors should protest, never seem to be anything that would cause the angry person to think about and possibly alter their behaviour." Au contraire. It alters my behavior immensely. I don't read about third world atrocities because it's fun, it isn't remotely. However as the united states government is the current world superpower and has spent the last fifty years supporting brutal dictatorships, terrorist groups, and equally vicious free trade policies I feel it is my RESPONSIBILITY, at least to know about it. I don't write congressmen angry letters for fun, either, I'd rather review Moz's latest single. Though I've only been to a couple protests, it wasn't to socialize. My political awareness and convictions shape every day for me, from whom I associate with to what products I buy, to what I do on my days off. I'm not holding myself up as some saint, i'm not doing nearly enough, I should be out on a boat with greenpeace, or in the third world with peacecorps, or rioting to stop vicious international business consortiums like seattle 98. (Which incidentally WORKED.) ......Since there seems to be a drought of ideas as how to effect change on more vital issues. In summation, I stand by my assertion that one CANNOT place war, genocide, global arming/pollution, etc. as remotely equally legitimate to the professed desire to protect cows and chickens and so forth.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 04:09 AM

No no no..... DOUBLE Cheeseburger off the dollar menu.... x 2

Morrissey the 23rd

December 24, 2007, 04:11 AM

I call the last picture....

"So good... so good....."

People do give money to Osama's brother. It is a bad, bad world after-all.

nugz

December 24, 2007, 04:14 AM

pandora_cocteau

December 24, 2007, 04:18 AM

Nope... I will stick two burgers in my mouth.... I am serious when I say I was going to go get a veggie delight from Subway. (I actually do get them from time to time as I like the idea of a salad between two pieces of bread.) Instead .... in your honor I bought not one but two burgers... one for each of you. I remember the story that NRITH told of someone who eats double (or was it triple) the amount of meat he normally would when told of the theory of meat being murder. Enjoy what you have done.

Haha...what McDonald just did to your body is punishment enough for you. If every carnivore decided to eat at McDonald's as often as possible, in 10 years time, most of the world would be vegetarian. So yeah, eat McDonalds often please, you'll get what you deserve.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 04:24 AM

Haha...what McDonald just did to your body is punishment enough for you. If every carnivore decided to eat at McDonald's as often as possible, in 10 years time, most of the world would be vegetarian. So yeah, eat McDonalds often please, you'll get what you deserve.

Actually the last time I had McDonalds was before the Morrissey concerts at the Hammerstein. So it has been about two months except for that one Angus burger I wanted to try.

However... tomorrow during Christmas dinner... I will take a picture of a shrimp falling down my mouth. I want you to imagine that poor innocent shrimp screaming as it was prepared for my appetizer. Mmmm.... shrimp.

Don't even get me started on what each of us deserve.

Dave

December 24, 2007, 04:35 AM

Morrissey the 23rd

December 24, 2007, 04:38 AM

Actually the last time I had McDonalds was before the Morrissey concerts at the Hammerstein. So it has been about two months except for that one Angus burger I wanted to try.

However... tomorrow during Christmas dinner... I will take a picture of a shrimp falling down my mouth. I want you to imagine that poor innocent shrimp screaming as it was prepared for my appetizer. Mmmm.... shrimp.

Don't even get me started on what each of us deserve.

Those that can do....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3728019.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0621_040621_shrimpfarm.html
http://www.scubasuperpower.com/wonderfulworld/oneperson.html
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/food-poisoning-you-are-eating-californias-dead-pets-2319-3.html
http://www.poopreport.com/Stories/speckled_shrimp_christmas.html

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 04:54 AM

Most people are not doing what you are doing or much of anything that doesn't involve their work and their consumer-based lifestyle. They are choking down a cheeseburger and saying "I don't want to know where it came from" and taking offense that someone would interrupt their ignorance to try to tell them.

The cause I think is most important is literacy. It affects everything else.

See now Dave, that is where I disagree with you. I know exactly where it comes from how they are slaughtered what is done and everything else. I have seen the videos where they use the bolt gun to drive a bolt through the brain and everything else. Difference is... to me it is a food source and nothing more. It is a different philosophy. Because there is a section of the population that disagrees with it does not make it wrong. Think what you will about me but I do not eat meat with an ignorance as to where it comes from. I simply shrug my shoulder's and say "so what" it's a food source, a walking steak, a future burger and nothing more to me.

As far as the government is concerned. The CIA is a necessary agency. Do they and have they used torture... Yes they have... and you know what I support that. I have no problem with it. I do not blindly sit back and imagine a candyland atmosphere where the US and UK Governments do not resort to non publicized means in order to gather information to protect their respective societies. In some cases it is a necessary evil.

Now before people start backpeddling and saying... "Hey Buzzetta by that logic doesn't that go against what you said a few times ago concerning PETA being a terrorist org because it assists with ELF and other orgs...." No not quite. You see there is a clear difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and a animal testing lab and torturing an individual to find the location of those that are plotting to bring down the entire country.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 05:07 AM

Those that can do....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3728019.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0621_040621_shrimpfarm.html
http://www.scubasuperpower.com/wonderfulworld/oneperson.html
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/food-poisoning-you-are-eating-californias-dead-pets-2319-3.html
http://www.poopreport.com/Stories/speckled_shrimp_christmas.html

That's nice.... if you want I will upload pictures of my tropical fish tank. I will have an extra helping of shrimp though if you will. I actually looked at and read several of the articles you linked.

However in reality shrimp farming is but a minor cause of the problems that those article attribute the state of the asian eco-system to. Notice it says "environmentalists say". While shrimp farming does not help the situation the major cause of environmental decay has been the unchecked pollutants entering the waters of China and other Southeast Asian Second World Countries that they are only now beginning to rectify.

Also... on a side note.... nothing personal is meant here to you 23rd. I like the majority of your posts. They are well researched and written to your slanted point of view. (Same as my posts slant towards my point of view). My point - since you read my nonsense I actually do take the time to read your links since if you are going to take the time to link them I can pay you the respect of at least reading them.

I'm still eating my shrimp tomorrow.

esheh195

December 24, 2007, 05:08 AM

Nope... I will stick two burgers in my mouth.... I am serious when I say I was going to go get a veggie delight from Subway. (I actually do get them from time to time as I like the idea of a salad between two pieces of bread.) Instead .... in your honor I bought not one but two burgers... one for each of you. I remember the story that NRITH told of someone who eats double (or was it triple) the amount of meat he normally would when told of the theory of meat being murder. Enjoy what you have done.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo172.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo179.jpg

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo177.jpg

OMFG!!!!! Bwahahahahaha! I'm sorry that was too fuckin funny...the way the thread was going...I knew it wasn't gonna be pretty! LOL The big evil grin one is my personal favorite! haha :D

Dave

December 24, 2007, 05:13 AM

See now Dave, that is where I disagree with you. I know exactly where it comes from how they are slaughtered what is done and everything else. I have seen the videos where they use the bolt gun to drive a bolt through the brain and everything else. Difference is... to me it is a food source and nothing more. It is a different philosophy. Because there is a section of the population that disagrees with it does not make it wrong. Think what you will about me but I do not eat meat with an ignorance as to where it comes from. I simply shrug my shoulder's and say "so what" it's a food source, a walking steak, a future burger and nothing more to me.

As far as the government is concerned. The CIA is a necessary agency. Do they and have they used torture... Yes they have... and you know what I support that. I have no problem with it. I do not blindly sit back and imagine a candyland atmosphere where the US and UK Governments do not resort to non publicized means in order to gather information to protect their respective societies. In some cases it is a necessary evil.

Now before people start backpeddling and saying... "Hey Buzzetta by that logic doesn't that go against what you said a few times ago concerning PETA being a terrorist org because it assists with ELF and other orgs...." No not quite. You see there is a clear difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and a animal testing lab and torturing an individual to find the location of those that are plotting to bring down the entire country.

even if you see it as a future steak, the fact suffering equals profit should matter. there are more and less clean and more and less humane ways to create your future steak.

As far as torture goes, you are wrong. You can't advocate torture and believe in human rights. Wasn't torture one of Saddam Hussein's crimes? It seemed to get a lot of attention when that whole WMD thing fell through.

Now on some television show, I'm sure that torture provides answers that save an entire population from being annihilated. If torturing someone would keep a nuclear bomb from detonating in my city, I'd say, sure, go ahead. But that isn't what is happening.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 05:34 AM

even if you see it as a future steak, the fact suffering equals profit should matter. there are more and less clean and more and less humane ways to create your future steak.

As far as torture goes, you are wrong. You can't advocate torture and believe in human rights. Wasn't torture one of Saddam Hussein's crimes? It seemed to get a lot of attention when that whole WMD thing fell through.

Now on some television show, I'm sure that torture provides answers that save an entire population from being annihilated. If torturing someone would keep a nuclear bomb from detonating in my city, I'd say, sure, go ahead. But that isn't what is happening.

LOL I knew you would make a reference to 24.

Saddam Hussein used torture against people for ethnic and religious reasons. That is where the difference was. When the govt takes someone into custody who is a known associate of someone they are after and he starts quoting allah and refuses to tell them the location of said individual I am okay if the guy "falls up the stairs" as it were.

I am okay when a village in Iraq is a known haven for hiding arms and munitions used for roadside bombs and car bombs and a few townspeople need to be convinced that it is better for them to give up location of said arms cache.

If that scares people that there are those that have those views... then so be it.

There is a different mindset outside the anglo-american and even germanic french spanish mindset. The people of the middle east rightfully look upon their people as the original inhabitants of the world. They know they were there before their current government and their people will be there afterwards. They are not going to simply give up any information because an outside force asked nicely.

bogdana

December 24, 2007, 05:42 AM

Nope... I will stick two burgers in my mouth.... I am serious when I say I was going to go get a veggie delight from Subway. (I actually do get them from time to time as I like the idea of a salad between two pieces of bread.) Instead .... in your honor I bought not one but two burgers... one for each of you. I remember the story that NRITH told of someone who eats double (or was it triple) the amount of meat he normally would when told of the theory of meat being murder. Enjoy what you have done.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/Photo172.jpg

this is hilarious. i think you would have pissed them off more with some KFC though. i only think those photos are gross because they are from mcdonald's. dude. you gotta get BK next time. FLAME BROILED!

and i've been generally vegetarian for at least a month now but after reading this thread I went out to a pasture, shot a cow, only took the choice parts and left the rest in the pasture for the farmer to find, after the vultures and hyenas eat their parts and hopefully any evidence I left behind.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 05:45 AM

I don't like KFC though.... I wonder how they feel about Taco Bell... That Grilled Chicken Chipolte Burrito es muy bueno my amiga.

bogdana

December 24, 2007, 05:49 AM

si, mi encantanta el 'crunchwrap supremo' tambien... yo quiero el crunchwrap. yo tengo crunchwrap por almuerzo a Sabado siempre...that is until i went pseudo-veg. now i'm a good girl and eat the souls of fish only. PS mi espanol es mal, lo siento. im getting some CDs for Christmas this year, to freshen it up. Been 3 yrs since I moved out of Tampa and my spanish grammar shows.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:01 AM

My spanish is all mucked up...

I make 8th graders giggle when I purposely make up nonsensical spanish.

