NationStates Jolt Archive

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

But animals are yummy...

In the Rogue nation of Parratoga all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited; thus the compulsory vegetarianism as noted in my nation’s description.

In the Rogue nation of Parratoga all eating of any kind animal is strictly prohibited

What about the mean ones?

In the Rogue nation of Parratoga all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited

What about the mean ones?


Like I said...all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited.

In the Rogue nation of Parratoga all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited

What about the mean ones?


Like I said...all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited.

((Actually, you left out the 'of' and I took the remark to be in jest. Apologies.))

In the Rogue nation of Parratoga all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited

What about the mean ones?


Like I said...all eating of any kind of animal is strictly prohibited.

((Actually, you left out the 'of' and I took the remark to be in jest. Apologies.))
No, I'm just an idiot who can't read at 5 in the morning. More apologies.

Yeah, it was a typos in my behalf. Didn't mean to leave out the "of" though.

Ban the eating of meat? There are two reasons I can think of why that shouldn't be concidered.

First, while we definately could survive and possibly be healthier without meat, at this moment in our evolution, mankind is equipted to eat meat. Thus our canines (the pointy teeth, for any who happen to be in the dark about what canines are).

Secondly, and most importantly, if you outlawed the eating of meat, then your prisons or rehabillitation centers would be overflowing with all sorts of predators who prey on other animals. :roll:

In the Dictatorship of Exterminance, there is a ban on farming pigs. Cattle are raised for beef, and sheep, goats, and various reptiles are farmed for their meat.

While our distant primate ancestors may at one point have been largely herbivorous, we evolved a gall bladder to contend with certain aspects of digesting flesh.

Pigs are banned because they are genetically unclean. The consumption of pork raises the probability of giving birth to a child with a hormonal imbalance that increases the chances of him or her turning to homosexuality.

The following things are Haraam - forbidden - for eating under Islamic law: Pork, running blood, carrion, food which has been blessed in the name of other than God (for example, we cannot eat food which a Christian has blessed in Jesus' name, but we can eat food blessed by a Jew in Yhwh's name. Which, considering how many brands and varieties of food have that little 'U' in a circle, or 'COR' or whichever symbol is used, is pretty damn fortunate.), anything intoxicating, be it magic mushrooms or hash brownies; similarily, intoxicants that are inhaled (cocaine, marijuana) or imbibed (alcohol) are also haraam.

But the Holy Qur'an specifically condones the eating of beef and goats, and the human being is physiologically evolved to eat omnivorously. Therefore the eating of meat cannot be banned wholesale in my Dictatorship. Though of course, anyone who wishes may become a vegetarian or a Vegan.

I have half the mind to invade.

Great! After we're done telling all our member nations what they can eat, what they can drive, what color their house can be, Then we'll make sure they have 'citizen's rule'...

after all, wouldn't want anyone telling 'da dear people' how to live their lives...

To quote a great speaker... "Not eating meat is a choice. Eating meat is an instinct." - Denis Leary

I Love Meat! I mean if you eat too many vegetables your poop gets all squishy, then there is the chaffing :cry: , and all of those wonderful times when you thought that you were farting and you ended up having to soak your undies in bleach overnight.... :oops: Meat never does that to you.

This is an issue for each nation to work out individually among themselvs. There shouldn't be a worldwide ban against meat eating but there should be vegetarian laws if you want them.

and all of those wonderful times when you thought that you were farting and you ended up having to soak your undies in bleach overnight.... :oops: Meat never does that to you.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry about that. I know that wasn't very proffessional of me, but ....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Well what would be the difference between a worldwide ban on mean, and compulsory vegitarianism laws? They both don't make sense.

I feel that meat eating should be determined by the individual. It is not the deciscion of the government, or any sort of governing body to tell the people what they should or shouldn't eat. Many people make that choice not to eat meat because they think it is wrong. I on the other hand, would rather shoot myself in the foot with a nail gun, than give up meat, so to tell the entire world to give up meat would be a BAD IDEA.

Even though it would produce a great uproar in any country if meat was banned, there really is no argument against not eating it. I've been vegetarian for 14 years now and have never had any health problems due to my diet and nor do I look like an American (disgustingly obese, on average).
I went veggie on principle.
1. Who says we have any right to kill any other creature for any reason? Nobody/nothing. If an animal kills a person, we kill the animal. I thought revenge was one of the seven deadly sins? If so and you believe in God, you are then going against God's word. Because it is REVENGE.
2. If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so.
3. Do we need to eat meat to survive? No, as proved by millions of vegetarians. People eat meat because in the olden days, they needed to. Now, we don't.
The way I see it is that vegetarianism is a form of mental evolution. We have gone beyond that ancient thinking. We don't have the right to decide on any other creature's life. Other animals do because they don't have the mental capacity (or are not omni/herbivores) to be able to.
Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.

Well what would be the difference between a worldwide ban on mean, and compulsory vegitarianism laws? They both don't make sense.

I feel that meat eating should be determined by the individual. It is not the deciscion of the government, or any sort of governing body to tell the people what they should or shouldn't eat. Many people make that choice not to eat meat because they think it is wrong. I on the other hand, would rather shoot myself in the foot with a nail gun, than give up meat, so to tell the entire world to give up meat would be a BAD IDEA.

I almost agree with you, until you said that thing about the nail gun. Wouldnt you rather eat yummy fresh green vegetables, than nasty greasy brown stuff? Mister that's crazy talk. You is crazy. You have head pidgens.

Living cow=aww ^_^ Dead cow=yech! Vegetables=yummy! Dead brown stuff=bleh

But yes, bad law. Vegetarianism is good though! Pet cows, dont eats them! :(

Premier "Dont call me a hippy, I fucking hate the grateful dead and I dont wear flares you wanker" Punkachu

Even though it would produce a great uproar in any country if meat was banned, there really is no argument against not eating it. I've been vegetarian for 14 years now and have never had any health problems due to my diet and nor do I look like an American (disgustingly obese, on average).
I went veggie on principle.
1. Who says we have any right to kill any other creature for any reason? Nobody/nothing. If an animal kills a person, we kill the animal. I thought revenge was one of the seven deadly sins? If so and you believe in God, you are then going against God's word. Because it is REVENGE.
2. If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so.
3. Do we need to eat meat to survive? No, as proved by millions of vegetarians. People eat meat because in the olden days, they needed to. Now, we don't.
The way I see it is that vegetarianism is a form of mental evolution. We have gone beyond that ancient thinking. We don't have the right to decide on any other creature's life. Other animals do because they don't have the mental capacity (or are not omni/herbivores) to be able to.
Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.
WOW! Not only are you stuck up, you also don't like Americans. Are you French or something? Also, if people do not need to eat meat, then why does it taste so good? People don't need to eat grass, and we don't because it tastes like crap. Things taste good or bad because our brain tells us that it is good or bad. Good tasting food is usualy high calorie or high nutrient and easy to digest, whereas bad tasting food is unhealthy (poisonious) or impossible to digest. Humans are built to eat a combination of meat and veggies; we have canine teeth to cut it, acid in our stomach to kill bacteria and viruses, and a couple of organs to digest it. It is possible to get all of your nutirents from veggies and beans and stuff like that, but meat is also a very good source of protein and other things. Humans are omnivores, so don't try to deny your instincts in the name of evolution or civility.

that IS true. I don't eat much emat, but I do eat ceeseburgers. It should be a choice of the individual and the government shouldnt get in the way.

In the Empire of Maddlochkia, we ban all meats and dairy products. Plus, all products that use animals for testing are banned.

That explains why we are so healthy! :)

i think we should forcibly make vegis eat meat and then shoot them in their heads...bunch of losers

In the Empire of Maddlochkia, we ban all meats and dairy products. Plus, all products that use animals for testing are banned.

That explains why we are so healthy! :)



I want to add that most of the public supports this since Maddlochkia is the vegan-capital of the world.... :lol:

In the Empire of Maddlochkia, we ban all meats and dairy products. Plus, all products that use animals for testing are banned.

That explains why we are so healthy! :)

We do NOT test our products on animals. Anyone found doing that will be jailed for life. Our landscape is alreday apparently barren, sow e're trying to preserve as much animal life as we can.

i think we should forcibly make vegis eat meat and then shoot them in their heads...bunch of losers

Aha! I love fighting talk!! Come on then you fucking nonce! Outside!

like vegis can fight..u can hardly walk

Even though it would produce a great uproar in any country if meat was banned, there really is no argument against not eating it. I've been vegetarian for 14 years now and have never had any health problems due to my diet and nor do I look like an American (disgustingly obese, on average).
I went veggie on principle.
1. Who says we have any right to kill any other creature for any reason? Nobody/nothing. If an animal kills a person, we kill the animal. I thought revenge was one of the seven deadly sins? If so and you believe in God, you are then going against God's word. Because it is REVENGE.
2. If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so.
3. Do we need to eat meat to survive? No, as proved by millions of vegetarians. People eat meat because in the olden days, they needed to. Now, we don't.
The way I see it is that vegetarianism is a form of mental evolution. We have gone beyond that ancient thinking. We don't have the right to decide on any other creature's life. Other animals do because they don't have the mental capacity (or are not omni/herbivores) to be able to.
Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.

I resent that. I happen to be American, and yes many people in our country are obese, but that's certainly not even half of the country. I'm not fat, Infact I weigh 100 pounds. There are very few fat people in my high school, in comparison to the thinner people. Don't make generalizations that aren't justified. I could make stupid generalizations like "All English are Ugly" or "All South-Africans have AIDS" but you don't see ME jumping to conclusions.

And why don't we have the right to decide the fate of other, less intelligent animals? We've been doing it for thousands of years, why stop now? Religion doesn't say anywhere that people shouldn't eat meat. I know that judaisim encourages the eating of certain types of meat. Most religions, back in the day even used to make ANIMAL sacrifices. So how can you say that eating meat is going against God?

You ever heard of the Atkins Diet? Many people have had success loosing weight, from EATING MEAT, and cutting down on carbohydrates. And its not meat that causes obeisity, its fast food places like McDonalds.

And just because we have the mental capacity to think that animals shouldn't be killed, we should stop eating meat? Just because we can formulate thought patterns that may make us feel bad for the animals, we should dissrupt the food chain? Humans are consumers, not producers.

What would happen to the economy if you banned meat? Just as if you outlawed SUV's, thousands of companies, farms, and people will be disrupted by this so called "humanitarian" action. People will loose jobs, economies will crumble, all to save the lives of a few stupid cows and chickens?

