A very Veggie Xmas

[Hellie]

You know it makes sense.Just do it because you love Morrissey.:D

How about a nice veggie nut roast? Parsnip bake? Veggie dumplings and veggie gravy? (I`m staring to resemble one with the mince pie situation right now:o)

You will feel smug.Trust me.

[Raymond J Marks]

Yes, my nut roast has been purchased and ready for baking, along with parsnips, roast potatoes, Yorkshire puddings, mashed potatoes, veggie gravy, carrots and cranberry sauce:)

....and that turkey you festively slice........

[international playboy]

Ah no matter how much I love Morrissey, I could never give up meat :(

[Raymond J Marks]

Ah no matter how much I love Morrissey, I could never give up meat :(

I wouldn't want you to give up meat simply because you love Morrissey, I'd prefer you to have your own brain and make your own informed decision, rather than blindly follow everything Morrissey says like a sheep.

[nugz]

I wouldn't want you to give up meat simply because you love Morrissey, I'd prefer you to have your own brain and make your own informed decision, rather than blindly follow everything Morrissey says like a sheep.

exactamundo!

[Slum_Mum]

I couldn't do without my chipolatas wrapped in bacon. And turkey.

It's not the same chewing on cardboard on xmas day is it?

[Raymond J Marks]

I couldn't do without my chipolatas wrapped in bacon. And turkey.

It's not the same chewing on cardboard on xmas day is it?

I don't know having never chewed cardboard:confused:

[Not Right in the Head]

I couldn't do without my chipolatas wrapped in bacon. And turkey.

It's not the same chewing on cardboard on xmas day is it?

Speaking of bacon, I smell a former user who was burned and is returning under a different moniker. Hey, and speaking of turkeys...wait, I just did.

[Practising Troublemaker]

Yes, my nut roast has been purchased and ready for baking, along with parsnips, roast potatoes, Yorkshire puddings, mashed potatoes, veggie gravy, carrots and cranberry sauce:)

....and that turkey you festively slice........

Sounds nice, I appreciate you are doing good but I love my X-Mas dinner. Please don't try and make me feel bad near this supposedly happy time.

Love PTxx.

[lottie]

Sounds nice, I appreciate you are doing good but I love my X-Mas dinner. Please don't try and make me feel bad near this supposedly happy time.

Love PTxx.

there is nothing 'happy' about murdering and devouring inoocents.
besides, sounds like you don't need us to make you feel bad, if you feel 'bad' ever then its because you subconciously know its the wrong thing to do. ;)

[lottie]

http://crueltyfreeshop.com.au/images/AL_xmasLamb.jpg

http://www.poptel.org.uk/leedspostcards/935veggiechristmas.jpg

[girlunafraid]

[QUOTE=lottie;728276]http://crueltyfreeshop.com.au/images/AL_xmasLamb.jpg

QUOTE]

I don't have lamb for christmas, I have a big ugly turkey, so that's ok?

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

http://bigidea.com/images/products/200x200/VVChristmasCD_web.jpg

[nugz]

http://bigidea.com/images/products/200x200/VVChristmasCD_web.jpg

veggietales!!!

"oh where is my hairbrush?! oh whereeeee is my hairbrush???"

veggietales are cute, and even though they're Christian oriented, they aren't super cheesy like alot of christian cartoons. i used to watch them all the time, back in the day, when i was all about the Jebus.

[lottie]

[QUOTE=lottie;728276]http://crueltyfreeshop.com.au/images/AL_xmasLamb.jpg

QUOTE]

I don't have lamb for christmas, I have a big ugly turkey, so that's ok?

no, that was just my christmas card to you all,
oh and turkeys aren't ugly! :p

[Practising Troublemaker]

there is nothing 'happy' about murdering and devouring inoocents.
besides, sounds like you don't need us to make you feel bad, if you feel 'bad' ever then its because you subconciously know its the wrong thing to do. ;)

I know it is wrong, very wrong. But I just cannot get aay from eating meat, especially at x-mas time.

Love PTxx.

[lottie]

I know it is wrong, very wrong. But I just cannot get aay from eating meat, especially at x-mas time.

Love PTxx.

ah but you could my dear, very easily. if you REALLY wanted too....

[girlunafraid]

[QUOTE=girlunafraid;728279]

no, that was just my christmas card to you all,
oh and turkeys aren't ugly! :p

bloody right they're not!

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Poultry/RoastTurkey.jpg

[lottie]

I meant when they are ALIVE,
but i am so not responding to this.. :p

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

[quote=lottie;728311]

bloody right they're not!

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Poultry/RoastTurkey.jpg

May I have the crispy skin? **yummy**

[girlunafraid]

I meant when they are ALIVE,
but i am so not responding to this.. :p

you mean you're not going to try and convert me into a vegetarian?

Just as well really, I'm not going to change for anybody! Yumm yumm.

But I do disagree, turkeys are ugly when alive.

[lottie]

you mean you're not going to try and convert me into a vegetarian?

Just as well really, I'm not going to change for anybody! Yumm yumm.

But I do disagree, turkeys are ugly when alive.

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

[Dave]

Sounds nice, I appreciate you are doing good but I love my X-Mas dinner. Please don't try and make me feel bad near this supposedly happy time.

Love PTxx.

I don't see it as trying to make a person feel bad. If you feel bad about it then you know that you are making a choice that involves inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on a living creature. Supposedly happy is a good way to describe it. I'm not picking on you, but you voice the opinion of many people that choose not to know the truth about how their actions affect the world. If your supposedly happy time depends on ignoring the fact that you are eating something that died, most likely in agony, so that someone could make a profit off of it, then it's about time to rethink things anyway.

You're cool. It's not a personal thing. I just have to respond because of the way you answered. The person trying to tell us to consider giving up the pretense that bloody rotting flesh equals good times is not the one to blame for anyone feeling bad. It's the people that profit from suffering that are to blame.

[JoyDiv007]

I have my veggie feast all ready. Mom's even eating it this year. No point in her making a turkey for 1 person. Said she's ok with it and will eat whatever I cook.

[Amy]

Happy Christmas to the veggies :)

[EPbabe]

Ah no matter how much I love Morrissey, I could never give up meat :(

It's not that I couldn't: I don't want to. I love vegetarian dishes and I eat them a lot, but I still like meat. :o

[nogodsnomasters85]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Buzzetta]

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.

So agreed....

[Buzzetta]

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]

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.



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.

[Kris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[lottie]

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]

oops!!

[pandora_cocteau]

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]

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]

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]

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

I call the last picture....

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

[nugz]

I call the last picture....

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

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

[mell]

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

[nogodsnomasters85]

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]

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

[Morrissey the 23rd]

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]

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.

you should learn the "multi-quote" function

[pandora_cocteau]

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]

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]

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.

Well, that's cool. I think it is good that you are involved in things that you care about and feel a responsibility towards. I pretty much gave up on mainstream politics when Bush was "re-elected". I think that writing letters as suggested by Amnesty International is great, and it is effective to a degree. You should probably send them to the White House and CIA Headquarters though, since they seem to think torture is now necessary. Not to mention etc etc etc.

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.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

That's just wrong in three different languages and cultures, d00d. Well played.

[bogdana]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

[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!!

kinky.

[Kris]

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]

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.

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.)

;)

[Not Right in the Head]

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

[cornelius blaze]

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

if you want:rolleyes:

[Buzzetta]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.:)

[Buzzetta]

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]

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]

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]

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.


Well put.

[Morrissey the 23rd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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