Por ejemplo - Los gatos muertos estan en mi cocina porque me gusto la comida chinese.

The dead cats are in my kitchen because I like Chinese food.

Not Right in the Head

December 24, 2007, 06:02 AM

bogdana

December 24, 2007, 06:07 AM

The dead cats are in my kitchen because I like Chinese food.

but that makes complete sense as a sentence!!

I had several choice phrases en espanol that I used in a stand up routine that always got early laughs from hispanics when i worked in tampa but when i started DC shows became cricket food. Takes some latin flair I guess to get my jokes-es
and then someone famous stole my 'sharpie for an eyeliner' line and i was NOT PLEASED!
I dont do it anymore, I dont have the time, its like a full time job you dont get paid for.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:13 AM

but that makes complete sense as a sentence!!

I had several choice phrases en espanol that I used in a stand up routine that always got early laughs from hispanics when i worked in tampa but when i started DC shows became cricket food. Takes some latin flair I guess to get my jokes-es
and then someone famous stole my 'sharpie for an eyeliner' line and i was NOT PLEASED!
I dont do it anymore, I dont have the time, its like a full time job you dont get paid for.

Las Vacas con los orejas grandes esta en mi cama porque ellos le gustan a mirar a mi cuando bano.

The cows with the big ears are in my bed because they like to watch me bathe.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 24, 2007, 06:18 AM

I don't like KFC though.... I wonder how they feel about Taco Bell... That Grilled Chicken Chipolte Burrito es muy bueno my amiga.

It is not because a section of the population disagrees with you that makes it wrong. It is a question of ethics and morals. The link between animal abuse and human abuse is a fact. It is much more than a walking steak. Like you and I, animals feel pain and have emotions. Like children, it is the responsibility of adults to defend their rights. I studied Agriculture at Edinburgh University and have worked in the production of flesh in various farming systems. This is subject I can speak with a greater understanding than most on. The impact of supporting the flesh industry is far reaching into all aspects of society. Hopefully you do take time to understand it better. Violence breeds violence. As a history teacher, you should know that. I believe it is wrong to murder for oil. You are free to choose to consciously sit back and do nothing. All that is required for evil to conquer is for good men to do nothing. One mans' freedom fighter is another mans' terrorist. Sometimes you need to get violent. You've already agreed with that. Is it better to do nothing or worse still be a part of it? Are your responsibilities waved because, for example, China doesn't do as it morally and ethically should? Are you really not as blind as you think you are? Fishing shrimp damages the environment too. You are free to close your mind to that too. You are free in your one life to do as you wish with it but I can't help finding your pride in the cruelty to men and animals, and in the macho posture you choose to adopt, deeply saddening and forgive me for sounding sanctimonious but, ignorant too. I hope you can understand why I fail to see the funny side.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:40 AM

It is not because a section of the population disagrees with you that makes it wrong. It is a question of ethics and morals. The link between animal abuse and human abuse is a fact. It is much more than a walking steak. Like you and I, animals feel pain and have emotions. Like children, it is the responsibility of adults to defend their rights. I studied Agriculture at Edinburgh University and have worked in the production of flesh in various farming systems. This is subject I can speak with a greater understanding than most on. The impact of supporting the flesh industry is far reaching into all aspects of society. Hopefully you do take time to understand it better. Violence breeds violence. As a history teacher, you should know that. I believe it is wrong to murder for oil. You are free to choose to consciously sit back and do nothing. All that is required for evil to conquer is for good men to do nothing. One mans' freedom fighter is another mans' terrorist. Sometimes you need to get violent. You've already agreed with that. Is it better to do nothing or worse still be a part of it? Are your responsibilities waved because, for example, China doesn't do as it morally and ethically should? Are you really not as blind as you think you are? Fishing shrimp damages the environment too. You are free to close your mind to that too. You are free in your one life to do as you wish with it but I can't help finding your pride in the cruelty to men and animals, and in the macho posture you choose to adopt, deeply saddening and forgive me for sounding sanctimonious but, ignorant too. I hope you can understand why I fail to see the funny side.

See though it is not so much a macho or non macho issue for me. It is a viewpoint of that it is a food source. I am not more likely to commit a crime or act in a violent way because I enjoy a steak sandwich. Yes I know of the prisons for troubled youth that switched to a all vegan menu and it calmed the kids down. (Because I choose to come across as a buffoon at times does not mean that I do not read up on it.) However the linking of eating meat to an increase in crime is non conclusive at best considering that it has been posited that violent criminals already have a different chemical makeup in a certain part of their minds making them more likely to commit a criminal act. This sounds harshly like a page out of the eugenics movement but it isnt. This is something to a much lesser degree.

I look at the eating of meat as a food source. An animal cries because it's head was chopped off so I could have a chicken sandwich. It is not indifference to me in so much as I understand that the animal feels pain. However my personal philosophy is that it is a food source. That will never change. That is not because I am an uncaring unfeeling individual. I do not support dog fighting or things of that nature. However there are animals that are specifically bred and raised to be sources of food.

If you are a vegetarian and support the ideas you stated then you must also be against abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty and any other acts that humans commit upon other's that have the ability to express.

To you ... the chicken is a sentient being in a coop that should be free. To me the coop is a holding pen to keep my future meal fresh until its "go" time. If its anything to you... I do not lose sleep or become enraged that you feel my viewpoint is an ignorant one. If anything I feel the exact same way towards your viewpoint in this matter. To each their own I guess.

I will still read your posts though... as personally I do not think you a bad person. I think your viewpoint on animals is skewed.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 24, 2007, 09:03 AM

See though it is not so much a macho or non macho issue for me. It is a viewpoint of that it is a food source. I am not more likely to commit a crime or act in a violent way because I enjoy a steak sandwich. Yes I know of the prisons for troubled youth that switched to a all vegan menu and it calmed the kids down. (Because I choose to come across as a buffoon at times does not mean that I do not read up on it.) However the linking of eating meat to an increase in crime is non conclusive at best considering that it has been posited that violent criminals already have a different chemical makeup in a certain part of their minds making them more likely to commit a criminal act. This sounds harshly like a page out of the eugenics movement but it isnt. This is something to a much lesser degree.

I look at the eating of meat as a food source. An animal cries because it's head was chopped off so I could have a chicken sandwich. It is not indifference to me in so much as I understand that the animal feels pain. However my personal philosophy is that it is a food source. That will never change. That is not because I am an uncaring unfeeling individual. I do not support dog fighting or things of that nature. However there are animals that are specifically bred and raised to be sources of food.

If you are a vegetarian and support the ideas you stated then you must also be against abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty and any other acts that humans commit upon other's that have the ability to express.

To you ... the chicken is a sentient being in a coop that should be free. To me the coop is a holding pen to keep my future meal fresh until its "go" time. If its anything to you... I do not lose sleep or become enraged that you feel my viewpoint is an ignorant one. If anything I feel the exact same way towards your viewpoint in this matter. To each their own I guess.

I will still read your posts though... as personally I do not think you a bad person. I think your viewpoint on animals is skewed.

I'm not sure if your are deliberately misunderstanding or don't want to. Perhaps a bit of both. It isn't a simple as you make out. I strongly feel everyone has responsibilities to mankind, the planet and animals. Anyway, I learned a long time ago, it isn't easy to convert somebody over the net, to any way of thinking. Nor am I sure if I want to. It's your life to ruin your own way (and vice-versa).

You definitely displayed machismo in your pride of eating flesh. Yes, meat is an excellent food source but one that isn't very nice and no longer necessary in this day and age. I hope you research the link between animal cruelty and human cruelty by yourself.

For the record. I am against the things you listed. Thankfully, abortion will never be something I will ever have a choice over (being a man). I have so far never played my part in creating a child who has been aborted and I hope it remains that way.

My use of the word ignorant was, it seems, a failed attempt to get your back up a bit, as you did mine, and is my reason for me returning to the board just now. That was ignorant of me. Yes, I am skewed and flawed and also hypocritical in many ways and but I am trying my best to be a good person. To be a better person.

I'm glad I haven't upset you but I hope I've got you thinking a bit.

Bon Appétit

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 09:34 AM

I'm glad I haven't upset you but I hope I've got you thinking a bit.
Bon Appétit

no no no... not upset at all... not to worry.

To me it is that simple in the area that I chalk it up to a separation of the two. There are animals you eat and animals you do not. Everyone has their own code of ethics and ways that they are able to function in an established society. When someone's code of ethics go too far outside the accepted norm that is when society considers them deviant and dangerous.

I have read up on varying philosophies and at 4:15 AM in the states I cannot remember who authored what for the life of me. (I cannot sleep). I am familiar with the notion that an intrinsic evil is that when a person is used as a materialistic end. However this notion (at least in my mind) does not extend to the animal kingdom. We as the human race eat meat. Our bodies are adapted to partake in the eating of meat (as well as veggies). Whether you want to argue by natural design or natural selection should be irrelevant to this conversation. (I hope as I do not feel like going through 50 pgs of God text from various communities ... been there done that thread.) Because of that we have drifted away from having to hunt food to basically harvesting it. In harvesting I mean by vegetation as well as meat.

Now I hate to say that it boils down to "Sucks to be a chicken" but so be it. Do I promote cock fights or the simple walking up to a chicken and snapping it's neck? Absolutely not. However I am morally okay with the idea that there are chickens that lay eggs and there are chickens that end up on my plate. I know what is done to them in order to get those eggs and that meat. I know about how the chickens are induced to lay the amount of eggs that they do. I know these things and in the end I am still morally okay with eating eggs. The reason being not because I am cold hearted or evil. It is because those chickens were created with the intent and purpose to be served on a plate. The only reason they were given life was to be made into food. This is not a wild chicken that was shot for sport. I see the difference because I recognize the difference.

I was the guy the other day that as everyone else could not be bothered helping the middle aged woman lift her shopping carriage up the subway steps decided it would not take much to help the woman out. (No this is not a whoa is me but perhaps a shed of light that I am NOT oblivious to those around me.) I would like to say that I have more of an observation of what is going on around me than the average person.

I am not blind to how the food industry harvests meat nor am I in denial . I am not appalled by it either. To my own standards there are animals that are part of nature and there are those bred by man for food to be consumed by man.

I think however that it discourages you that I know what and how it happens yet fail to agree with your argument. It does not make me better or worse than you.

I also brought up the other topics as I have always found a hypocritical of people and political parties that make it an issue to promote one topic that conflicts with the other. The Democratic party advocates a woman's right to choose, yet is against the Death Penalty while the Republican Party takes the opposite.

In other news.... I just disassembled my iPod and will be ordering a battery to see if that fixes it. (If you read anything else I write about.)

Morrissey the 23rd

December 24, 2007, 10:18 AM

no no no... not upset at all... not to worry.

To me it is that simple in the area that I chalk it up to a separation of the two. There are animals you eat and animals you do not. Everyone has their own code of ethics and ways that they are able to function in an established society. When someone's code of ethics go too far outside the accepted norm that is when society considers them deviant and dangerous.