Why do we waste our time worrying over arbitrary matters like this? Why don't we focus on more important things, like the war or REAL politics.

Don't make the world take a fall, because you have pity for animals.

Re: Not only are you stuck up, you also don't like Americans. Are you French or something?

The American/obese thing was (to non-Americans) an obvious joke!!!! (I'm not French, but wish I was!)

Re: Also, if people do not need to eat meat, then why does it taste so good?

This doesn't actually make any sense! I'm sure other things taste good but would be very bad for our systems! Duh!

Re: Humans are omnivores, so don't try to deny your instincts in the name of evolution or civility.

Humans are not strictly omnivores. How can we survive as herbivores if that is so? The reason that many of us do is because we can and we have the mental capacity to deal with it without having to kill animals for something as unneccesary as using them for food. They have a right to live just as much as we do.

Re:

I resent that. I happen to be American, and yes many people in our country are obese, but that's certainly not even half of the country. I'm not fat, Infact I weigh 100 pounds.

Did you really think I was talking about you specifically???? The truth is the Americans have the largest percentage of obese people in the world (and it was written as a joke anyway!)

Re: There are very few fat people in my high school, in comparison to the thinner people.

There may be, but I wasn't talking about them either!!!

Re: And why don't we have the right to decide the fate of other, less intelligent animals? We've been doing it for thousands of years, why stop now?

Because we don't, that's all. We can stop now because the food that we can produce now means we don't need to kill animals to eat. We just don't need to! So that's why we should stop.

Re: Religion doesn't say anywhere that people shouldn't eat meat.

I never questioned that.

Re: And just because we have the mental capacity to think that animals shouldn't be killed, we should stop eating meat? Just because we can formulate thought patterns that may make us feel bad for the animals, we should dissrupt the food chain? Humans are consumers, not producers.

We are both consumers and producers (well, some of us are!) We can now produce many types of food! Really! We can!

What would happen to the economy if you banned meat? Just as if you outlawed SUV's, thousands of companies, farms, and people will be disrupted by this so called "humanitarian" action. People will loose (the spelling is 'LOSE') jobs, economies will crumble, all to save the lives of a few stupid cows and chickens?

well, it would be cheaper to produce fields of soya, for example than have to look after cows (which is the best source of protein there is, by the way).

Re: Why do we waste our time worrying over arbitrary matters like this? Why don't we focus on more important things, like the war or REAL politics.

Because this topic is about banning meat!

In the Empire of Maddlochkia, we ban all meats and dairy products. Plus, all products that use animals for testing are banned.

That explains why we are so healthy! :)

We do NOT test our products on animals. Anyone found doing that will be jailed for life. Our landscape is alreday apparently barren, sow e're trying to preserve as much animal life as we can.

Maddlochkia is actually on a man-made island, so we naturally have no animals here..... Some animal life is found in the artifical wildlife reserves on the 745 floor of Maddlochkian Government Building Alpha..... It is just like the real thing and the animals are never harmed.....

On the Maddlochkian Space Station and Aqua colonies, we have very little wildlife.... Just the insects that get into shipping crates and such.... Maddlochkian citizens are allowed to have two pets on the Space Station and Aqua colony.....

We try to hunt down people that test products on animals. We have recently started a campain on it. The people support the campain very much. :lol:

WOW! Not only are you stuck up, you also don't like Americans. Are you French or something?

I'm French, and I'm a vegetarian. I very much resent your xenophobia. Though I disagree with what the American government is doing, I do not hate the American people. Because you can never generalise. Any xenophobia is revolting, not to mention a sign of a weak, narrow, simplistic mind.

So, you're angry if people insult the Americans, but you insult the French? Isn't that hypocritical?

To get back on topic, and back into roleplay...

The People's Republic of Ariddia is currently considering nationwide vegetarianism. The issue, we believe, is a complex one. We do not believe in dictating matters of private life to our people, but we also believe any animal, be it human or not, has a right to live its natural life without that life being brutally ended for the egoistical enjoyment of humans. Proposed legislation is in debate.

By the way, those of you who have "meat-eating is illegal" or "vegetarianism is compulsory" in the decription of your nation, how did you get it there? :)

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

If the gods hadn't intended us to eat animals they wouldn't have made them out of meat. Thats why we have these nice pointy teeth

Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.

I would also hope you don't eat any dairy products or by-products, don't wear leather or wool, and don't kill thousands of plants every year to feed yourself. Those huge fields steal grazing land from the animals, as well as kill animals who attempt to graze there.

I have no problem with vegetarians, but lets not kid ourselves. the human race is at the top of the food chain, whether we like it or not.

I have no problem with vegetarians, but lets not kid ourselves. the human race is at the top of the food chain, whether we like it or not.

I like it just fine. Better than being at the bottom. ^_^

I have no problem with vegetarians, but lets not kid ourselves. the human race is at the top of the food chain, whether we like it or not.

uh... so you'd be alright with a bigger stronger person beating you up and stealing your food? after all, it's survival of the fittest, which you're supporting. the food chain isnt just inter-species, its inner-species too. better play by the rules

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:




SAVE A PLANT, EAT A COW. I WANT BEEF, I WANT IT NOW. IM GONNA EAT IT CUZ ITS RED, IM GONNA EAT IT CUZ ITS DEAD.

Animals are good to eat... I SAY STEAKS FOR ALL............. :lol:

SAVE A PLANT, EAT A COW. I WANT BEEF, I WANT IT NOW. IM GONNA EAT IT CUZ ITS RED, IM GONNA EAT IT CUZ ITS DEAD.

Animals are good to eat... I SAY STEAKS FOR ALL............. :lol:

Oooh! Any Reel Big Fish fan is a friend of mine. :D

Here's the rest of the song:

"all the bigots in the house
all the bigots, all the bigots
all the bigots in the house
all the bigots, all the bigots

she's not eatin' bacon,
not eatin' sausage,
and she won't eat eggs,
not eatin' chicken
not eatin' turkey,
she won't have a steak,
but i just can't help feelin' sorry
for this poor little lettuce head
you know, i can't stop cryin' cause i know
this broccoli's dead

vegetarian? i'm not a vegetarian, vegetarian...she's a
vegetarian

poor little cow, little sheep, little fish
how can i sleep? when carrots are bleedin'
plants are screamin'
and tomatoes cry
you say " its not so bad, they're only vegtables",
thats what you said
maybe i'm a murderer,
but i'm hungry and they're better off dead

vegetarian? i'm not a vegetarian, vegetarian...she's a

save a plant, eat a cow,
i want beef, i want it now!
i'm gonna eat it cause it's red!
i'm gonna eat it cause it's dead!
maybe i should eat it raw
let the blood run down my jaw
i'd eat people if it was legal,
i'd eat people if it was legal!"


I'm telling you. Vegetarianism is a nice idea, for those who WANT to be vegetarians, but trying to enforce such a law upon the entire world will not be popular. Trying to pass this law is like ASKING for controversy, riots, violence, and protests all over.

Maybe Maddlochkia would just have VERY high taxes on meat and dairy, that way I can say it is legal. But, not many people would buy it because of the prices.


Besides, meat-eaters are a minority in Maddlochkia. The government strongly supports veganism and so does the public. Therefore, the pubic doesn't really approve of meat-eaters. That is why most tourist go temporarly vegetarian when they enter Maddlochkia. It is so hard to find a hamburger! :lol:

like vegis can fight..u can hardly walk

Uh huh. Actually as you're clearly very young and a little bit "special", I'll let you have your get out clause.

we didnt get to the top of the food chain by being vegetarians, i say, EAT MEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have half the mind to invade.

Sometimes I think you do only have half a mind. (Just kidding.) 8)

Say yes or I will be forced to search you out and bring you a painful, screaming death involving a chipmunk and a sharpened pizza slicer!

yeah but it hink its ur get out clause u stupid simpleton...go back to sleeping with animals u freak..oh wait i prob made u cry...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

All the moral stuff about not eating animals is crap. Why do they have as much right to live as we do? We are sentient and they aren't and other species kill animals for food. They don't consider all the moral crap so, why should we? You think humans eating animals is cruel but what do you think about other animals eating animals. It's a part of nature and nature and survival of the fittest is cruel.


Give all the vegans some nice juicy papercuts and throw them into the shark tank. Of course, that's not cruel or immoral to do, since we'll ask the sharks if they'd rather have a nice fresh salad instead. ;)

SAVE A PLANT, EAT A COW. I WANT BEEF, I WANT IT NOW. IM GONNA EAT IT CUZ ITS RED, IM GONNA EAT IT CUZ ITS DEAD.

Animals are good to eat... I SAY STEAKS FOR ALL............. :lol:

Oooh! Any Reel Big Fish fan is a friend of mine. :D



:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

yeah but it hink its ur get out clause u stupid simpleton...go back to sleeping with animals u freak..oh wait i prob made u cry...

Your spelling and grammar certainly makes me weep. Most people's grammar is pretty ropey and mine is terrible but your is so poor it must be an act of sheer will. I have no objection whatsoever to being called a freak. ^_^

I do however realise that picking on small children would be rather unbecoming of me. ^_^ I forget that we adults are in a small minority here.

I tell you what does make me cry though: closing time at the pub. That last orders bell just gets me every time. ^_^

Aww and I spoilt it all by dint of a sticking 's' key. Now that really does make me cry. hehe

The Empire of Arachnida Aranae recognizes that there is a specific term for animals who do not eat other animals.

Prey.


However, out of respect to other carnivores, animals who eat meat are not to be eaten as meat. At least, such applies to animals of the land and sky. The ocean complicates matters.

Why ban nice food? Ban horrible disgusting food! Ban spinage!!

I will never stop eating dragon meet. As long as noone eats me, I don't give a shit!

The Vegan Reich raises its head yet again. Where's my mallet?

Every time you 'save' an animal by not eating it, i'm going to kill three of them.

Stuff that in your plumbing.

*grumbles try and keep me from being omnivorous grumble grumble*

Why ban nice food? Ban horrible disgusting food! Ban spinage!!

I will never stop eating dragon meet. As long as noone eats me, I don't give a shit!

We know of at least one nation of sentient dragons. I suspect they would be deeply offended by this statement.

While Anhierarch supports the morality and science behind vegetarianism, We recognize that such matters should not be made a matter of law, as it is the individual's perogative to choose. Additionally, this is not a matter for the United Nations.

Though We of Anhierarch are for the most part vegetarian and vegan, provisions are made for meat-eating citizens and tourists - we culture our meat, that is, it is grown in vats. Meat of all varieties are available, and since the meat that is grown lacks any form of nervous system, it is completely cruelty free.

The Speaker of Anhierarch

Though We of Anhierarch are for the most part vegetarian and vegan, provisions are made for meat-eating citizens and tourists - we culture our meat, that is, it is grown in vats. Meat of all varieties are available, and since the meat that is grown lacks any form of nervous system, it is completely cruelty free.

The Speaker of Anhierarch[/quote]



The famous Spam Farms of Anhierarch? I thought that was only a legend!

We here in Joshiptaimia do not force out citizens to eat a certain type of food. We have many Resturants that cater to all types of taste. But, we do support the Meat Eaters. After all, there is nothing like a thick, medium cooked peice of dead animal flesh (preferably a nice Porterhouse) sitting on your plate waiting for consumption. With a Baked Potato (dead plant) smothered in Butter and Sour Cream (both dairy). Now, is there anything wrong with that?

If you want us to stop killing animals for our food, We want you to stop killing plants for your food.

While the Kingdom of Cabesh is a largely Vegetarian state, this is the kind of thing that should NOT be forced upon other nations. Important things, like threats to society should be considered, not whether its ok to eat a hamburger

Though We of Anhierarch are for the most part vegetarian and vegan, provisions are made for meat-eating citizens and tourists - we culture our meat, that is, it is grown in vats. Meat of all varieties are available, and since the meat that is grown lacks any form of nervous system, it is completely cruelty free.

The Speaker of Anhierarch



The famous Spam Farms of Anhierarch? I thought that was only a legend!

Indeed, they are no legend. Would you like to see them? We can arrange it.

Speaker Myrios

First Among Equals

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

:lol: Funny! He got banned after his banning post, and a lot of the other "nations" probably beloning to the same guy keeping the discussion going... Trust noone? :D

In the United Socialist States of Glorksbikastan, vegetables have been outlawed ane meat-eating is compulsory. Vegans and vegetarians are stoned in the street along with nazi sympathizers.

Oh and one more thing: since this board is filled mainly with adolescents there is going to be an unbalanced curve toward vegetarianism. I don't care if you don't eat meat, just don't go on a half-baked crusade getting me to stop.

People should have a choice on what they eat.

Attempting to legislate food is just foolish.

Besides, meat tastes good. The Communist Party agrees with me. They tend to, me being the premier.

-Premier O’Neil of the People’s Republic of New Mozambique

Animal Flesh is good.

We modeled our food-security systems on Cuba's recent success with sustainable, worker-managed, low-input farming. Many small farmers in Bread & Honey choose to keep a family cow, and flocks of feral chickens roam our streets. (Apparently the feral cats were keeping them in check before our successful spay/neuter campaign).

But there are strict environmental laws - one manure spill into a waterway will put an animal-raising cooperative out of business - and the bulk of the national diet is vegetables and grains. Schools & workplaces self-supply their cafeterias from their own gardens. Also, the government emergency food security storehouses only supply vegan meals - meat and dairy are expensive to store and cause expensive health problems.

Meat-eating is allowed in Cho-to-ki, but the industrial killing of animals (with the exception of fascists and counter-revolutionaries) for their meat is strictly forbidden. Hunting is strictly regulated unless you belong to one of the "primitive" indigenous tribes within Cho-to-ki.

In the United Socialist States of Glorksbikastan, vegetables have been outlawed ane meat-eating is compulsory. Vegans and vegetarians are stoned in the street along with nazi sympathizers.

Oh and one more thing: since this board is filled mainly with adolescents there is going to be an unbalanced curve toward vegetarianism. I don't care if you don't eat meat, just don't go on a half-baked crusade getting me to stop.

Well We suppose your population must be much more healthy what with all that colestoral and the fact that you only have 2 food groups.

Insanica allows meat eating but it is slightly frowned upon.

For the love of ethiopian hunger, it's meat! Sure animals are fluffy, cute, and can make nice pets, but animals eat animals too, not just people. Eating meat is the way of the world, it happens all the time. All of you animal rights activists should think for a bit, where is it wrong for us to eat meat, if other animals can? If you ban meat eating for humans, than I guess it's time for you to de tooth and claw all the carnivores in the world because they're just so wrong for abiding by the laws of nature. So you go and pick up your signs and protest us eating animals. Then I'll watch as nature goes on from animals eating animals. It's just plain simple ecology! And if you wanna go on to say that animals are living things hence we can't kill them, well then I guess we better not eat plants to for they are living as well! Think of the chloroplasts! The poor, poor chloroplasts. My god in heaven what will we do to save the chloroplasts....those poor green things.....with the chlorophyll......

A forward looking country that wants to protect its citizens from a possible epidemic might consider banning meat production. But of course it must be weighed against personal freedom. Here is a website that has up to date information on Mad Cow Disease and related health information:
http://www.madcowboy.com

For the love of ethiopian hunger, it's meat! Sure animals are fluffy, cute, and can make nice pets, but animals eat animals too, not just people. Eating meat is the way of the world, it happens all the time. All of you animal rights activists should think for a bit, where is it wrong for us to eat meat, if other animals can? If you ban meat eating for humans, than I guess it's time for you to de tooth and claw all the carnivores in the world because they're just so wrong for abiding by the laws of nature. So you go and pick up your signs and protest us eating animals. Then I'll watch as nature goes on from animals eating animals. It's just plain simple ecology! And if you wanna go on to say that animals are living things hence we can't kill them, well then I guess we better not eat plants to for they are living as well! Think of the chloroplasts! The poor, poor chloroplasts. My god in heaven what will we do to save the chloroplasts....those poor green things.....with the chlorophyll......

If you were speaking to me, I was protesting the requirerment to eat meat and the banning of the eating of vegitables in the country of the post I quoted.

In the Empire of Maddlochkia, we ban all meats and dairy products. Plus, all products that use animals for testing are banned.

That explains why we are so healthy! :)

We do NOT test our products on animals. Anyone found doing that will be jailed for life. Our landscape is alreday apparently barren, sow e're trying to preserve as much animal life as we can.

Maddlochkia is actually on a man-made island, so we naturally have no animals here..... Some animal life is found in the artifical wildlife reserves on the 745 floor of Maddlochkian Government Building Alpha..... It is just like the real thing and the animals are never harmed.....

On the Maddlochkian Space Station and Aqua colonies, we have very little wildlife.... Just the insects that get into shipping crates and such.... Maddlochkian citizens are allowed to have two pets on the Space Station and Aqua colony.....

We try to hunt down people that test products on animals. We have recently started a campain on it. The people support the campain very much. :lol:

Yeah, save the animals, harm the people. REALLY BRIGHT!!

In the United Socialist States of Glorksbikastan, vegetables have been outlawed ane meat-eating is compulsory. Vegans and vegetarians are stoned in the street along with nazi sympathizers.

Oh and one more thing: since this board is filled mainly with adolescents there is going to be an unbalanced curve toward vegetarianism. I don't care if you don't eat meat, just don't go on a half-baked crusade getting me to stop.

Well We suppose your population must be much more healthy what with all that colestoral and the fact that you only have 2 food groups.

Insanica allows meat eating but it is slightly frowned upon by our limp wristed population.

Its just unbelievable at how people can be stuck up and so full of themselves that they forget to be human, and sense a little sarcasm.

Well what would be the difference between a worldwide ban on mean, and compulsory vegitarianism laws? They both don't make sense.

I feel that meat eating should be determined by the individual. It is not the deciscion of the government, or any sort of governing body to tell the people what they should or shouldn't eat. Many people make that choice not to eat meat because they think it is wrong. I on the other hand, would rather shoot myself in the foot with a nail gun, than give up meat, so to tell the entire world to give up meat would be a BAD IDEA.

I almost agree with you, until you said that thing about the nail gun. Wouldnt you rather eat yummy fresh green vegetables, than nasty greasy brown stuff? Mister that's crazy talk. You is crazy. You have head pidgens.

Living cow=aww ^_^ Dead cow=yech! Vegetables=yummy! Dead brown stuff=bleh

But yes, bad law. Vegetarianism is good though! Pet cows, dont eats them! :(

Premier "Dont call me a hippy, I f--- hate the grateful dead and I dont wear flares you wanker" Punkachu





My flowers aren't safe around you. Poor poor flowers. Must you eat them too? I think vegitarians should stop eating any living thing. (that includes things that once were living)

Pet cows are even worse. If all the cows that there are just left to roam where ever they want, they could cause catastrophic global warming. Cows produce about 90% of all greenhouse gases (mostly methane) in the atmosphere. If we don't eat them, they could end up killing us. Is that what you want?

In the Empire of Maddlochkia, we ban all meats and dairy products. Plus, all products that use animals for testing are banned.

That explains why we are so healthy! :)

We do NOT test our products on animals. Anyone found doing that will be jailed for life. Our landscape is alreday apparently barren, sow e're trying to preserve as much animal life as we can.

Maddlochkia is actually on a man-made island, so we naturally have no animals here..... Some animal life is found in the artifical wildlife reserves on the 745 floor of Maddlochkian Government Building Alpha..... It is just like the real thing and the animals are never harmed.....

On the Maddlochkian Space Station and Aqua colonies, we have very little wildlife.... Just the insects that get into shipping crates and such.... Maddlochkian citizens are allowed to have two pets on the Space Station and Aqua colony.....

We try to hunt down people that test products on animals. We have recently started a campain on it. The people support the campain very much. :lol:

From what I understand most "man-made" islands are incapible of sustaning vegitation. Without a decent sustainable source of food on land, that resulting in either fishing or importing.

The inherent flaw in man-made islands are they are inhabited by "man." Most man made islands sink quietly into the sea... It's not natual.

In a nation of animals such as the "Oppressed Possums," "the human" "teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation." They would do the same to us if given the chance. It's only natural. If it must be so, then so be it.

I'm telling you. Vegetarianism is a nice idea, for those who WANT to be vegetarians, but trying to enforce such a law upon the entire world will not be popular. Trying to pass this law is like ASKING for controversy, riots, violence, and protests all over.

I'm sorry to skip most of the quote but this is a very good point. Do you think people eat food out of sheer want? I think people eat to live. Which is better: eating half a meal and waste the other half or eat the whole meal? I don't know about you but that is one of the reasons why some people hate Americans. The United States is one of the largest agricultural nations in the world if not the largest. As a result, food is cheaper. By not eating the food and letting it waste, we are insulting everyone. That food that is waste could feed people somewhere. I think it is our duty to finish our meals.