I have read up on varying philosophies and at 4:15 AM in the states I cannot remember who authored what for the life of me. (I cannot sleep). I am familiar with the notion that an intrinsic evil is that when a person is used as a materialistic end. However this notion (at least in my mind) does not extend to the animal kingdom. We as the human race eat meat. Our bodies are adapted to partake in the eating of meat (as well as veggies). Whether you want to argue by natural design or natural selection should be irrelevant to this conversation. (I hope as I do not feel like going through 50 pgs of God text from various communities ... been there done that thread.) Because of that we have drifted away from having to hunt food to basically harvesting it. In harvesting I mean by vegetation as well as meat.

Now I hate to say that it boils down to "Sucks to be a chicken" but so be it. Do I promote cock fights or the simple walking up to a chicken and snapping it's neck? Absolutely not. However I am morally okay with the idea that there are chickens that lay eggs and there are chickens that end up on my plate. I know what is done to them in order to get those eggs and that meat. I know about how the chickens are induced to lay the amount of eggs that they do. I know these things and in the end I am still morally okay with eating eggs. The reason being not because I am cold hearted or evil. It is because those chickens were created with the intent and purpose to be served on a plate. The only reason they were given life was to be made into food. This is not a wild chicken that was shot for sport. I see the difference because I recognize the difference.

I was the guy the other day that as everyone else could not be bothered helping the middle aged woman lift her shopping carriage up the subway steps decided it would not take much to help the woman out. (No this is not a whoa is me but perhaps a shed of light that I am NOT oblivious to those around me.) I would like to say that I have more of an observation of what is going on around me than the average person.

I am not blind to how the food industry harvests meat nor am I in denial . I am not appalled by it either. To my own standards there are animals that are part of nature and there are those bred by man for food to be consumed by man.

I think however that it discourages you that I know what and how it happens yet fail to agree with your argument. It does not make me better or worse than you.

I also brought up the other topics as I have always found a hypocritical of people and political parties that make it an issue to promote one topic that conflicts with the other. The Democratic party advocates a woman's right to choose, yet is against the Death Penalty while the Republican Party takes the opposite.

In other news.... I just disassembled my iPod and will be ordering a battery to see if that fixes it. (If you read anything else I write about.)

Do you agree with the principle of minimising suffering in all animals?

Do you agree that there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have?

Do you agree that you discriminate on the grounds of which species an animal belongs?

On what grounds do we have the right to produce other animals for their flesh, for us to eat?

How do you justify people like yourself eating food that has an impact on humans in the world literally starving?

It was said it the past that to give woman equal rights, we may as well give animals rights. Woman now have equal rights. I believe in the future, history teachers like yourself will look back on our age with a similar outlook (If we haven't made ourselves extinct, which we will).

I have also been awake over 24 hours now but I must sleep, as I'm working nightshift tonight and a kind of busy day tomorrow, including another nightshift followed by another busy day. I'm willing to educate you (hehe) but it's going to take time.

For the record, I am against all political parties and have no belief in any religion.

Hellie

December 24, 2007, 11:55 AM

[QUOTE=Buzzetta;729654]Nope... I will stick two burgers in my mouth.... I am serious when I say I was going to go get a veggie delight from Subway. (I actually do get them from time to time as I like the idea of a salad between two pieces of bread.) Instead .... in your honor I bought not one but two burgers... one for each of you. I remember the story that NRITH told of someone who eats double (or was it triple) the amount of meat he normally would when told of the theory of meat being murder. Enjoy what you have done.

Buzz you are a BAD BAD boy!!Never mind shrimps what you really need is your backside spanked!!

nugz

December 24, 2007, 02:42 PM

Kris

December 24, 2007, 03:19 PM

I've been on a low-carb diet for two months and tonight I'm going to eat a ton of cookies. I may not eat again until January.

lottie

December 24, 2007, 05:07 PM

Not Right in the Head

December 24, 2007, 05:07 PM

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k238/morrisseysolo/gifs/1694992-ham_shanker.gif

You rolling a D20 there?
http://www.warehouse23.com/img/200/CYC2017-200.jpg

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:27 PM

Your post my answers

Do you agree with the principle of minimising suffering in all animals?
To a degree. An animal is not going to be happy about getting its head lopped off by a machete. What creature would be? However I believe that you miss or rather refuse to accept that I make a clear distinction between an animal of natural design in the wild against an animal specifically bred and raised to be a food source. The chickens raised on the farm whether free range or not were brought into this world to be used as a food source. They are not being plucked from the wild. Now you can say... "So that makes suffering alright". It makes it so that the chickens are following their purpose. These chickens exist for the sole purpose of providing food and nothing more.

Do you agree that there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have?
Absolutely. Humans first then animals. However I do discriminate between animals that exist by natural order and those brought into existence on the grounds that they are to be used as a food source.

Do you agree that you discriminate on the grounds of which species an animal belongs?
Oh absolutely. If my friends dog starts jumping all over me I talk the dog down. Say "no" and the dog walks away. The mosquito does not understand that so it gets crushed beneath the mighty palm of annoyance. BAM!!! Dead mosquito. We ALL discriminate between the species of animals.

On what grounds do we have the right to produce other animals for their flesh, for us to eat?
Because they are a food source. By the same right that allows me to slap a bug that is on me. The same right that when there is a dog on the road I am running that dog over instead of veering into oncoming traffic. Humans first before other animals.

How do you justify people like yourself eating food that has an impact on humans in the world literally starving?
Very easily as your numbers concerning that are slanted to favor your argument. The consumption of meat does not have an overall affect over the populations of Africa and many other third world countries. There are other socio-economic reasons that dictate those conditions. There is also a recent theory - I dismissed it at the time but was reading it while waiting in a doctor's office. It was actually quite interesting. It brought up the fact that we have medically been able to prolong life to the age that new diseases and illnesses have the opportunity to develop. An example would be that few if no one died of Alzheimer's one thousand years ago because no one lived long enough to develop it. Under that idea it brought about the theory that many African tribes that were formerly nomadic have now (in the last several hundred years) become forced to establish settlements in areas of the world where settlements are not supported by the environment. This could be due to a lack of land elsewhere or because of political boarders. By staying in these areas they are forced to stay in a region where a water supply is limited. It is not uncommon as recent as the last 200 years for a community within the United States to pick up and move on once the land was infertile and the water supply had dried up. In some countries they do not have that luxary (to move on) and must remain. An interesting theory that deserves some attention.

It was said it the past that to give woman equal rights, we may as well give animals rights. Woman now have equal rights. I believe in the future, history teachers like yourself will look back on our age with a similar outlook (If we haven't made ourselves extinct, which we will).
I believe that in the future our society will be critiqued more towards the destruction of natural habitats in lieu of development and expansion. However I do not believe that we will be looked down upon for the consumption of meat. An animal is in no way shape or form of the equal nature of a human female. You cannot equate an animal to a human female. The other argument that is used, which I was honestly surprised you did not use was the notion of animal consumption likened to that of African American colonial and pre civil war slavery. Even with that model of comparison they are two different vehicles. Animals are not humans and do not enjoy the same rights.

I have also been awake over 24 hours now but I must sleep, as I'm working nightshift tonight and a kind of busy day tomorrow, including another nightshift followed by another busy day. I'm willing to educate you (hehe) but it's going to take time.
Eventually you have to sleep or you become a danger to those on the road when you are driving. Careful.

For the record, I am against all political parties and have no belief in any religion.
I know I believe I have read that before. However it was mostly for the outsiders that are following this thread that have not posted but may very well jump in. Think of it as an aside to the audience. (Hellloooooooo audience)

This post was ridiculously long.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:30 PM

You rolling a D20 there?
http://www.warehouse23.com/img/200/CYC2017-200.jpg

I just got coffee up my nose thank you very much.

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:31 PM

no no no pandora, in 10 years karma will have caught up with all these people and they will be receiving the punishment they deserve, (hopefully i lingering painful death.)

;)

Wow you wish death on humans. I wonder who the real aggressor is?

Not Right in the Head

December 24, 2007, 06:32 PM

I just got coffee up my nose thank you very much.

While we're on the subject, here's one of The Onion's finest moments (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29743).

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 06:35 PM

While we're on the subject, here's one of The Onion's finest moments (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29743).

lol
I always thought that this one was the best though.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28994

Morrissey the 23rd

December 24, 2007, 08:51 PM

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 09:16 PM

I need to leave for work in a few minutes. I'll respond when I can. I'm gonna eat you and not in the way you'd like.:)

First of all that is really weird.

Second of all I will be gone for possibly the next couple of days. Christmas with the family and all so I will not be here to respond.

That should make several people happy... :confused:

Buzzetta

December 24, 2007, 09:29 PM

In addition... (not using the edit button since you may be typing and I may be typing before you type yours ?)

What it comes down to

.Give me all the info in the world.
+
.Describe and show the so called pain and suffering.
_______________________________________________

Meaningless to me since I am already aware of your arguments. It's a difference of perception and viewpoint. To me, animals = food source. It is clear cut and dry. Sucks to be a chicken. Too bad. Chicken = food.

It is not ignorance or a refusal to see the light. I simply disagree with your perception. This is starting to run into the same lines when one person wants to convert another to their religion.

"I have the right perceptions and the right views."
"No you don't I do."

and so on...

you can agree to disagree but I am not of the belief system that the chicken in the coop is nothing more than a food source.

Now I really must go. See you in two days.

pandora_cocteau

December 24, 2007, 11:33 PM

no no no pandora, in 10 years karma will have caught up with all these people and they will be receiving the punishment they deserve, (hopefully i lingering painful death.)

;)

oh let's just hope and pray.
i feel like having me some deep fried children. you know where i can get some baby fingers? because im sttaaarving!

nogodsnomasters85

December 25, 2007, 12:05 AM

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 12:21 AM

First of all that is really weird.

Second of all I will be gone for possibly the next couple of days. Christmas with the family and all so I will not be here to respond.

That should make several people happy... :confused:

I am weird but you must have heard of the expresion, 'eat you alive'?

I don't want you thinking that I'm discouraged because you claim that you know what and how it happens, yet fail to agree with my argument for animal rights. I'd like to continue this debate with you when you return. It is no problem if we come to different conclusions at the end of the debate. I would only continue to debate it with you because you debate in a sensible maner, the subject is of huge importance and I like you.

Religion is fantasy. Human and animal suffering is real and really important.

You are sleeping. You do not want to believe.

nugz

December 25, 2007, 12:43 AM

I am weird but you must have heard of the expresion, 'eat you alive'?
[/I]

haha, without tacking on the "alive" in your original sentence, that phrase could've been interpreted in a completely different way. :eek:

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 01:13 AM

haha, without tacking on the "alive" in your original sentence, that phrase could've been interpreted in a completely different way. :eek:

That was meant. Word play is fun. I also felt the need to let him know he can't have me but being human, he is bound to want to (even although he hasn't expressed that in the slightist {Yet! It will only be a matter of time before he wont be able to help himself but he'll never be able to help himself..}), and being human I'm bound to encourage that to a degree. Being weird, I do that in my weird way.