Many other countries and places do not have that luxury. It's either eat meat or die. What are they going to do in places like Siberia? Are they going to grow grains to feed the vegetarians? I don't think they can. Many island nations MUST eat meat because they simply cannot afford to grow their own crops.

The only meat eating that concerns me is cannibalism. As I understand it, cannibalism can result in things as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, mad cow disease, or scrapie in sheep.

In some countries animals that are to be eaten have a better life than 50% of the people in the country.

On another note, anyone heard of pandas? People think they are gluttons because they spend all their time eating. The problem is their bodies aren't really designed to eat bamboo. They have to spend their time eating bamboo just to get enough energy to eat more bamboo. Their bodies are really too inefficient to eat bamboo. It's sad.

In addition to that, I hate to burst your little bubble but we're all going to die. We cannot change that no matter what we eat or anything.

"Every man dies but not every man truly lives."

No, even though i'm borderline vegetarian myself, what about people in harsh climates who can only really eat meat to survive

The teeth in my mouth and the enzymes in my gut are made for MEAT....if my teeth were as flat as a cow's, then I'd think about being a vegetarian :roll: ..

bleugh. i should really read the rest of this topic to see if this has been stated but i can't be bothered

A report or something has stated that more animals are killed in the harvesting of wheat than are killed for their meat.

the USSS allows it's citizens to follow whatever diet they desire, however the conditions of the animals are carefully monitored so ensure they have a nice, full animal life before a quick painless death ^__^

All the moral stuff about not eating animals is crap. Why do they have as much right to live as we do? We are sentient and they aren't and other species kill animals for food. They don't consider all the moral crap so, why should we? You think humans eating animals is cruel but what do you think about other animals eating animals. It's a part of nature and nature and survival of the fittest is cruel.


Give all the vegans some nice juicy papercuts and throw them into the shark tank. Of course, that's not cruel or immoral to do, since we'll ask the sharks if they'd rather have a nice fresh salad instead. ;)

LOL!

Someone actually proposed to ban meat-eating?! Thats incredible!! I'm surprised to say it but I think this is one of the stupidest proposals I've seen yet. The idea of banning something perfectly natural and which parts of us were clearly made for makes no sense what so ever. You can ban it in your own country, but you shouldn't try and ban it in other peoples.

This is utterly ridiculous, why should one person even TRY to control what the rest of the world eats!?

In the United Socialist States of Glorksbikastan, vegetables have been outlawed ane meat-eating is compulsory. Vegans and vegetarians are stoned in the street along with nazi sympathizers.

Oh and one more thing: since this board is filled mainly with adolescents there is going to be an unbalanced curve toward vegetarianism. I don't care if you don't eat meat, just don't go on a half-baked crusade getting me to stop.

Well We suppose your population must be much more healthy what with all that colestoral and the fact that you only have 2 food groups.

Insanica allows meat eating but it is slightly frowned upon by our limp wristed population.

Its just unbelievable at how people can be stuck up and so full of themselves that they forget to be human, and sense a little sarcasm.

Sorry. I've been having a little trouble figuring out which is which due to some of the other posts on some topics which are completly serious.

If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so..

The majority of States and the Federal Government all have the death penalty you witless little cretin.

Ban Meat Eating....i can see it now...

Another Swarm of Missionaries pouring over the entire world, penetrating thick jungle, crossing dry desert or frozen planes of ice and snow to reach even the most remote indegenous tribe to teach them:

REPENT YOUR HEINEOUS WAYS! STOP EATING MEAT!

I guess people like the Innuit will be gratefull to swap diets and turn to something as nourishable as snowballs on ice-flakes or gratinated lichen... :D

MEAT IS YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

SCEW YOU VEGGIE MAN FOR EVEN THINKING OF POSTING THIS THREAD!




no offence intended. but i am both a Meat/Veggie Eater

Just face it, Homo Sapiens is Omnivorous.

We CAN live on an entirely meatbased diet as well as on an entirely plant-based diet, but for well balance in the long run it is best to combine both.

We still need to develope some additional 2 or 3 meters of intestines to really digest plants well. Meat is easier to digest...

1. Who says we have any right to kill any other creature for any reason? Nobody/nothing. If an animal kills a person, we kill the animal. I thought revenge was one of the seven deadly sins? If so and you believe in God, you are then going against God's word. Because it is REVENGE.

Actually, the closest one to Revenge is Wrath. Revenge may be a sin, but its not one of the seven deadly ones. Also, since animals kill eachother all the time, and we are animals, why can't we kill other animals? If we can't do it, then none of them should be able to do it, which would have horrible results.

2. If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so.

In the US you do, and since animals aren't people I don't think this applies anyway. We are talking about innocent animals killed for food, not excaped bears who killed people.

3. Do we need to eat meat to survive? No, as proved by millions of vegetarians. People eat meat because in the olden days, they needed to. Now, we don't.

Yes, but we can eat meat. We have evoled to be able to. And we should be able to use that ability, even if you think its barbaric.

[i]The way I see it is that vegetarianism is a form of mental evolution. We have gone beyond that ancient thinking. We don't have the right to decide on any other creature's life. Other animals do because they don't have the mental capacity (or are not omni/herbivores) to be able to.[i]

Just because we are smarter does not mean we have to give up eating the delicious stupider animals. Clearly we were made to eat them, so why don't we? Just because you feel that way does not mean you can force the rest of the world to eat that way. I don't care that you don't eat meat, but I do care when you try to stop me from eating meat.

hey if anyone is still here, and would like to debate vegetarianism, i would love to hear from you.

the curious ant

i have 6 reasons to reject meat eating and become vegetarian. they are as follows:

1. it's bad for you.
the hormones pumped into livestock as a means to 'enrich' them are not meant to be consumed by huymns. red meat, because of this, is the only known cause of breast and colon cancer. children are developing at earlier ages each year due to the consumption of hormones found in chicken. these hormones are not made for your body. everyone likes to throw the 'argument' out there that you should eat meat 'because it tastes good.' ever wonder why this is? we've even altered the language to make up this word 'meat', so we don't have to call this food 'fried animal flesh' or 'a patty of dead animal flesh'. does that sound appealing? would you cut off an arm of a dead humyn, throw it on the grill and eat it? of course not. meat 'tastes good' because of these hormones. humyns have become addicted to them, thus making this 'cooked animal flesh' appealing to us. but, like all addictions, this one can be overcome. before the ketchup goed on a hamburger, do you know what gives it flavor? the feces and blood from the animal which have gotten mixed in during the slaughtering process. ohh, slaughtering process, brings me to point number two.

2. it's cruel.
anal electrocution is the current slaughtering technique used on cattle farms. basically, an electric rod is inserted into the anus of the animal, and an electric shock them follows which destroys the nervous system. the animals bowels are released, all the while the animal is letting out a high pitched scream. pigs are raised in crates that do not allow them to be mobile, resulting in deformities. it has been proven also, that fish can feel pain when killed in the sea. the cruelty of animals is endless; these are just a few examples.

3. precious land is destroyed.
acres of rainforest are cut down daily, yielding to slaughtering grounds which in turn, only pollute the soil, ruining it. the feces and blood left over from a slaughter destroy the ground on in which the facility is located.

4. world hunger.
if a mere 10% of the united states population would become vegetarians, we could wipe out world hunger. if we shut down these slaugtering grounds, and reclaimed the land, it would enable us to grow produce and grains that would be sent to starving nations. only 10%, and we would wipe out hunger. that's reason enough.

5. conservation. these days water is extremely precious and growing so by the mintue. it takes 10 times the amount of water to produce a pound of meat, as it does for a pound of grain. this by definition then leads to making a vegetarian diet less costly than a meat based diet.

6. here's the kicker: absent refer. (objectification is bad)
a reaction takes place in every humyn's mind when there eyes look upon meat. it's called an 'abset refer'. it is the same reaction that takes place everytime you objectify something, whether it be murdering someone, or looking at pornography. we have become this way sever since aristotle divided the world into subject and object. when you look at meat, you see it as an object, thus allowing you to consume it.

to pre empt arguments i think will be brought up, i will try and answer as best as possible. i have already addressed the 'argument' that meat tastes good, thus we should eat it. another, is the concern that without meat, humyns are unable to obtain the daily amount of nutrition recommened. the truth is, meat eaters consume more than twice the amount of protein one needs to stay healthy. there is nothing, absolutely nothin,g that cannot be obtained from other foods. many of my friends eat veggie, and we are all very healthy. refer to point number one, and see on the contrary, we are more healthy than meat eaters.

every point i have made is warranted, and if you would like further information, or the source of where i obtained them, feel free to ask and i would be more than happy to post a link to anything you are hesitant to believe.

i thank you for your time, and i would love to recieve responses for a good discussion.

sincerely,
the curious ant

that IS true. I don't eat much emat, but I do eat ceeseburgers. It should be a choice of the individual and the government shouldnt get in the way.

my nation follows its government.. and in our government, we believe that we should have a day amout of it in our diet..

regulation of too many cows btw will lead to too much cow fart pollution to my opinion... so slaughter them if can.. thank you

if your nation follows your government, you should change your government's position on meat in order to better your nation's lives.

i'm not sure what you mean by your cow argument, and pollution. if you wouldn't mind clarifying, i would like to further address and discuss it with you. but i can say this: when cows are slaughtered, emmense amounts of co2 are released into the air, and in turn, further damages our ozone layer.

i think that we should and shouldnt eat these animals because what if the animals were in our position i thimk they would eat us . but it is also cruel ,sonn there wil be no more of that animal and then where are we going to eat meat . we dont really need meat if we didnt eat meat people wouldnt be as obese as they are today.

This whole discussion is ridiculous! Some people eat meat, and some people are vegitarians. So what? Let people eat whatever they want; if someone wants to eat only vegetable, let them, and if someone wants to eat meat, let them. What sane nation would even consider forcing its inhabitants to eat certain food. Even worse, you are wasting the UN's time with this silly proposal. While you're at it, you should suggest a proposal the limits the number of ants a person can step on, because I think ants have really been treated inhumanely in the past.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Replying to the Curious Ant here as well. My response is as follows (if you didn't read the other one):

red meat, because of this, is the only known cause of breast and colon cancer.

FACT: Most of the time, Breast Cancer is genetic. At the very least, there is no connection to red meat.

children are developing at earlier ages each year due to the consumption of hormones found in chicken.

FACT: There is no definate one cause of early puberty. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/earlypuberty010207.html)

we've even altered the language to make up this word 'meat', so we don't have to call this food 'fried animal flesh' or 'a patty of dead animal flesh'.

FACT: The word meat comes from the Middle English word mete which itself comes fromt he Old English word of the same name. Meat is hardly an invented word, and it's hardly changed it's meaning.

meat 'tastes good' because of these hormones.

Meat tastes good because of seasonings. Hormones merely increase the amount of meat a cow HAS.

anal electrocution is the current slaughtering technique used on cattle farms.

A source that's not PETA please?

it has been proven also, that fish can feel pain when killed in the sea.

How the hell do you determin if something feels pain when it's killed? OF COURSE ANIMALS FEEL PAIN WHEN THEY'RE KILLED! There is a line between treating animals properly and not letting them be raised in cruel environments (Something groups like the National Cattleman's Beef Association work for) and saying that animals are equal to humans.

acres of rainforest are cut down daily, yielding to slaughtering grounds which in turn, only pollute the soil, ruining it. the feces and blood left over from a slaughter destroy the ground on in which the facility is located.

Really precise aren't we. It "ruins the ground". Oh my! It ruins the ground... Whatever shall we do <.<

if a mere 10% of the united states population would become vegetarians, we could wipe out world hunger.

This is a bs statement if I ever saw one, but I shall let you continue with this rant.

if we shut down these slaugtering grounds, and reclaimed the land, it would enable us to grow produce and grains that would be sent to starving nations.

FACT: 1. Many of these grazing lands/factory grounds are completely unfit for farming produce. 2. Farms are regularly paid by the American government to NOT make higher yields of vegetables. Fix that problem first, then we'll get back to you.

only 10%, and we would wipe out hunger. that's reason enough.

An arbitrary figure drawn in the sand (that is after all what this is) is not reason enough.

these days water is extremely precious and growing so by the mintue. it takes 10 times the amount of water to produce a pound of meat, as it does for a pound of grain.

Water is not precious in many regions of America. If water is precious in areas, it was to begin with, and there's no justification for wasting such water on agricultural yields int he first place. Water does not "disappear." There's always the same amount of water in the world.

this by definition then leads to making a vegetarian diet less costly than a meat based diet.

The water would be used either way.

6. here's the kicker: absent refer. (objectification is bad)
a reaction takes place in every humyn's mind when there eyes look upon meat. it's called an 'abset refer'. it is the same reaction that takes place everytime you objectify something, whether it be murdering someone, or looking at pornography. we have become this way sever since aristotle divided the world into subject and object. when you look at meat, you see it as an object, thus allowing you to consume it.

Objectification is a natural outgrowth of philosophical, scientific, and technological development. It is impossible to think of most things as anythign other than objects. Objectification is a result of millions of years of evolution, particularly in the gradual development of tool-weilding humans. Not some random "idea" that has been adopted by humanity because of one man. Many people in the world who have never even HEARD of Aristotle will make a difference between object and non-object. Objectification is part of the human condition and habit.

to pre empt arguments i think will be brought up, i will try and answer as best as possible. i have already addressed the 'argument' that meat tastes good, thus we should eat it. another, is the concern that without meat, humyns are unable to obtain the daily amount of nutrition recommened. the truth is, meat eaters consume more than twice the amount of protein one needs to stay healthy. there is nothing, absolutely nothin,g that cannot be obtained from other foods.

Two words for you: Vitamin B12.

many of my friends eat veggie, and we are all very healthy. refer to point number one, and see on the contrary, we are more healthy than meat eaters.

I eat meat on a regular basis. I am extremely healthy (I do not get sick but once a year, most of the time). Incidentally, I wager you all take vitamin supplements too.

every point i have made is warranted

By your point of view, they are warranted, but not necessarily justified.

Last note: I note that you are an overbearing feminist (refusal to use the word "human". I bet you hate the word "history" also don't you?). I am thus not so surprised you have this particular postition. In any case, most of your points are the typical "pro-veggie" points that are simply too insane, inane, or are not factually based in reality.

Now I will proceed with facts of my own (credit goes to the ever popular Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/) for posting these points)

1. Switching away from eating products that require tilling the soil would result in over 300 million fewer animal deaths per year (http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)
2. Alright, so those deaths aren't intentional. But instead, you're not even using the meat of the animals you kill! Very wasteful!
3. Vegetables need pesticides. Why are these any better than hormones?

All citizens in The Kingdom of LeopardGeckonia are permitted to eat meat. Meat is good.
Sincerely,
The Queen of LeopardGeckonia

The curious ant wrote about meat:

"1. it's bad for you."
- Fact: Meat is highly nutritious.
Many people consume more meat than they have to (sometimes leading to health problems) but this is a matter of poor dietary habits - not because meat is bad for you.

"2. it's cruel."
- Fact: On this planet, higher level organisms can only survive if lower level organisms die to feed them.
Even vegetarians have to kill to eat. In fact they kill more organisms in a single meal than an omnivore - how many soybeans died for that tofu burger? how many alfalfa sprouts are being EATEN ALIVE in that salad?
Anal electrocution is not used for slaughtering food animals (although electricity is sometimes used to stun poultry before butchering). Electrocuting a large animal (like a steer) would take too much electricity, take too much time, stress the animal (affecting tenderness) and would partially COOK the animal.from the inside.

"3. precious land is destroyed"
I'll give you that one. Lots of Amazon rain forest land is slashed and burnt for cheap grazing land. Question: has anybody been keeping track of the land after it is no longer used for grazing? does the land just sit there or does the forest grow back?
Aside: feces and blood are some of the main ingredients in natural fertilisers.

"4. world hunger."
Fact: politics and business cause most of the hunger in the world.
Drought and famine are not new. When they happened, people moved to better areas. Now there are borders that restrict movement and corrupt governments that used famine for genocide by keeping people in drought stricken areas and by intercepting relief efforts. In affluent countries many farmers are told how much they are allowed to produce in order to keep the markets stable.

"5. conservation."
I think the numbers are far from clear, but I agree that it takes considerably fewer resources to produce grain compared to the production of grain-fed beef. I have found numbers as low as 5 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef and as high as 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. Invariably, the high numbers have come from anti-beef sources.

"6. here's the kicker: absent refer. (objectification is bad)"
This point is not very clearly made. Are you saying that seeing a piece of animal muscle on a Styrofoam platter and covered in plastic wrap leaves the buyer ignorant of the animal, its living environment and its slaughter and this makes people who eat meat … makes them … Just what are you saying?
- Are you saying that if the buyer knew about the living conditions and killing of the animal they wouldn't buy meat? Possibly, but should meat be banned because not every detail of its origin is known?
- Are you saying that if buyers saw the slaughtering of an animal they would never eat meat again? Possibly, but should meat be banned because it is messy?

The points of land use and conservation having been already made, 'Absent Refer' seems to simply repeat these points because they are some of the issues we are removed from when we shop in the grocery store. Using the same argument - I do not know every detail of how vegetables are grown harvested and processed. Does 'Absent Refer' dictate that all vegetables should be banned?

Still, I think it is unfair that your ideas should stand alone as a dart board for all readers, therefore, I shall state my own beliefs: I think that many people in developed countries eat more meat than they need to (including me).

Note to Mac Anu: Dude, chill out. The points given by The Curious Ant were for the purpose of creating a good discussion - the "overbearing feminist" crack was out of order.

Meat is a good source of energy it's better than vegetables. if we were not meant to eat other animals then carnivors wouldnt be eating them WE'RE ANIMALS TOO!!!

i think that we should and shouldnt eat these animals because what if the animals were in our position i thimk they would eat us . but it is also cruel ,sonn there wil be no more of that animal and then where are we going to eat meat . we dont really need meat if we didnt eat meat people wouldnt be as obese as they are today.

that is just your opinion but its cool..

animals dont have common sense alright? i mean not our house pets like cats, dogs, parrots, birds... i mean like livestock, the ones that live and raised in farms that we are used for food purposes..

our nation accepts killings of animals for food, no argument on that..

but it is also cruel ,sonn there wil be no more of that animal and then where are we going to eat meat . we dont really need meat if we didnt eat meat people wouldnt be as obese as they are today.

You actually believe that cows are going to go extinct :lol: I find that hilarious. I mean there are probably 25 thousand plus cows in the area i live in and farmers are there to make sure they don't come anywhere close to being endangered. Now if you are talking about wild animals then you're still wrong. True hunters are there for wildlife management. If they weren't there then wildlife would become to populated and the animals would starve to death. There are regulations set and enforced by game wardens to make sure that just the right amount of animals are killed. Of course there are people who aren't hunters and just shoot animals. They poach off other people's land and shine lights in animals eyes so they are paralyzed while they shoot them. These people are in the wrong and should not be used to judge the rest of the hunting community. Also the people who hunt animals just so they can have a trophy over a fire place. You should never kill anything that you don't plan on eating. Killing for no reason is wrong and should be illegal.

And no its not meat that causes America's obesity. If you want to blame someone(besides the people who sit on their ass all the time) then blame the junk food industry. Soft drinks, candy, and potato chips are to blame for obesity. Meat is necessary for a healthy diet. As long as you exercise properly you have nothing to worry about.

Personally on the topic of ban meat eating, i agree with Gardenga. It is your own choice whether or not you eat meat. You should not be forced not to eat meat. That's just stupid.

Note to Mac Anu: Dude, chill out. The points given by The Curious Ant were for the purpose of creating a good discussion - the "overbearing feminist" crack was out of order.

People should just stick to saying human then. I mean jeez. Humyn, just because they hate the word "man" being in there. It's the same (inane) logic that makes people thing history should be herstory (when the origin of history comes from nothing like the words "his story"

Note to Mac Anu:
Your point is noted. However, you made some good points in your post and I fear that they may loose some of their shine as people read the intolerant remark. I don't feel that you are not entitled to an opinion, I feel that name-calling may have hurt the reception of what you had to say.
(I posted to the open forum because this is not the first time I have seen this sort of thing on this board).

Hey, let's just say I'm prepared to argue whatever needs to be ^_^

No we need meat.We need the protein and iron.I'm an omnivore.We need succulant,juicy,and tender meat!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I apologize for the lapse in my response, for I have been out of town. Exciting to see responses.
It was getting quite confusing trying to quote everyone, so I have indented, (----) signally a previous quote from another nation.


----FACT: Most of the time, Breast Cancer is genetic. At the very least, there is no connection to red meat.

you are true in what you say about it being hereditary as well. when i said that red meat is the only known cause of both, i meant causes aside from genetics. my mistake, i should have been more specific. but i have to disagree that there is no connection. "Many scientific studies have found a high correlation between the consumption of red meat-- which is high in saturated fats and cholesterol -- and heart disease, stroke, and colon and breast cancer... more than 70 percent of deaths in this country -- more than 1.5 million annually -- are related to diet, particularly the over- consumption of beef and other foods high in cholesterol and saturated fat..." http://www.acfn.com/HT/RedMeat.htm i've provided this link if you would like to further read.