In case this grows arms and legs, on this occassion only, I'm going to expand, although it takes away the humour and ruins the personal fun for me. I don't think I'm so desirable. Nor do I have any interest in men, except one. This has also been a post with an attempt at humour.

esheh195

December 25, 2007, 01:34 AM

buzzetta, i understand your point. i disagree with it, but i understand it.

can i ask, would you eat a dog? monkey? bat? horse? crickets?

who's to say? There's so many wonderful recipes and cooking techniques available today...you really could serve up anything from dog to cricket in really appetizing presentations. Tell ya what...if you could make it tasty and make it look nice and pretty for my dining pleasure...I'll eat it. ;):p:D

OK...bye-bye all...I have to go to the family's in Brooklyn for the big Christmas Eve family fight fist. Should be fun.
Merry Christmas to all!! Here's my little Mozzy cheer:
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x84/esheh195/mozmas1-3.jpg

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 02:52 AM

Do you agree with the principle of minimising suffering in all animals?
To a degree. An animal is not going to be happy about getting its head lopped off by a machete. What creature would be? However I believe that you miss or rather refuse to accept that I make a clear distinction between an animal of natural design in the wild against an animal specifically bred and raised to be a food source. The chickens raised on the farm whether free range or not were brought into this world to be used as a food source. They are not being plucked from the wild. Now you can say... "So that makes suffering alright". It makes it so that the chickens are following their purpose. These chickens exist for the sole purpose of providing food and nothing more.

Do you agree that there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have?
Absolutely. Humans first then animals. However I do discriminate between animals that exist by natural order and those brought into existence on the grounds that they are to be used as a food source.

Do you agree that you discriminate on the grounds of which species an animal belongs?
Oh absolutely. If my friends dog starts jumping all over me I talk the dog down. Say "no" and the dog walks away. The mosquito does not understand that so it gets crushed beneath the mighty palm of annoyance. BAM!!! Dead mosquito. We ALL discriminate between the species of animals.

On what grounds do we have the right to produce other animals for their flesh, for us to eat?
Because they are a food source. By the same right that allows me to slap a bug that is on me. The same right that when there is a dog on the road I am running that dog over instead of veering into oncoming traffic. Humans first before other animals.

How do you justify people like yourself eating food that has an impact on humans in the world literally starving?
Very easily as your numbers concerning that are slanted to favor your argument. The consumption of meat does not have an overall affect over the populations of Africa and many other third world countries. There are other socio-economic reasons that dictate those conditions. There is also a recent theory - I dismissed it at the time but was reading it while waiting in a doctor's office. It was actually quite interesting. It brought up the fact that we have medically been able to prolong life to the age that new diseases and illnesses have the opportunity to develop. An example would be that few if no one died of Alzheimer's one thousand years ago because no one lived long enough to develop it. Under that idea it brought about the theory that many African tribes that were formerly nomadic have now (in the last several hundred years) become forced to establish settlements in areas of the world where settlements are not supported by the environment. This could be due to a lack of land elsewhere or because of political boarders. By staying in these areas they are forced to stay in a region where a water supply is limited. It is not uncommon as recent as the last 200 years for a community within the United States to pick up and move on once the land was infertile and the water supply had dried up. In some countries they do not have that luxary (to move on) and must remain. An interesting theory that deserves some attention.

It was said it the past that to give woman equal rights, we may as well give animals rights. Woman now have equal rights. I believe in the future, history teachers like yourself will look back on our age with a similar outlook (If we haven't made ourselves extinct, which we will).
I believe that in the future our society will be critiqued more towards the destruction of natural habitats in lieu of development and expansion. However I do not believe that we will be looked down upon for the consumption of meat. An animal is in no way shape or form of the equal nature of a human female. You cannot equate an animal to a human female. The other argument that is used, which I was honestly surprised you did not use was the notion of animal consumption likened to that of African American colonial and pre civil war slavery. Even with that model of comparison they are two different vehicles. Animals are not humans and do not enjoy the same rights.

I have also been awake over 24 hours now but I must sleep, as I'm working nightshift tonight and a kind of busy day tomorrow, including another nightshift followed by another busy day. I'm willing to educate you (hehe) but it's going to take time.
Eventually you have to sleep or you become a danger to those on the road when you are driving. Careful.

For the record, I am against all political parties and have no belief in any religion.
I know I believe I have read that before. However it was mostly for the outsiders that are following this thread that have not posted but may very well jump in. Think of it as an aside to the audience. (Hellloooooooo audience)

This post was ridiculously long.

Could you please clarify and expand on some points you've raised on this thread by answering these questions?

What gives us the right to eat animals?
Don't just say because they are a food source. There are other food sources other than eating other animals that provide a balanced diet.

It seems you are saying that animals you enjoy the taste of have less rights than others for that reason alone. Is that it?

What defines the volume of rights an animal should have?

Could you expand on why humans are first then animals?

Why has an animal bred for it's flesh got less rights than other animals?

It also seems you are saying that human starvation is a geographical lottery that you do not impact on or should have any desire to influence change. Is that right?

You say that the consumption of meat doesn't have an effect on people in the world dying from starvation. It is social-economic reasons that cause that. Care to expand on that too?

Does meat production cause pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land?

Is the use of large industrial monoculture, common in industrialised agriculture for feed crops such as corn and soy more or less damaging to ecosystems than more sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rain-fed agriculture?

Do animals fed on grain rather than on grazing require more water?

Is the production of animal-based food more or less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits?

Does the production of flesh significantly contribute to greenhouse gasses we create?

You wrote about mankinds habit of moving on to new land due to slash and burn agriculture. To pick up and move on once the land was infertile and the water supply had dried up. What effect has that method of farming had on the planet and is it a technique that is necessary or wise?

What is the impact of trawling and over fishing?

I agree we are destroying the planets current habitats. The result of this will be the continued demise of species on the planet, including humans but the planet itself is very likely to survive long after naked apes have made themselves extinct, due to our love for the taste of flesh, amongst other things.

Could you please expand and clarify further your point about progress in science resulting in longer lives, it's impact on human starvation, and your right to consume flesh?

You are right that others will jump in with posts. They will be on both sides of the debate and some will just be moronic. We can choose to include the points raised by the sensible ones, if we like, and we can ignore others for whatever reason. Generally, I tend not to respond to the trolls and the plain stupid. Shall we agree to remain focussed toward each others side of this debate and continue?

nugz

December 25, 2007, 08:20 AM

Could you please clarify and expand on some points you've raised on this thread by answering these questions?

What gives us the right to eat animals?
Don't just say because they are a food source. There are other food sources other than eating other animals that provide a balanced diet.

It seems you are saying that animals you enjoy the taste of have less rights than others for that reason alone. Is that it?

What defines the volume of rights an animal should have?

Could you expand on why humans are first then animals?

Why has an animal bred for it's flesh got less rights than other animals?

It also seems you are saying that human starvation is a geographical lottery that you do not impact on or should have any desire to influence change. Is that right?

You say that the consumption of meat doesn't have an effect on people in the world dying from starvation. It is social-economic reasons that cause that. Care to expand on that too?

Does meat production cause pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land?

Is the use of large industrial monoculture, common in industrialised agriculture for feed crops such as corn and soy more or less damaging to ecosystems than more sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rain-fed agriculture?

Do animals fed on grain rather than on grazing require more water?

Is the production of animal-based food more or less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits?

Does the production of flesh significantly contribute to greenhouse gasses we create?

You wrote about mankinds habit of moving on to new land due to slash and burn agriculture. To pick up and move on once the land was infertile and the water supply had dried up. What effect has that method of farming had on the planet and is it a technique that is necessary or wise?

What is the impact of trawling and over fishing?

I agree we are destroying the planets current habitats. The result of this will be the continued demise of species on the planet, including humans but the planet itself is very likely to survive long after naked apes have made themselves extinct, due to our love for the taste of flesh, amongst other things.

Could you please expand and clarify further your point about progress in science resulting in longer lives, it's impact on human starvation, and your right to consume flesh?

You are right that others will jump in with posts. They will be on both sides of the debate and some will just be moronic. We can choose to include the points raised by the sensible ones, if we like, and we can ignore others for whatever reason. Generally, I tend not to respond to the trolls and the plain stupid. Shall we agree to remain focussed toward each others side of this debate and continue?

oh.my.god. dude, just give it up. i know Buzzetta can defend himself just fine, but seriously, let it go. the kid loves cheeseburgers and so do i, and we have every right to eat them, and that's our choice. just like I respect vegetarians' decision to not eat meat, i wish more veggie's would respect our decision TO eat meat. it really is that simple.

Buzzetta

December 25, 2007, 09:24 AM

Not much time: I had to get up around 3:30am to do this. Please excuse any grammar or spelling errors since I prattled off.

What gives us the right to eat animals?
The fact that it is a food source stands for itself. See the problem that you fail to address is the fact that the animals in question are specifically created and bred for food. Substitute my belief with your sentence and you get- “What gives us the right to eat the food source”. By the very nature of what it is… a food source. To myself it is no different that the right to eat broccoli or a cracker.

It seems you are saying that animals you enjoy the taste of have less rights than others for that reason alone. Is that it?
No I am saying that animals in the wild have more rights as they are a part of their land than the animals created and bred for food

What defines the volume of rights an animal should have?
Animals created to be a food source are bred to be eaten. They have a right to be slaughtered for the purpose of fulfilling their design of being a food source. They can have their head lopped off as that serves their purpose of being food. However they do have the right say of not being slapped or having their eyes poked out as those actions do not lead to their intended purpose of food.

Could you expand on why humans are first then animals?
Easily. I am human. I will extend more rights privileges over humans as I am a human myself. This supercedes any creature on planet Earth. It is an extention of a very basic instinct of who to protect. If it comes down to a child or a stranger a mother will protect her child. If it comes down to me giving food to one - I will give food to a homeless person before a stray dog. Humans are prioritized over any other animal life.

Why has an animal bred for it's flesh got less rights than other animals?
By its design. It was created for the sole purpose to be used as food.

It also seems you are saying that human starvation is a geographical lottery that you do not impact on or should have any desire to influence change. Is that right?
Two parter – Human starvation is a geographical lottery in many cases. Just as the birth lottery that says one child will be born to the rich and another to the poor. I am sure that we can agree that there are areas on this planet that are inhospitable to providing a consistent source of life within its region. The sahara desert is not a fertile region for mass growth in the realm of providing food sources for the masses. I did not design the Earth. If you are referring though to the asian market and surrounding bodies of water in the Shrimp example, Chinese pollution has run unchecked for years and is only now beginning to be allowed to be studied due to a more open allowance of outsiders to study the affects of China’s ecosystem.

You say that the consumption of meat doesn't have an effect on people in the world dying from starvation.
I fail to see how the consumption of meat affects people dying of starvation. Animal rights activists try to convince people that animals eat up all the grain. There is more than enough grain and food sources. What animal activists fail to address is that in many cases the grain and food supplies are mismanaged and unevenly distributed to those in need. Look at Somalia and areas of Southeast Asia for an example. People in those regions were not fed because the government refused to allow the supplies to reach them. In that case starvation is political in nature.

Does meat production cause pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land?
Absolutely. You are forgetting though that the CO2 used to produce and cook meat does the same amount of damage to the environment as the harvesters pesticides chemicals and everything else used to grow and harvest vegetables. Do you honestly think that the grain is harvested by hand? Do you honestly believe that everything is plucked by hand? If so John Deere would be out of business. And what of the pesticides and growth hormones added into vegetables. The majority of vegetables have these things added to them. There is a basic trade off with that by the way. We trade vegetables that are disease free and will be preserved in a better state when they arrive to the masses in exchange for the poisons put into the ground and hope for the best. There are many farmers that are poisoning the ground they make a living off of.