----FACT: There is no definate one cause of early puberty. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/earlypuberty010207.html)

i will agree with you that there is not one definate cause, for i know that many aspects of our society in the status quo are to blame. i just wished to relay that there are many causes, and eating meat is one of them. "In addition to antibiotics, US cattle are fed synthetic hormones to accelerate growth, increase fat deposits, bring entire herds of cows into heat at the same time for breeding, increase milk production, and induce abortions in pregnant cows scheduled for slaughter. These hormones are suspected as a major cause of the high incidence of breast and ovarian cancer in American women, as well as premature puberty in American children. This is especially true for growing children, and is confirmed by the fact that whenever big American fast-food chains featuring beef and milk products set up operations in Asian countries, the once healthy children there soon show all the signs of chronic ill health that plague American children: obesity, acne and pimples, respiratory infections, premature puberty, and behavioral abnormalities"
http://www.acfn.com/HT/RedMeat.htm

-----FACT: The word meat comes from the Middle English word mete which itself comes fromt he Old English word of the same name. Meat is hardly an invented word, and it's hardly changed it's meaning.

i did not say that the word was drafted up in current times. i'm sorry then, that i do not understand your argument, because i'm not refuting where the word comes from, but instead, that it is used in place of what you are objectifying, regardless of when or where it was made.


-----Meat tastes good because of seasonings. Hormones merely increase the amount of meat a cow HAS.

i'll have to disagree with your use of the word 'merely' here, for that is not all horomones do. true, they increase the amount of meat in cattle, but they also cause many harms, as stated above.


------A source that's not PETA please?


I will apologize now, for not providing a link to a ‘non-biased’ website, which I’m assuming you see PETA as. It’s interesting though, that after all this web searching. beef industries themselves do not even produce blatant disinformation on this topic. Suspicious silent voice. why does it seem that veggie sites are biased? Maybe, just maybe, it is because only one side is talking in this issue. Well, do not get your hopes up, for I will not give up this search. the following link also discusses the method of slitting cows throats and letting them bleed to death as a means of slaughter. Either way, I have PETA with evidence of anal electrocution, and other sources for throat slitting. Slaughter is slaughter.

-----How the hell do you determine if something feels pain when it's killed? OF COURSE ANIMALS FEEL PAIN WHEN THEY'RE KILLED! There is a line between treating animals properly and not letting them be raised in cruel environments

10 billion animals are killed each year for food production. Please look at this link and explain to me how they are not raised in cruel environments.

http://www.animalawareness.org/pages/types_farming.html

-----Really precise aren't we. It "ruins the ground". Oh my! It ruins the ground... Whatever shall we do <.<

"Grazing requires large tracts of land and the consequences of overgrazing and soil erosion are very serious ecological problems. By conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S. grasslands are overgrazed, resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each year. The amount of U.S. topsoil lost to date is about 75 percent, and 85 percent of that is directly associated with livestock grazing. Overgrazing has been the single largest cause of hum[y]n-made deserts."

http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

i can provide you with more evidence if you wish, please just let me know.



------This is a bs statement if I ever saw one, but I shall let you continue with this rant.

"A 10 percent drop in U.S. meat consumption would make 12 million tons of grain available - enough to feed the 60 million people who are starving to death each year."

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/061202/opi_046-2096.shtml


------FACT: 1. Many of these grazing lands/factory grounds are completely unfit for farming produce. 2. Farms are regularly paid by the American government to NOT make higher yields of vegetables. Fix that problem first, then we'll get back to you.

ironic that this was my point above, that the grazing/factory grounds become ruined heaps of soil, but you seemed to refute it then. i apologize again, for not being precise enough, because yes, i agree that our government needs numerous agricultural reforms. i admit that this will be a long process, but to make a difference in this world, you must start somewhere. these slaughtering grounds can be reclaimed and turned into vital grain farms to aid in hunger.


-----Water is not precious in many regions of America. If water is precious in areas, it was to begin with, and there's no justification for wasting such water on agricultural yields int he first place. Water does not "disappear." There's always the same amount of water in the world.

contrary to your unwarranted statement, water shortage is an ever growing problem. at least 3.5 billion people will experience water shortages by the year 2025 according to The World Resources Institute, that also states that producing meat is the number one cause of water pollution and used more water than all other humyn uses combined.


----The water would be used either way.

i don't understand what you mean here. yes, the water would be used either way. let's look at out options. we could use less water by producing grain, and conserve it for other essential uses as drinking, or we could waste more of it on producing meat. like i said, the ratio is 10:1



-----Objectification is a natural outgrowth of philosophical, scientific, and technological development. It is impossible to think of most things as anythign other than objects. Objectification is a result of millions of years of evolution, particularly in the gradual development of tool-weilding humans. Not some random "idea" that has been adopted by humanity because of one man. Many people in the world who have never even HEARD of Aristotle will make a difference between object and non-object. Objectification is part of the human condition and habit.

“Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone”

http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm




-----Two words for you: Vitamin B12.

not to be redundant, but like i said, there is nothing you cannot obtain from sources other than meat.

vitamin B12--fortified soy beverages and cereals, eggs, dairy products
vitamin D--fortified soy beverages and sunshine
calcium--tofu processed with calcium, broccoli, seeds, nuts, kale, bok choy, legumes (peas and beans), greens, lime-processed tortillas, and soy beverages, grain products, and orange juice enriched with calcium, dairy products
iron--legumes, tofu, green leafy vegetables, dried fruit, whole grains, and iron-fortified cereals and breads, especially whole-wheat. (Absorption is improved by vitamin C, found in citrus fruits and juices, tomatoes, strawberries, broccoli, peppers, dark-green leafy vegetables, and potatoes with skins.)
zinc--whole grains (especially the germ and bran), whole-wheat bread, legumes, nuts, and tofu
protein--tofu and other soy-based products, legumes, seeds, nuts, grains, and vegetables

If a vegetarian still feels that they are lacking in an above nutrient, supplements, as you said, can be taken.

-----Last note: I note that you are an overbearing feminist (refusal to use the word "human". I bet you hate the word "history" also don't you?). I am thus not so surprised you have this particular postition. In any case, most of your points are the typical "pro-veggie" points that are simply too insane, inane, or are not factually based in reality.


well, now on to your last note. many people assume that when one chooses to reject what has been proven to be sexist language, that they are automatically feminist who hate the word 'man'. it's actually quite the opposite. i chose to reject the spelling of these words, on the basis that i believe in equal rights for all, which by it’s nature cannot be reverse sexism or discrimination, and am clearly not a feminist. I encourage you to read up on this spelling argument more in depth, for a better understanding. books dealing with this issue include MAN MADE LANGUAGE by dale spender, and UNTYING THE TONGUE: GENDER, POWER, AND THE WORD by sylvia bailey-shurbutt. it is your opinion that my arguments are 'insane. inane, and not factually based in reality,' and this i will respect, for it is your opinion. i do have to look at that fact though, that i have provided warrants to all of my claims by posting links, when you keep making unwarranted statements. if you make a claim, it must be warranted. simply stating that in your opinion it is a fact, is not a warrant.



-----1. Switching away from eating products that require tilling the soil would result in over 300 million fewer animal deaths per year (http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)
------2. Alright, so those deaths aren't intentional. But instead, you're not even using the meat of the animals you kill! Very wasteful!
-----3. Vegetables need pesticides. Why are these any better than hormones?[/quote]



1&2 "It is clear that incidental (or accidental, unintended) deaths of animals result from crop agriculture. It is equally clear that intentional deaths of animals result from animal agriculture. Our acceptance of acts that lead to incidental deaths does not require the acceptance of acts that lead to intentional deaths. (A possible measure of intentionality is to ask if the success of the enterprise is measured by the extent of the result. In our case, the success of crop agriculture is not measured by the number of accidental deaths; in animal agriculture, conversely, the success of the enterprise is directly measured by the number of animals produced for slaughter and consumption.)"
http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

3. yes, vegetables contain pesticides, but so does meat. the alternative is buying organically grown vegetables. "Many pesticides approved for use by the EPA were registered long before extensive research linking these chemicals to cancer and other diseases had been established. Now the EPA considers that 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides and 30 percent of all insecticides are carcinogenic. A 1987 National Academy of Sciences report estimated that pesticides might cause an extra 1.4 million cancer cases among Americans. The bottom line is that pesticides are poisons designed to kill living organisms and can also be harmful to you. In addition to cancer, pesticides are implicated in birth defects, nerve damage and genetic mutation."
http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

i do thank you for your points, and i respect your views. please feel free to ask for clarification on any claim i have made.


I apologize to New Anvilania for not doing a line by line response to your post, this was only because I hoped to answer the majority of your points in this one, for they shared similarities. I do sincerely thank you for your serious discussion, which I appreciate greatly in light of other discussions held in forums. It is nice to see we agree on some arguments, I will however address the following points :

---Fact: On this planet, higher level organisms can only survive if lower level organisms die to feed them

“Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea of a pinnacle of evolution, let us accept that humans are ranked at the top on a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the right to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy? If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems for ourselves. Does this mean that more intelligent humans can also exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)? Considering a different trait, can the physically superior abuse the weak? Only a morally callous person would agree with this general principle.”


----Even vegetarians have to kill to eat. In fact they kill more organisms in a single meal than an omnivore - how many soybeans died for that tofu burger? how many alfalfa sprouts are being EATEN ALIVE in that salad?



“The general hypocrisy argument appears in many forms. A typical form is as follows: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a cow but not for a plant; therefore, cows cannot have rights." Arguments of this type are frequently used against AR. Not much analysis is required to see that they carry little weight. First, one can assert an hypothesis A that would carry as a corollary hypothesis B. If one then fails to assert B, one is hypocritical, but this does not necessarily make A false. Certainly, to assert A and not B would call into question one's credibility, but it entails nothing about the validity of A. Second, the factual assertion of hypocrisy is often unwarranted. In the above example, there are grounds for distinguishing between cows and plants (plants do not have a central nervous system), so the charge of hypocrisy is unjustified. One may disagree with the criteria, but assertion of such criteria nullifies the charge of hypocrisy. Finally, the charge of hypocrisy can be reduced in most cases to simple speciesism. For example, the quote above can be recast as: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a human but not for a plant; therefore, humans cannot have rights."

http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

This site goes more in depth on these issues if you wish to read further.

The curious ant.

Vegetarianism should be a matter of choice rather than a law. Liberal authorianism is just as bad as right wing authoritarianism.
If you are concerned about the animals, that monitor the slaughterhouses to ensure that the animals are killed with humanely with minimal pain possible, and if it is health than sponsor programs on better nutrition.



you cannot slaughter an animal with minimal pain. please see the notes and links in my previous threads about cruelty.

I wanted to give the chickens more respect, but instead meat-eating is now frowned upon but legal here. SUX :evil:

While you're at it, you should suggest a proposal the limits the number of ants a person can step on, because I think ants have really been treated inhumanely in the past.



"Do I have to be careful not to walk on ants?

The Jains of India would say yes! Some of their more devout members wear gauze masks to avoid inhaling and killing small insects and microbes. Regardless of how careful we are, we will cause some suffering as a side-effect of living. The goal is to avoid unnecessary suffering and to minimize the suffering we cause. This is a far cry from wanton, intentional infliction of cruelty. I refer here to the habit of some of pulling off insects' wings for fun, or of torching a congregation of ants for pleasure. This question is an issue for the individual conscience to decide. Perhaps one need not walk around looking out for ants on the ground, but should one be seen and it is easy to alter one's stride to avoid it, where is the harm in doing so?"

http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

the curious ant would appreciate this proposal = )

No we need meat.We need the protein and iron.I'm an omnivore.We need succulant,juicy,and tender meat!

i've pointed out in the above threads that protein, iron, and anything else obtained in meat, can be found in other foods.

This old cowboy does not feel sorry for the animals, and neither does 90% of those here who have voted in the poll. I love to sink my teeth in a blood dripping rare piece of good beef, so fresh it moos when you bite into it. :lol:

Just wondering, but your saying the unintentionally butchering of an animal by being inhumanley cut into peices by a grain harvester is better than an animal being slaughtered in a slaughterhouse?

Who are you to determine that these deaths over there are cool because they wern't intentional, while those over there were meant to die so thats bad.

This is a far cry from wanton, intentional infliction of cruelty

Intentional 1. Done deliberately; intended

Is not the killing by grain harvesting intentional? The are deliberately killing them. They know that by harvesting the grain that they are killing animals.

There is really no unintentionally killing. You kill for your grain, we kill for our food.

This old cowboy does not feel sorry for the animals, and neither does 90% of those here who have voted in the poll. I love to sink my teeth in a blood dripping rare piece of good beef, so fresh it moos when you bite into it. :lol:


.:mouth waters:.

Every where that takes credit cards are closed....
Fridge is completely empty

AND YOUR TALKING ABOUT A RARE ANGUS STEAK!

god im hungry lol

OOC: Once a double post, now a new post! Bwahah!

I've thought long and hard about this, and I don't see why again and again I put myself into arguements such as these.

This will change nothing.

We can say that meat is the devil and you will lead happier, longer lives as a vegetarian, and I bet no one who reads it will become vegetarian.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think I'm going to waste any more breathe (or time, as it stands) needlessly bickering about animal rights. In reality, I'll most likely agree vegatarianism is the best way to go then go cookup some hamburger helper or something.

"The word meat comes from the Middle English word mete which itself comes from the Old English word of the same name. Meat is hardly an invented word, and it's hardly changed it's meaning."

ooh, a note on language.

actually it's not just a random word in old english, mete, but it means something (isn't that neat, how words do that? mean things?). in fact, it means food.
if you look at the issue evolutionarily, you'll see that folks didn't eat meat for such a long time that humyns only ended up with only four pointy teeth and in fact big flaily arms. if you look at it creatively nobody ate meat until noah got off the ark. either way, you have a long period in history where folks ate meatless, and then suddenly we adapt the word from meaning 'food' to meaning 'dead carcasses which we shall ingest.' the switch undoubtedly comes from a need for a word to disguise flesh- a need to not call it that- so that we don't have to recognize the implications (hey, also known as objectifying).
the value of words to shift our focus has been the subject of innumerable professions, campaigns, wars, and communication. our world focuses on our language: it's how we see things, through the way we speak.
for more on objectifying, THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT by carol j adams is super cool.

[quote="Zimoland"]
This will change nothing.
quote]


that's a completely untrue statement. why do you think the number of vegetarians are increasing each year? i don't know of anyone who eaten veggie their entire lives. we spread ideas by disscussing them. i didn't become a vegetarian or even really consider this, until this year. i was sat down and talked to on a bus ride home from a debate tournament, and given all of this information. = ) i then realized, i had no argument whatsoever, in the defensive of meat eating, other than i think, the ever so tiresome 'meat tastes good', or that i had been brought up on it. quickly seeing that those are not even arguments, it took me probably 2 months to finally make up my mind. discussion can change social norms.

Ah Time to reply again. Let's see what I can dredge up.

I apologize for the lapse in my response, for I have been out of town. Exciting to see responses.
It was getting quite confusing trying to quote everyone, so I have indented, (----) signally a previous quote from another nation.


----FACT: Most of the time, Breast Cancer is genetic. At the very least, there is no connection to red meat.

you are true in what you say about it being hereditary as well. when i said that red meat is the only known cause of both, i meant causes aside from genetics. my mistake, i should have been more specific. but i have to disagree that there is no connection. "Many scientific studies have found a high correlation between the consumption of red meat-- which is high in saturated fats and cholesterol -- and heart disease, stroke, and colon and breast cancer... more than 70 percent of deaths in this country -- more than 1.5 million annually -- are related to diet, particularly the over- consumption of beef and other foods high in cholesterol and saturated fat..." http://www.acfn.com/HT/RedMeat.htm i've provided this link if you would like to further read.

A correlation does not mean that there is a cause-effect relationship. I can say that there is a high correlation between the number of hicks in a Wal-mart and the total number of hicks in an area, but that does not mean that Wal-marts will always be where there are hicks, nor does it mean that hicks will always go to a Wal-mart.


----FACT: There is no definate one cause of early puberty. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/earlypuberty010207.html)

i will agree with you that there is not one definate cause, for i know that many aspects of our society in the status quo are to blame. i just wished to relay that there are many causes, and eating meat is one of them. "In addition to antibiotics, US cattle are fed synthetic hormones to accelerate growth, increase fat deposits, bring entire herds of cows into heat at the same time for breeding, increase milk production, and induce abortions in pregnant cows scheduled for slaughter. These hormones are suspected as a major cause of the high incidence of breast and ovarian cancer in American women, as well as premature puberty in American children. This is especially true for growing children, and is confirmed by the fact that whenever big American fast-food chains featuring beef and milk products set up operations in Asian countries, the once healthy children there soon show all the signs of chronic ill health that plague American children: obesity, acne and pimples, respiratory infections, premature puberty, and behavioral abnormalities"
http://www.acfn.com/HT/RedMeat.htm

Key word: "suspected". This does not mean that it certainly is the primary cause. In fact, it does not mean that it is a cause. Merely that there is a greater probability of it being a cause than say... Aliens.

-----FACT: The word meat comes from the Middle English word mete which itself comes fromt he Old English word of the same name. Meat is hardly an invented word, and it's hardly changed it's meaning.

i did not say that the word was drafted up in current times. i'm sorry then, that i do not understand your argument, because i'm not refuting where the word comes from, but instead, that it is used in place of what you are objectifying, regardless of when or where it was made.[/quote]

I will respond to your statement that there is "no" argument with your original statement:

we've even altered the language to make up this word 'meat'

My point is that we did not alter the language (your point seems to be that we artificially created the word meat just so we didn't have to say animal flesh). The word was there from the beginning, and there's no need to call it "objectifying"


-----Meat tastes good because of seasonings. Hormones merely increase the amount of meat a cow HAS.

i'll have to disagree with your use of the word 'merely' here, for that is not all horomones do. true, they increase the amount of meat in cattle, but they also cause many harms, as stated above.

The point of the 'merely' was to imply that that is all it does to the cow. I make no insinuations about what it may or may not do to other creatures.


------A source that's not PETA please?


I will apologize now, for not providing a link to a ‘non-biased’ website, which I’m assuming you see PETA as. It’s interesting though, that after all this web searching. beef industries themselves do not even produce blatant disinformation on this topic. Suspicious silent voice. why does it seem that veggie sites are biased? Maybe, just maybe, it is because only one side is talking in this issue. Well, do not get your hopes up, for I will not give up this search. the following link also discusses the method of slitting cows throats and letting them bleed to death as a means of slaughter. Either way, I have PETA with evidence of anal electrocution, and other sources for throat slitting. Slaughter is slaughter.

Non-biased sites are the best source of information. Or at least sites with both sides. Perhaps if the meat industry does not address the issue, they have no reason to as the point is moot.

-----How the hell do you determine if something feels pain when it's killed? OF COURSE ANIMALS FEEL PAIN WHEN THEY'RE KILLED! There is a line between treating animals properly and not letting them be raised in cruel environments

10 billion animals are killed each year for food production. Please look at this link and explain to me how they are not raised in cruel environments.

http://www.animalawareness.org/pages/types_farming.html

The point is that there is fairness (treating animals fairly and letting them free-range without growing in small cages in dimly-lit rooms) and then there are "animal rights" (animals are the same as humans, and they deserve to live out their lives without human intervention). The former is acceptable to the majority of the people, except vegetarians.

-----Really precise aren't we. It "ruins the ground". Oh my! It ruins the ground... Whatever shall we do <.<

"Grazing requires large tracts of land and the consequences of overgrazing and soil erosion are very serious ecological problems. By conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S. grasslands are overgrazed, resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each year. The amount of U.S. topsoil lost to date is about 75 percent, and 85 percent of that is directly associated with livestock grazing. Overgrazing has been the single largest cause of hum[y]n-made deserts."

http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

i can provide you with more evidence if you wish, please just let me know.

Overgrazing is only the result of poor farming practice. See the Dust Bowl. though what are we supposed to do then? If we can't CUT DOWN the cattle population that is causing this overgrazing, then it's going to GROW! And then overgrazing will be even MORE of a problem! So it sounds to ME like we need to kill MORE cows to solve this problem!



------This is a bs statement if I ever saw one, but I shall let you continue with this rant.

"A 10 percent drop in U.S. meat consumption would make 12 million tons of grain available - enough to feed the 60 million people who are starving to death each year."

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/061202/opi_046-2096.shtml

Most starvation is not a result of untenable land, but rather a lack of education, and worse: political strife or instability that prevents food from getting to the people who need it most. Why don't you and your liberal friends make peace on earth? Only then will you be able to feed the hungry you want to.