Is the use of large industrial monoculture, common in industrialised agriculture for feed crops such as corn and soy more or less damaging to ecosystems than more sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rain-fed agriculture?
I hate buzz words. “Green farming” is definitely desirable over the pesticide protected farming currently done. The problem is that those veggies have a shorter shelf life. What you propose (or perhaps are suggesting) is that we all have backyard gardens if not revert back to farming. There is a reason Hamilton is celebrated. He was the first person to go against the grain and tell Jefferson that the farmer would not be the backbone of society if that society wished to thrive and become powerful.

Do animals fed on grain rather than on grazing require more water?
Why wouldn’t they? If you want to tell me that the water could be going to those in need you fail to notice that cattle only graze in areas that are already rich in water. The people in need are NOT in an area where cattle would graze. If they were they would be able to grow their own food. This is like saying that the water used to water my lawn is taking water out of the mouths of Africans. Not true. They are not here. I am not there. If they had the ability to water a lawn then they would drink that water.

Is the production of animal-based food more or less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits?
It is about the same. You can answer in either direction depending on your view of immediate efficiency. I live in NYC and the surrounding suburbs. To get any food to the residents here they have to be shipped in. To grow vegetables you are discounting the fact that water needs to be pumped into the fields, trucked or transported to consumers from the fields to processing centers to et all, chemicals are used on the vegetables, those chemicals are manufactured and so on. Consumption has more direct inefficiencies but the growth harvest and maintenance of crops has far more indirect inefficiencies where they pretty much come out to be the same.

Does the production of flesh significantly contribute to greenhouse gasses we create?
In as much as the direct and indirect production of greenhouse gases used to create maintain and process vegetables and fruits.

You wrote about mankinds habit of moving on to new land due to slash and burn agriculture. To pick up and move on once the land was infertile and the water supply had dried up. What effect has that method of farming had on the planet and is it a technique that is necessary or wise?
Horrible by today’s standards but at the time it was an easily accepted practice as the population was nowhere near what it is now and by the time one came back to the land in 5-10 years the land was fertile again. Today’s farming practices revolve around forcing fertilizer into the ground to make up for man made deficiencies.

What is the impact of trawling and over fishing?
I am not familiar nor have read up on over the distinction of the two practices so I cannot reply with any sense of an answer that I can support one over the other.

I agree we are destroying the planets current habitats. The result of this will be the continued demise of species on the planet, including humans but the planet itself is very likely to survive long after naked apes have made themselves extinct, due to our love for the taste of flesh, amongst other things. Could you please expand and clarify further your point about progress in science resulting in longer lives, it's impact on human starvation, and your right to consume flesh?
It was a theory that mentioned why people are starving in certain areas of the world. The relationship was that no one died of some the odder cancers or diseases such as Alzheimer’s due to the fact that no one lived that long. Because science allowed for the body to live longer it opened up its own Pandoras Box of diseases that usually afflict those over the age of 50 that need to be dealt with. It paralleled the idea that nomadic tribes of hunters gatherers and farmers could leave land once the land was infertile and inhospitable to growth and return when favorable conditions resurfaced. That does not exist today with the population the way it is as well as the political makeup land areas. In the Middle East political lines drawn literally in the sand will not allow one tribe to move to another area. That simple really. I never really said it supports my right to eat meat. I said it was a theory that disproves or takes away from your argument that eating meat causes starvation in third world countries.

You are right that others will jump in with posts.
Oh absolutely. I have stated many times over that I cannot and will not abide by anyone on this forum who jumps in with negative opinions and cannot at least attempt to back them up. However there are quite a few people here that have something to offer. I have no problem including them in the quote. When I equated it to a religious conversion it was along the lines of two people that believe two different things that try to convince the other to see things their way.

Seriously though this is ridiculously long.

Buzzetta

December 25, 2007, 09:28 AM

buzzetta, i understand your point. i disagree with it, but i understand it.

can i ask, would you eat a dog? monkey? bat? horse? crickets?

Personally I would not. However it is ethnocentric to say that other should not do that simply because it is not common practice in America. In certain asian countries a dog is a food source. In India monkeys are a delicacy. I am unaware as to who eat's bats and no one to my knowledge has eaten horsemeat since the American Civil War. There are many countries and regions around the world though where people eat crickets. I have to admit that I would not be adverse to trying a cricket if prepared properly.

nugz

December 25, 2007, 09:36 AM

Buzzetta, omg dude. i cant believe you actually responded to all that. I applaud you. hope you didnt mind i stuck my nose into you guys' debate, but I just couldnt help myself.

*EqualOpportunityHater*

December 25, 2007, 09:40 AM

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/5/12/19/f_maurychristm_23d1b86.jpg

Uncleskinny

December 25, 2007, 09:53 AM

I'll be having this (http://www.quorn.co.uk/CMSPage.aspx?ssbid=67&pid=17) today. In the words of Crass, "...as you're munching on your delicious Christmas turkey, I HOPE IT FACKIN' CHOKES YA!"

Peter

Buzzetta

December 25, 2007, 09:55 AM

I'll be having this (http://www.quorn.co.uk/CMSPage.aspx?ssbid=67&pid=17) today. In the words of Crass, "...as you're munching on your delicious Christmas turkey, I HOPE IT FACKIN' CHOKES YA!"

Peter

Now that's not particularly nice.

I still like you more than Kewpie though.

Buzzetta

December 25, 2007, 09:55 AM

http://img37.picoodle.com/img/img37/5/12/19/f_maurychristm_23d1b86.jpg

That just went out to everyone on my email list.

Buzzetta

December 25, 2007, 09:57 AM

Buzzetta, omg dude. i cant believe you actually responded to all that. I applaud you. hope you didnt mind i stuck my nose into you guys' debate, but I just couldnt help myself.

It is all good. 23rd does not simply act like an assclown about it. He has his facts and data to support his beliefs as I do mine. I recognize it is nothing personal and anything that may seemingly be attacking I know at heart is not based upon the other posts. It is all in good fun.

Seriously... I will have to go soon for the rest of the day.

nugz

December 25, 2007, 10:01 AM

It is all good. 23rd does not simply act like an assclown about it. He has his facts and data to support his beliefs as I do mine. I recognize it is nothing personal and anything that may seemingly be attacking I know at heart is not based upon the other posts. It is all in good fun.

Seriously... I will have to go soon for the rest of the day.

he wasnt acting like an assclown necessarily. i just thought it was a bit...much. and im tired and i've been drinking a bit. so that explains that.

shit, its late, aint it? im gonna go to bed in a few too. merry christmas buzz... and everyone else! :)

Buzzetta

December 25, 2007, 10:06 AM

he wasnt acting like an assclown necessarily. i just thought it was a bit...much. and im tired and i've been drinking a bit. so that explains that.

shit, its late, aint it? im gonna go to bed in a few too. merry christmas buzz... and everyone else! :)

No one went out last night... WTF was that all about. Too bad you do not live closer... I wanted to step out for a bit as I knew of a couple of major local bars that were open.

nugz

December 25, 2007, 10:10 AM

No one went out last night... WTF was that all about. Too bad you do not live closer... I wanted to step out for a bit as I knew of a couple of major local bars that were open.

how lame. lately i've just been drinking over my cousin's house. its cheaper and its two blocks away, so i can just stumble home. ;)

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 10:40 AM

oh.my.god. dude, just give it up. i know Buzzetta can defend himself just fine, but seriously, let it go. the kid loves cheeseburgers and so do i, and we have every right to eat them, and that's our choice. just like I respect vegetarians' decision to not eat meat, i wish more veggie's would respect our decision TO eat meat. it really is that simple.

If he wants to, fine. I didn't demand a debate. I even suggested it was a waste of time. I think bragging about eating flesh is no different to bragging about abusing children or the defenceless. Please respect that.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 10:45 AM

[QUOTE=Buzzetta;730363]

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to what took me time. It is 10:40am on Christmas day. I worked nightshift last night and will again tonight. I'm just taking advantage of my wife speaking on the phone to one of my brothers-in-law to satisfy an addiction to Moz-solo. I'll respond later. I don't even have time to read just now to read what you've wrote.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 10:47 AM

Now that's not particularly nice.

I still like you more than Kewpie though.

LOL I'm sure he didn't really mean it and Kewpie is better looking.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 10:55 AM

It is all good. 23rd does not simply act like an assclown about it. He has his facts and data to support his beliefs as I do mine. I recognize it is nothing personal and anything that may seemingly be attacking I know at heart is not based upon the other posts. It is all in good fun.

Seriously... I will have to go soon for the rest of the day.

Just sped read your post. You're a master debater and I look forward to continuing it, even although it is more likely for one of us to give birth than change our philosophy. Mind you, it is the time of year for impossible births.

Now bed then up for a veggie feast before heading off to work.

imogen11

December 25, 2007, 11:29 AM

I'm vegetarian and I can not stand veggos banging on about meat to meat-eaters. I view it in the same light as bible-bashing: it's fucking boring trying to force your ethics and your beliefs onto others. Boring as fuck.
In my 12 years of vegetarianism I have never once bleated on about eating animals to a meat eater. For example, I noticed this morning that my flatmate has casually left a fur stole on the couch in the loungeroom. I can't comprehend how or why she would wear a dead animal around her shoulders and I'd love it if she'd put it away, but I am not going to bang on about it to her. I will not even mention it. Because, really, it's not my business. She can believe and do as she wishes and I will believe and do as I wish.

Does that make me a bad vegetarian? Meh. I dunno...

sweet and tender hooligan

December 25, 2007, 04:38 PM

It's quite funny my sister who is a vegan and protests against fur and my brother who loves his meat have arguments almost every day about animals. There are five poeple in my house 3 are veggies yet my brother insisted on having a full turkey even though only two people would eat it!

I'm off to enjoy my nut roast now:)

yesitis

December 25, 2007, 05:44 PM

humans are hung next to horses
the reality humanity endorses
will seem slightly more reasonable
slightly more feasible
and at dinner, a couple more courses

Walkers Crisp

December 25, 2007, 06:58 PM

Thanks Buzz & M23 for this interesting discussion. Due to my insufficient command of English I can't contribute anything remotely intelligent. However, let me express my opinion with a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, 1788 - 1860:

"The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality...".

We had cheese fondue and a little too much red wine for Christmas dinner last night. YUM ;)

Love
-crsp-

yesitis

December 25, 2007, 07:10 PM

my favourite quotes

"a man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses." - shaw

"nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - einstein

"all normal people love meat. if i went to a barbeque and there was no meat, i would say, "yo goober! where's the meat?" " - simpson

Morrissey the 23rd

December 25, 2007, 10:54 PM

pandora_cocteau

December 25, 2007, 11:43 PM

honestly...it's as simple as this: if one does not eat meat, they are not going to die. if they eat meat, animals will die. It's not much of a sacrifice, not eating meat...and by that simple choice, one saves on average 20 lives per year. If we all did our part, innocent animals would not have to live terrible, awful existences, and our bodies would also thank us for not stuffing them with unhealthy, hormone-treated flesh. Being a vegetarian is a win-win situation. Appetite and taste aren't the most important things in the world, and by turning vegetarian, one also gets to experience a world of different tastes and options for food.

People who eat meat often demand that they should have the option of choice. I too agree that choice is a vital thing for a living being. If you want choice, you have to allow others choice as well in order for it to be fair- so if your own right of choice directly abolishes someone else's right of choice, in this case, that of animals, I think it's extremely egocentric and selfish.

In 21st century more than ever, it is so easy to be a vegetarian, and so many positive things are done when one chooses that option. They not only grant life to other living beings, but give themselves better health and knowledge that their own existence is not based on someone elses suffering. You can't possibly deny the fact that animals in slaughterhouses suffer- just look at the pictures, or put yourself in their position- it cannot be nice to live your whole life in your own filth, in darkness and abuse (anyone remember the Butterball turkey factory 'incident' when one the workers raped a turkey on camera and ejaculated inside of it only moments before it was murdered?) every day living closer to a certain, grim death.

It takes empathy to understand, and it takes strength to change. The reason why I am saddened by people eating meat isn't because I don't like the people who do it, but because in a hamburger I see months of suffering and pain, rather than a happy, tasty meal. I am also saddened when people fail to remove even such a small aspect of their life, even though they know that it would make a world of difference.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 02:18 AM

RE:xNot much time: I had to get up around 3:30am to do this.....

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/earth_summit/2176313.stm

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/horrigan-full.html

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/6/FA3B660C-FFAF-4C63-9B10-014423E0041C.html

http://www.npg.org/forum_series/forum0205.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/tytt/env-animalag.html

http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

http://www.p2pays.org/ref%5C04%5C03685/nitrous.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg03rpt/nitrous.html

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Slash_and_burn

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5243/is_200506/ai_n19985514

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/04/hungry_world_mu.html

http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/whats_new/otherstories_fishing_2808.htm

http://www.terranature.org/bottomTrawling_UNmoratorium.htm

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/reducing_impacts/destructive_practices/index.cfm

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml

http://current.com/items/85406821_the_far_reaching_benefits_of_vegetarianis m

http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm

Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 03:39 AM

RE: Buzzetta;730363]Not much time:

I take it by created you mean domesticated? Does that or the fact they are bred to eat make it morally ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

The human animal would be an excellent food source.

Could you please expand on what makes humans 'superior' to other animals?

Why should a pig have the same consideration as broccoli and crackers?

You agree with the principle of minimising the suffering of animals. So, what is it that decides which beings should be given lesser consideration?

Group membership to the human species waives your need to apply moral considerations?

It also seems you are saying that human starvation is a geographical lottery that you do not impact on or should have any desire to influence change. Is that right?
Two parter – Human starvation is a geographical lottery in many cases. Just as the birth lottery that says one child will be born to the rich and another to the poor. I am sure that we can agree that there are areas on this planet that are inhospitable to providing a consistent source of life within its region. The sahara desert is not a fertile region for mass growth in the realm of providing food sources for the masses. I did not design the Earth. If you are referring though to the asian market and surrounding bodies of water in the Shrimp example, Chinese pollution has run unchecked for years and is only now beginning to be allowed to be studied due to a more open allowance of outsiders to study the affects of China’s ecosystem.

I decided to post links above to open this up more as it isn't as plain as you make it out to be. Do you impact on human starvation by eating meat? Do you have any desire to influence change in human starvation?

You say that the consumption of meat doesn't have an effect on people in the world dying from starvation.
I fail to see how the consumption of meat affects people dying of starvation. Animal rights activists try to convince people that animals eat up all the grain. There is more than enough grain and food sources. What animal activists fail to address is that in many cases the grain and food supplies are mismanaged and unevenly distributed to those in need. Look at Somalia and areas of Southeast Asia for an example. People in those regions were not fed because the government refused to allow the supplies to reach them. In that case starvation is political in nature.

I decided to post links above to highlight the link and impact with human starvation and eating meat.

Does meat production cause pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land?
Absolutely. You are forgetting though that the CO2 used to produce and cook meat does the same amount of damage to the environment as the harvesters pesticides chemicals and everything else used to grow and harvest vegetables. Do you honestly think that the grain is harvested by hand? Do you honestly believe that everything is plucked by hand? If so John Deere would be out of business. And what of the pesticides and growth hormones added into vegetables. The majority of vegetables have these things added to them. There is a basic trade off with that by the way. We trade vegetables that are disease free and will be preserved in a better state when they arrive to the masses in exchange for the poisons put into the ground and hope for the best. There are many farmers that are poisoning the ground they make a living off of.

Again, I decided to post links above to open to highlight what you claim isn't quite right.

Do I think that grain is harvested by hand? Do I honestly believe that everything is plucked by hand? No. I studied agriculture for five years at Edinburgh Uni. I'd claim to have a fair understand of food production.

Is the use of large industrial monoculture, common in industrialised agriculture for feed crops such as corn and soy more or less damaging to ecosystems than more sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rain-fed agriculture?
I hate buzz words. “Green farming” is definitely desirable over the pesticide protected farming currently done. The problem is that those veggies have a shorter shelf life. What you propose (or perhaps are suggesting) is that we all have backyard gardens if not revert back to farming. There is a reason Hamilton is celebrated. He was the first person to go against the grain and tell Jefferson that the farmer would not be the backbone of society if that society wished to thrive and become powerful.

Again. The links.

Do animals fed on grain rather than on grazing require more water?
Why wouldn’t they? If you want to tell me that the water could be going to those in need you fail to notice that cattle only graze in areas that are already rich in water. The people in need are NOT in an area where cattle would graze. If they were they would be able to grow their own food. This is like saying that the water used to water my lawn is taking water out of the mouths of Africans. Not true. They are not here. I am not there. If they had the ability to water a lawn then they would drink that water.

Again. The links.

Is the production of animal-based food more or less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits?
It is about the same. You can answer in either direction depending on your view of immediate efficiency. I live in NYC and the surrounding suburbs. To get any food to the residents here they have to be shipped in. To grow vegetables you are discounting the fact that water needs to be pumped into the fields, trucked or transported to consumers from the fields to processing centers to et all, chemicals are used on the vegetables, those chemicals are manufactured and so on. Consumption has more direct inefficiencies but the growth harvest and maintenance of crops has far more indirect inefficiencies where they pretty much come out to be the same.

Again. The links.

Does the production of flesh significantly contribute to greenhouse gasses we create?
In as much as the direct and indirect production of greenhouse gases used to create maintain and process vegetables and fruits.

Again. The links.

You wrote about mankinds habit of moving on to new land due to slash and burn agriculture. To pick up and move on once the land was infertile and the water supply had dried up. What effect has that method of farming had on the planet and is it a technique that is necessary or wise?
Horrible by today’s standards but at the time it was an easily accepted practice as the population was nowhere near what it is now and by the time one came back to the land in 5-10 years the land was fertile again. Today’s farming practices revolve around forcing fertilizer into the ground to make up for man made deficiencies.

Again. The links.

What is the impact of trawling and over fishing?
I am not familiar nor have read up on over the distinction of the two practices so I cannot reply with any sense of an answer that I can support one over the other.

If you care about the environment, please look into it. Especially as you are eating the stuff. "Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead.

I agree we are destroying the planets current habitats. The result of this will be the continued demise of species on the planet, including humans but the planet itself is very likely to survive long after naked apes have made themselves extinct, due to our love for the taste of flesh, amongst other things. Could you please expand and clarify further your point about progress in science resulting in longer lives, it's impact on human starvation, and your right to consume flesh?
It was a theory that mentioned why people are starving in certain areas of the world. The relationship was that no one died of some the odder cancers or diseases such as Alzheimer’s due to the fact that no one lived that long. Because science allowed for the body to live longer it opened up its own Pandoras Box of diseases that usually afflict those over the age of 50 that need to be dealt with. It paralleled the idea that nomadic tribes of hunters gatherers and farmers could leave land once the land was infertile and inhospitable to growth and return when favorable conditions resurfaced. That does not exist today with the population the way it is as well as the political makeup land areas. In the Middle East political lines drawn literally in the sand will not allow one tribe to move to another area. That simple really. I never really said it supports my right to eat meat. I said it was a theory that disproves or takes away from your argument that eating meat causes starvation in third world countries.

Thanks for expanding on that and for taking the time to responsd sensibly. Again. The links. If you care about the environment, please look into it.

imogen11

December 26, 2007, 03:52 AM

Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did you feel the need to bang on about your point of view? Why did your apathy not apply here? What makes your beliefs less boring?

I'd hardly call one post from myself 'banging on about my point of view'.

I think you need a hobby.

Not Right in the Head

December 26, 2007, 03:57 AM

I think you need a hobby.

He has one. You're participating in it.

You say it's your hobby; it's my hobby, too, yeah

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 03:59 AM

i think its a hobby for some, an obsession for others, and not the good smelling kind!

Dave

December 26, 2007, 04:00 AM

That was meant. Word play is fun. I also felt the need to let him know he can't have me but being human, he is bound to want to (even although he hasn't expressed that in the slightist {Yet! It will only be a matter of time before he wont be able to help himself but he'll never be able to help himself..}), and being human I'm bound to encourage that to a degree. Being weird, I do that in my weird way.

In case this grows arms and legs, on this occassion only, I'm going to expand, although it takes away the humour and ruins the personal fun for me. I don't think I'm so desirable. Nor do I have any interest in men, except one. This has also been a post with an attempt at humour.

You're too sexy for your burger? :D

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 04:01 AM

I heard soy is actually made of people. PEOPLE!

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 04:32 AM

I'd hardly call one post from myself 'banging on about my point of view'.

I think you need a hobby.

I'll re-phrase it then:

Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here? What makes your beliefs less boring?

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 04:39 AM

I'll re-phrase it then:

Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here? What makes your beliefs less boring?

I'm curious, are all the letters worn off your keyboard yet?

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 05:10 AM

I'm curious, are all the letters worn off your keyboard yet?

I'm curious too. You became veggie in November. How's it going?

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 05:12 AM

not really i still eat fish. I dont eat mammals and fowl, i guess, hah. and i don't not eat meat because i feel sad for the animals. I just got sick of it. and i really dont like beef. well i guess i feel sad for cows, dey are widdle cuties!

all i miss are turkey dogs and Weinerschnitzel. how sad is that, of all the meat in the world that is what i miss, crap! And tofurky does not cut it.

Dave

December 26, 2007, 05:15 AM

"cause they don't have any feelings" ? :p

Dave

December 26, 2007, 05:19 AM

fish freak me out because of all the weird stuff they dump in the ocean. then there are the mercury levels.

after that oil spill in San Francisco Bay they told everyone it was ok to eat crab again but they also told the fishermen to "use common sense. if it smells like oil it probably isn't safe".

those whole crab are too weird anyway. I used to love crab legs but I had one of those whole crab and it was the last time I ever ate it.

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 05:22 AM

whole crab is disgusting. and mercury, well, i dont eat fish every day. there are 'safe' levels of mercury. surprisingly enough its in some drugs we use in the hospital. Hg is a very stabilizing atom, makes for a great preservative.
If its not the mercury its the ozone layer or the pesticides on all those delightful vegetables. somethin's gonna get me!

Not Right in the Head

December 26, 2007, 05:26 AM

If its not the mercury its the ozone layer or the pesticides on all those delightful vegetables. somethin's gonna get me!

Yeah, Jack the Ripper.

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 05:30 AM

Yeah, Jack the Ripper.

he does cause cellular misery.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 06:18 AM

Yeah, Jack the Ripper.

The frinkies will love this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E1CTqDrWA20

Not Right in the Head

December 26, 2007, 06:21 AM

The frinkies will love this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E1CTqDrWA20

Shit, can't watch it right now. Mrs. NRitH has banned me from listening to that song, and I don't have my headphones nearby. Feel my pain, fellow fans. :(

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 06:25 AM

Shit, can't watch it right now. Mrs. NRitH has banned me from listening to that song, and I don't have my headphones nearby. Feel my pain, fellow fans. :(

There are other good ones from the same person:
http://uk.youtube.com/profile?user=anthem6

imogen11

December 26, 2007, 07:00 AM

I'll re-phrase it then:

Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here? What makes your beliefs less boring?

I wouldn't call 12 years of vegetarianism 'apathetic.'

I just don't feel the need to push my views onto others.

imogen11

December 26, 2007, 07:01 AM

Shit, can't watch it right now. Mrs. NRitH has banned me from listening to that song, and I don't have my headphones nearby. Feel my pain, fellow fans. :(

...can't you have her...knocked off, or something?

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 07:33 AM

I wouldn't call 12 years of vegetarianism 'apathetic.'

I just don't feel the need to push my views onto others.

When you said, 'I'm vegetarian and I can not stand veggos banging on about meat to meat-eaters. I view it in the same light as bible-bashing: it's fucking boring trying to force your ethics and your beliefs onto others. Boring as fuck.' Wasn't that pushing your views onto others?

When I said, 'Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here? What makes your beliefs less boring?' You ignorned answering my questions, which I consider rude. Especially as you were sticking your neb in, demonstrating a need for you to force your beliefs onto others. That comes accross not only as rude but hypocritical too. As did your first post and my reason for responding in the manner I have. Don't want to fall out with anyone but if it's good for Connelly, it's got to be good for Donnelly. Eh? I never wrote anything about your vegetarianism being apathetic. Did I? Sorry if you feel I am boring as fuck.

Not Right in the Head

December 26, 2007, 08:05 AM

...can't you have her...knocked off, or something?

"At the hub of the bridge, in 1888, in Whitechapel...excuse me"

So he introduces the 10/27 Hammerstein performance, which I've been listening to over and over since I taped it. And now that she knows that it really is about JtR, it just freaks her out too much. She has a very vivid imagination.

I've told this story at least twice before, and yet I still forget what I'm listening to and have to be reminded to turn it off.

Excuse me...

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 08:21 AM

Just sped read your post. You're a master debater and I look forward to continuing it, even although it is more likely for one of us to give birth than change our philosophy. Mind you, it is the time of year for impossible births.

Now bed then up for a veggie feast before heading off to work.

Puns are not so amusing. Or perhaps I am taking it the wrong way (?) as I was surrounded with sarcastic crude humor both in giving and receiving throughout life.

I am not as great as a debater as I consider myself at least attentive to the idea that you will take the time to write so out of respect I should at least put my best foot forward and try to answer. It's only fair if you will take the time to do your part I will do mine.

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 08:25 AM

Can I ask why you wouldn't?

Just going off your "animals are a food source" argument, i was interested if and where you drew the line.

Just out of interest, Indonesians eat bats and the French still eat horse.

Why I would not eat a horse? I have read that horsemeat is not particularly tasty. Do not get me wrong, I have tasted many different fruits vegetables and meats including bear, deer, calf brains, snails and other foods. However by most accounts I have heard that the meat from a horse is subpar so why try it?

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 08:28 AM

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 08:31 AM

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 08:33 AM

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 09:13 AM

RE: Buzzetta;730363]Not much time:

I take it by created you mean domesticated? Does that or the fact they are bred to eat make it morally ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Meaningless to the discussion (or at least redundant) as I have already stated that animals are not equal to humans. I would save one human life over 100 animals. I would not slap my neighbor even though his trash blows onto my lawn whereas I can slap and kill the mosquito or gnat that annoys me during the summer.

The human animal would be an excellent food source.
It would be but we do not classify ourselves as a food source. We specifically allow certain animals to be bred and harvested for such purposes.

Could you please expand on what makes humans 'superior' to other animals?
Top of the food chain lottery. Simple as that. As stated before some are born to the rich, some are born to the poor. Some are born in the desert and some are born in the cities. Some are born a human and some are born an amoeba.

Why should a pig have the same consideration as broccoli and crackers?

Because it is a food source. I keep repeating myself here. There are pigs created, maintained and exist for the sole purpose of being a food source. Therefore it fulfills its purpose.

You agree with the principle of minimising the suffering of animals. So, what is it that decides which beings should be given lesser consideration?
Perfect question that you yourself should answer. By your standards who is to say that the yeast that goes into the bread should not have a right to exist? After all yeast is fungi life. Vegetarians trap themselves with the argument that they are seeking to end suffering. Where do they draw the line of who or what suffers? I have already stated on numerous occasions that an animal bred, maintained and existing for the sole purpose of being a food source fulfills its purpose every time it lands on a plate. The suffering of the slaughter is secondary to fulfilling it's purpose.

Group membership to the human species waives your need to apply moral considerations?
Depends on what your set of morals are. Morality is a consideration of sorts. What is moral in one culture is amoral in another. I do not feel any moral reservation of eating a steak or hamburger or my grilled chicken salad as I and many others look upon it as a food source.

I decided to post links above to open this up more as it isn't as plain as you make it out to be. Do you impact on human starvation by eating meat? Do you have any desire to influence change in human starvation?
I impact it as much as you impact it by eating vegetables. Already covered that.

I decided to post links above to highlight the link and impact with human starvation and eating meat.
This is where we turn it to a back and forth circle.

Again, I decided to post links above to open to highlight what you claim isn't quite right.
You are false as the articles were slanted towards your point and neglect the fact that the majority of vegetables are chemically maintained. They may conform to certain regulations but are still chemically maintained. The articles fail to make apparent that "acceptable levels" of chemicals are what are considered acceptable detriments to the environment.

What is the impact of trawling and over fishing?
I am not familiar nor have read up on over the distinction of the two practices so I cannot reply with any sense of an answer that I can support one over the other.

If you care about the environment, please look into it. Especially as you are eating the stuff. "Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead.
I will, sometime over my break, between preparing a handbook I have to write on the incorporation of Language Arts skills into a Social Studies and History Curriculum for my school's quality review. yay.

Thanks for expanding on that and for taking the time to responsd sensibly. Again. The links. If you care about the environment, please look into it.

Not a problem... I will try

I will have some questions though towards the end. I read a few of the articles now and will read some more later.

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 09:15 AM

"cause they don't have any feelings" ? :p

It opens up a very question I intend to ask very shortly. You sir are a visionary.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 02:05 PM

Puns are not so amusing. Or perhaps I am taking it the wrong way (?) as I was surrounded with sarcastic crude humor both in giving and receiving throughout life.

I am not as great as a debater as I consider myself at least attentive to the idea that you will take the time to write so out of respect I should at least put my best foot forward and try to answer. It's only fair if you will take the time to do your part I will do mine.

I wouldn't joke with you if I thought you were a waste my time. I'd just ignore you....Ya Yankee legend.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 02:08 PM

You are more then capable of throwing your opinion again. No points will be deducted nor opinions belittled if there is a grammatical error or two.

Exactly! Feel free to post in German and make us work.

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 02:14 PM

Why is it when M23 writes I "listen" to his points and consider them but when you write I roll my eyes?

We are separated by a common language. You think I'm not taking your points on board? Like a prosecution lawyer, I'm building my case. Once you have given your evidence, the court will let you leave the witness box.

Edit. I understood what you meant now! LOL

bogdana

December 26, 2007, 02:56 PM

I wouldn't call 12 years of vegetarianism 'apathetic.'

I just don't feel the need to push my views onto others.

me neither, and thank you!

Morrissey the 23rd

December 26, 2007, 03:09 PM

[QUOTE=Buzzetta;730842]Not a problem... I will try

I'm going to go for a shower, eat and get merry. When I return, I will try and progress this debate.

I'm trying to establish what you base your discriminations on that results in your speciesism. I'm trying to not tell you what I believe but funnel you towards discovering why my view may make better sense than your current beliefs. Clearly I need to express myself in a different way if I've any chance of achieving that outcome. *Thinking* I find it very hard to believe your views are not based with more depth that your posts appear. At risk of making this debate tediously slow, perhaps I should pose less open questions and less questions per post. The way out of the perpetual circle may need to be more chipped away at than my current hacking but will you stay the distance if I do? I believe I'm not dismissing points you raise without serious consideration along with supporting why I disagree. I feel you are doing that with me, perhaps because you feel I am dismissing yours? I will also think about how to get round that. Perhaps by answering your questions more extensively and adopting a less pompous attack. Maybe this debate will open your mind to seriously reconsider your standpoint and vice versa.

Raymond J Marks

December 26, 2007, 03:23 PM

cornelius blaze

December 26, 2007, 04:34 PM

Who said humans were top of the food chain?
Not in a San Francisco zoo yesterday, as here the tigers are top!
A tiger escaped and killed one person and injuring another. The same tiger mauled a zoo keeper last year and has now been shot dead.

oh dear. i heard that on the news. Not a nice way to go for either animal.

I think it was Buzzetta ( but don't quote me on that ) I wonder if Buzzetta is top of the food chain? he should tell that to a shark or a polar bear:p

Hellie

December 26, 2007, 10:23 PM

I simply see all living creatures as beings with feelings,emotions and a soul.I feel more protective of them than I do much of the human race.Never even as a small child did i feel comfortable with the idea of beautiful Spring lambs being smothered in mint sauce and eaten. However i am a realist and the world is never going to turn vegetarian.If you must kill animals let them have a free and happy life.And teach children how they are really killed.What the process is really like.Most people like their meat nicely shrink wrapped and clean but never give a thought to the horrifying process that has produced their dinner.they should be educated.

I`m not clever enough to offer anything profound.I just see animals as defenceless and looking to us to protect them.It is wrong to kill an animal to eat in a world where we have so many alternatives.I am not a poor starving African, if i were doubtless I would think different.We live in an affluent world where food is plentiful.

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 11:00 PM

Who said humans were top of the food chain?
Not in a San Francisco zoo yesterday, as here the tigers are top!
A tiger escaped and killed one person and injuring another. The same tiger mauled a zoo keeper last year and has now been shot dead.

Actually there was a report this afternoon that it is now being investigated as a crime scene. It may be that the person was pushed into the tiger cage after the tiger was taunted as a way to "take care of" that person.

You know that this is going to be a future Law and Order episode either way.

Buzzetta

December 26, 2007, 11:03 PM

pandora_cocteau

December 27, 2007, 12:21 AM

Why is it when M23 writes I "listen" to his points and consider them but when you write I roll my eyes?

because he writes point form...apparently the only form suitable for your intellect. which is smart on 23rds part- looking at statistics, vegetarians have a significantly higher iq than that of people who eat meat.

Buzzetta

December 27, 2007, 12:28 AM

because he writes point form...apparently the only form suitable for your intellect. which is smart on 23rds part- looking at statistics, vegetarians have a significantly higher iq than that of people who eat meat.

That is perhaps the dumbest attempted self serving thing I have read or heard all week. Once again thanks for allowing me a chuckle at your expense.

Dave

December 27, 2007, 01:17 AM

It was wrong to kill that tiger. It had been put in an unnatural situation, and when that happened those responsible should have been responsible for the whole series of events that followed. Isn't that how we look at crime now?

When the tiger mauled the zoo worker last year it should have been released back into a natural habitat or at least a wildlife refuge. It certainly did not deserve to die, when it could have been tranquilized. If the zoo doesn't have tranquilizer darts and weapons at hand they should.

The tiger did what tigers do. It's the people at the zoo (and unfortunately the city of San Francisco) that are responsible. Too bad that the money spent on the lawsuits may mean even less money for the care of the animals. And the San Francisco Zoo is pretty cool, or it was when I was a kid. I would think that this sort of thing wouldn't happen there.

Buzzetta

December 27, 2007, 01:32 AM

Further reports indicate that the possibilities range from three dumb college age buddies screwing around with a Tiger to putting one guy in there and then messing around with the tiger to scare their other buddy then things got out of hand.

We will know the real story when the two in the hospital start talking.

bogdana

December 27, 2007, 03:03 AM

It was wrong to kill that tiger. .

I can pretty much guarantee you the zoo did not want that tiger killed, just on the sheer cost of an animal like that. It was panic, I am sure. I assume its kind of hard to organize the calm recapture of an aggressive big cat skulking around like that.

And it did have a history of mauling... but like you said, its in a foreign environment. One cannot be surprised by that.

nogodsnomasters85

December 27, 2007, 05:07 AM

This thread has really come full circle.. First it was about if it was right for humans to eat animals, now it's about animals eating humans...

Dave

December 27, 2007, 05:39 AM

I can pretty much guarantee you the zoo did not want that tiger killed, just on the sheer cost of an animal like that. It was panic, I am sure. I assume its kind of hard to organize the calm recapture of an aggressive big cat skulking around like that.

And it did have a history of mauling... but like you said, its in a foreign environment. One cannot be surprised by that.

I read just now that the zoo did have the equipment but they called the police in a panic. I still blame the zoo. Obviously you don't expect these things, but "be prepared" is a great motto.

cornelius blaze

December 27, 2007, 07:03 AM

I`m not clever enough to offer anything profound.I just see animals as defenceless and looking to us to protect them.It is wrong to kill an animal to eat in a world where we have so many alternatives.I am not a poor starving African, if i were doubtless I would think different.We live in an affluent world where food is plentiful.

You don't have to be ( don't be fooled by a couple of windbags here who like the sound of their own voices). what you've written is very true.

Buzzetta

December 27, 2007, 07:08 AM

You don't have to be ( don't be fooled by a couple of windbags here who like the sound of their own voices). what you've written is very true.

Heeeeeeey....

I am that windbag...

Anaesthesine

December 27, 2007, 01:27 PM

This whole thread reminds me of something a dear friend of mine says all the time:

"I won't cry for anything that won't cry for me."

Tigers, seals, cows, even mussels. Show me flesh, and I'll cry for it. That does not make me better than anybody else, but it does make me a bit more angst-ridden, and it's always made me politically active.

When we learn to kill only when absolutely necessary, our consciousness will finally have caught up with our cleverness. That day will never come. Humans love steak, humans love hunting, and humans love war. We're banging our heads against a wall if we try to stop any of it, but try we must.

Mozzy1

December 27, 2007, 05:30 PM

I have to ask this question considering this thread discusses vegetarisim.

Ok, I'm going to be brutally honest & upfront. I am not a big meat eater at all. I will say w/out lying though, that I do eat chicken, turkey and occassional bacon. However, even those portions of those types of meats are limited. I do not eat pork, veal or even hamburgers anymore.

The question I'm posing though is, after you watched the video portion on Meet Your Meat on the killing of the animals to provide the food for us, were you influenced then, in changing your meat decisions?

I'm also asking too, in a religious POV, do you feel that God put animals on the Earth for us to eat or not? That question, I have debated constantly w/ people I know of many faiths (such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Jewish people, Catholics, etc). All of them have a different POV which I know it is our choice but, the way were supposed to eat in general, is it for the good of the animals or not?

Mozzy1

December 27, 2007, 06:09 PM

I'll pipe up here. I was a vegetarian before I watched Meet Your Meat, so it didn't have any influence on my decisions. I came to the decision many moons ago when i decided that i could survive without eating meat and that i loved my pets so much the thought of eating another animal repulsed me.

As for the god question, i'm an atheist so "god's plan" has no effect on my decision either.

i guess i'm not the best person to address your question.

Hey, that's cool as it is your opinion. Thank you for being nice & honest.

I'm going to be brutually honest though. Even today, when I do eat say a piece of chicken or turkey (I don't eat pork, a lot of fish, veal, etc.), I feel very, very weirded out & sick. I think about what they go through. I seen on a Gordon Ramsay show too, what they do to pigs so, that's out even though, sometimes...I do eat a piece or 2 of bacon.

I would like to fully swear off chicken & turkey too, but, it IS hard b/c at times, it tastes good.

However, I'm not a big veggie or fruit eater. Grains and dairy are what I literally live on & total downfalls... lol

I just think of that question too, when I think of my religion & try to base it on what would God think...it's just hard to answer.

I would like to sit-down though, w/ someone who is a veggie & have them help me design & plan menus for all meals too, when I eat out, what to choose. Or, I could check-out the Internet, where else?

Mozzy1

December 27, 2007, 06:20 PM

stephk817

December 27, 2007, 06:47 PM

Jeane,

Putting my past crap beside....can you recommend for me, any cook books that are Diabetic friendly, not too many weird veggies that I probably wouldn't eat but, provides a lot of uses for grains, dairy?

What do you think of Jillian McKeith's plans? I seen her show here on BBC America, "You are what you eat". She's fairly drastic. I wouldn't eat tofu either.

What do you feel about eggs & nuts & peanut butter? Good or bad?

I'm just asking honest opinions. Thanks.

The Schwarzbein Principle Vegetarian Cookbook by Dr. Diana Schwarzbein is a great one that focuses on diabetes issues. Dr. Schwarzbein is a metabolic endocrinologist that specializes in diabetes. The cookbook incorporates dairy, eggs, nuts, healthy oils and whole foods. She does advocate eating veggies with every meal though.

Mozzy1

December 27, 2007, 07:04 PM

The Schwarzbein Principle Vegetarian Cookbook by Dr. Diana Schwarzbein is a great one that focuses on diabetes issues. Dr. Schwarzbein is a metabolic endocrinologist that specializes in diabetes. The cookbook incorporates dairy, eggs, nuts, healthy oils and whole foods. She does advocate eating veggies with every meal though.

Thanks a lot. I'll check that book out!

Morrissey the 23rd

December 30, 2007, 05:13 AM

Not Right in the Head

December 30, 2007, 05:21 AM

We're on the 178th post and nobody's mentioned vagitarianism? Slackers.

imogen11

December 30, 2007, 09:45 AM

FAO imogen11

Hello?

When you said, 'I'm vegetarian and I can not stand veggos banging on about meat to meat-eaters. I view it in the same light as bible-bashing: it's fucking boring trying to force your ethics and your beliefs onto others. Boring as fuck.' Wasn't that pushing your views onto others?

When I said, 'Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here? What makes your beliefs less boring?' You ignorned answering my questions, which I consider rude. Especially as you were sticking your neb in, demonstrating a need for you to force your beliefs onto others. That comes accross not only as rude but hypocritical too. As did your first post and my reason for responding in the manner I have. Don't want to fall out with anyone but if it's good for Connelly, it's got to be good for Donnelly. Eh? I never wrote anything about your vegetarianism being apathetic. Did I? Sorry if you feel I am boring as fuck.

RSVP

I don't have to answer to you, so you can quit throwing your weight around. :rolleyes:

However, I will say this:

Posting what i posted (merely one post to your many) is not 'pushing my views onto others', it is merely expressing my opinion on a public forum. Nor is posting my opinion on a public forum 'sticking my neb in'.

Regarding your statement "I never wrote anything about your vegetarianism being apathetic." You also wrote:

'Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here?

To me that suggests you are calling me apathetic.

I never said my beliefs were any less boring than anyone else's. I don't give a fuck if anyone finds my beliefs boring - they don't have to like them.

Furthermore, at no point did I address my post to you personally.

Now, take a nice big, deep breath and LET IT GO. Seriously, you come across to me as slightly unhinged.

That's all I have to say to you on the matter. So you'll have to find something else to keep yourself occupied for the coming week.

nugz

December 30, 2007, 09:55 AM

imogen11

December 30, 2007, 09:56 AM

Thanks Nugz :)

nugz

December 30, 2007, 09:58 AM

Thanks Nugz :)

anytime, my friend. ;)

Buzzetta

December 30, 2007, 10:59 AM

We're on the 178th post and nobody's mentioned vagitarianism? Slackers.

One of my Social Studies teachers when I was in 7th grade accidentally wrote Vagina on the board instead of Virginia. Funny shit.

Buzzetta

December 30, 2007, 11:01 AM

anytime, my friend. ;)

I think I made the people in General Discussion upset.

Oh well...

cornelius blaze

December 30, 2007, 11:03 AM

I don't have to answer to you, so you can quit throwing your weight around. :rolleyes:

However, I will say this:

Posting what i posted (merely one post to your many) is not 'pushing my views onto others', it is merely expressing my opinion on a public forum. Nor is posting my opinion on a public forum 'sticking my neb in'.

Regarding your statement "I never wrote anything about your vegetarianism being apathetic." You also wrote:

'Why did you feel the need to post this bleating comment when it was none of your business, yet say nothing about burgers being eaten in honour of vegetarians? Why did your apathy not apply here?

To me that suggests you are calling me apathetic.

I never said my beliefs were any less boring than anyone else's. I don't give a fuck if anyone finds my beliefs boring - they don't have to like them.

Furthermore, at no point did I address my post to you personally.

Now, take a nice big, deep breath and LET IT GO. Seriously, you come across to me as slightly unhinged.

That's all I have to say to you on the matter. So you'll have to find something else to keep yourself occupied for the coming week.

I remember your post and i feel the same way as you do. I just didn't have the time to post an agreement at the time.

I view being vegetarian as a 'choice' in this modern world, as it is a fairly modern idea. I read some of the posts here and can understand both sides of the debate.

but whereas i got annoyed by Buzzy posting his pictures of himself eating burgers, which i believe were done just to upset someone here ( i thought better of you, your more intelligent then that). Which in my eyes lessen his argument and made him look childish. Then you have the other guy rambling on in his pseudo Morrissey fashion that is just comical.

I find that strict vegetarians are quite irritating just as much as i see people banging on at me about my eating habits, the same old views go around and around, it's just boring.

I have posted on other threads about being a vegetarian and it's about choice and its my choice. I don't need too and i don't want to anymore.

I would like to add, that vegetarian shoes are really ugly i wish they would do something about that!