------FACT: 1. Many of these grazing lands/factory grounds are completely unfit for farming produce. 2. Farms are regularly paid by the American government to NOT make higher yields of vegetables. Fix that problem first, then we'll get back to you.

ironic that this was my point above, that the grazing/factory grounds become ruined heaps of soil, but you seemed to refute it then. i apologize again, for not being precise enough, because yes, i agree that our government needs numerous agricultural reforms. i admit that this will be a long process, but to make a difference in this world, you must start somewhere. these slaughtering grounds can be reclaimed and turned into vital grain farms to aid in hunger.

My point is not that farming makes land unfertile, but rather that the land was unsuited to farming prior to any farms being built. You seemed to miss this point and instead inferred some innuendo that was not there.


-----Water is not precious in many regions of America. If water is precious in areas, it was to begin with, and there's no justification for wasting such water on agricultural yields int he first place. Water does not "disappear." There's always the same amount of water in the world.

contrary to your unwarranted statement, water shortage is an ever growing problem. at least 3.5 billion people will experience water shortages by the year 2025 according to The World Resources Institute, that also states that producing meat is the number one cause of water pollution and used more water than all other humyn uses combined.

http://www.thewaterpage.com/drought_water_scarcity.htm



Causes of water scarcity

The causes of water scarcity are varied. Some are natural and others are as a result of human activity. The current debate sites the causes as largely deterministic in that scarcity is a result of identifiable cause and effect. However, if water scarcity is the point at which water stress occurs (the point at which various conflicts arise, harvests fail and the like), then there are also less definable sociological and political causes. Many of the causes are inter-related and are not easily distinguished.

Causes of water scarcity

* Population growth
* Food production
* Climatic change and variability
* Land use
* Water quality
* Water demand
* Sectoral resources and institutional capacity
* Poverty and economic policy
* Legislation and water resource management
* International waters
* Sectoral professional capacity
* Political realities
* Sociological issues



I don't see meat making in there, do you? Food production to me says meat AND grains.


----The water would be used either way.

i don't understand what you mean here. yes, the water would be used either way. let's look at out options. we could use less water by producing grain, and conserve it for other essential uses as drinking, or we could waste more of it on producing meat. like i said, the ratio is 10:1

The water would eventually be used up as demand outstrips supply. Even if you cut the demand by stopping meat production, the demand will grow to meet the supply. This is a founding principle of economics. You still have the water scarcity problem. You only shift it in time by about 20 years. What are you going to do then? Stop telling people to have children?



-----Objectification is a natural outgrowth of philosophical, scientific, and technological development. It is impossible to think of most things as anythign other than objects. Objectification is a result of millions of years of evolution, particularly in the gradual development of tool-weilding humans. Not some random "idea" that has been adopted by humanity because of one man. Many people in the world who have never even HEARD of Aristotle will make a difference between object and non-object. Objectification is part of the human condition and habit.

“Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone”

http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm

I see you completely ignore the point that your "absentee reference" or whatever philosophical voodoo you are talking about is only a natural outgrowth of mans sociological development. To try to reverse this voodoo (whatever you call it: Philosophy (as a whole), objectification, the meaning of life, absentee reference, whatever the hell you call it) is to take a step millions of years back to before we evolved brains capable of distinguishing objects. Separation of a product from the ingredients is what has allowed humankind to progress and evolve from its fundamentally stupid roots. By your logic we shouldn't eat plants either. By eating a corn-cob, we forget that we have harmed the ability of an actual corn PLANT to reproduce! My removing and eating an apple the same thing! The differentiation of produced objects from the objects from which something is produced is a NECESSITY FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND SURVIVAL.


-----Two words for you: Vitamin B12.

not to be redundant, but like i said, there is nothing you cannot obtain from sources other than meat.

vitamin B12--fortified soy beverages and cereals, eggs, dairy products

Fortified with what? cow meat? I am surprised to see that you list eggs and dairy products! I thought you would be one to say that eating eggs (the "innocent" unviable young of a chicken) and drinking milk (denying nutrients to the rightful calves that deserve milk) and the general "arms" incurred on the animals int he process was so evil it had to be stopped.

If a vegetarian still feels that they are lacking in an above nutrient, supplements, as you said, can be taken.

What do you think they're made of? Algae?

-----Last note: I note that you are an overbearing feminist (refusal to use the word "human". I bet you hate the word "history" also don't you?). I am thus not so surprised you have this particular postition. In any case, most of your points are the typical "pro-veggie" points that are simply too insane, inane, or are not factually based in reality.


well, now on to your last note. many people assume that when one chooses to reject what has been proven to be sexist language, that they are automatically feminist who hate the word 'man'. it's actually quite the opposite. i chose to reject the spelling of these words, on the basis that i believe in equal rights for all, which by it’s nature cannot be reverse sexism or discrimination, and am clearly not a feminist. I encourage you to read up on this spelling argument more in depth, for a better understanding. books dealing with this issue include MAN MADE LANGUAGE by dale spender, and UNTYING THE TONGUE: GENDER, POWER, AND THE WORD by sylvia bailey-shurbutt. it is your opinion that my arguments are 'insane. inane, and not factually based in reality,' and this i will respect, for it is your opinion. i do have to look at that fact though, that i have provided warrants to all of my claims by posting links, when you keep making unwarranted statements. if you make a claim, it must be warranted. simply stating that in your opinion it is a fact, is not a warrant.

Women have used language too. For thousands of years in fact. Now is not the time to all of a sudden be spewing some sort of nonsense regarding "saying man is not being fair to the woman."

I mean, we might as well stop saying dog, because it's offensive to the bitch! Duck, because it's offensive to the drake! Cow, because it's offensive to the bull! Male, because it's offensive to the female! heterosexual because it's offensive to the homosexual! Why don't we just say "sexual!" Wait, that's offensive tot he asexual. The fact is: Language has developed as it has NOT because of male society, but because of human society as a whole. Some of the best forms of writing in the world were created by FEMALES! The primary example? The common Japanese form of writing: Hiragana. Hiragana was NOT used to promote feminism or to force "equality". It was a neutral platform with which anyone could use for whatever purposes they want. It favored noone. Who is to say that human, which was never meant to represent the male, or mailman, or congressman, or chairman, or manhole, or anything like that, which NEVER had any relation to the idea of gender for the entirelty of the the 20th century should all of a sudden represent the forces of "male oppression"? Who are we to blame for twisting the words queer, gay, or any similar word into something it's not? Who are we to blame for turning the Swastika into a political symbol. The change of language (either to or from some political bent or some sort of gender-biased bent) is inevitable. Most people don't give a damn about a word that has the word man in it. They don't associate it with males at all. It's a generic word. To put some sort of subverse meaning on a word that is just generic is an insane idea.



-----1. Switching away from eating products that require tilling the soil would result in over 300 million fewer animal deaths per year (http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)
------2. Alright, so those deaths aren't intentional. But instead, you're not even using the meat of the animals you kill! Very wasteful!
-----3. Vegetables need pesticides. Why are these any better than hormones?



1&2 "It is clear that incidental (or accidental, unintended) deaths of animals result from crop agriculture. It is equally clear that intentional deaths of animals result from animal agriculture. Our acceptance of acts that lead to incidental deaths does not require the acceptance of acts that lead to intentional deaths. (A possible measure of intentionality is to ask if the success of the enterprise is measured by the extent of the result. In our case, the success of crop agriculture is not measured by the number of accidental deaths; in animal agriculture, conversely, the success of the enterprise is directly measured by the number of animals produced for slaughter and consumption.)"
http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html[/quote]

As was said before, those animal crops are intentional. If not directly, due to the intention to farm crops. Secondly, you're still wasting animals whose lives are obviously NOT important. So to save the life of one cow is worth the lives of 50 rodents?

3. yes, vegetables contain pesticides, but so does meat. the alternative is buying organically grown vegetables. "Many pesticides approved for use by the EPA were registered long before extensive research linking these chemicals to cancer and other diseases had been established. Now the EPA considers that 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides and 30 percent of all insecticides are carcinogenic. A 1987 National Academy of Sciences report estimated that pesticides might cause an extra 1.4 million cancer cases among Americans. The bottom line is that pesticides are poisons designed to kill living organisms and can also be harmful to you. In addition to cancer, pesticides are implicated in birth defects, nerve damage and genetic mutation."
http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

i do thank you for your points, and i respect your views. please feel free to ask for clarification on any claim i have made.

And how successful are organic vegetables in the market place? Not as successful as most pesticide-grown ones. Same with meat products. I don't see very many people switching from it. And thus (of course) you (and by you I mean PETA) must turn to terrorism to accomplish your goals. Yes, terrorism. After all, the Earth Liberation Front (just one of your many benefactees) is a known terrorist group. But that's alright! Your purpose is, after all, to stop the eating of meat through any means possible, even killing humans when it doesn't even stop the killing of cows in the long run. It's a waste of money, and organizations like PETA are a waste of the earth's resources. Why not donate to an organization like the SPCA that actually does something DIRECTLY for maltreated animals instead of lobbing money at a terrorist group that has never and *WILL* never accomplish its goals?



---Fact: On this planet, higher level organisms can only survive if lower level organisms die to feed them

“Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea of a pinnacle of evolution, let us accept that humans are ranked at the top on a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the right to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy? If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems for ourselves. Does this mean that more intelligent humans can also exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)? Considering a different trait, can the physically superior abuse the weak? Only a morally callous person would agree with this general principle.”

You vegetarians are still drawing a line in the sand. "Oh! We shall save all the animals! Even the ones with no ability to actually use any thought whatsoever! But the plants? Who cares!" Either go allthe way and starve to death, or admit that eating meat cannot be stopped!


----Even vegetarians have to kill to eat. In fact they kill more organisms in a single meal than an omnivore - how many soybeans died for that tofu burger? how many alfalfa sprouts are being EATEN ALIVE in that salad?



“The general hypocrisy argument appears in many forms. A typical form is as follows: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a cow but not for a plant; therefore, cows cannot have rights." Arguments of this type are frequently used against AR. Not much analysis is required to see that they carry little weight. First, one can assert an hypothesis A that would carry as a corollary hypothesis B. If one then fails to assert B, one is hypocritical, but this does not necessarily make A false. Certainly, to assert A and not B would call into question one's credibility, but it entails nothing about the validity of A. Second, the factual assertion of hypocrisy is often unwarranted. In the above example, there are grounds for distinguishing between cows and plants (plants do not have a central nervous system), so the charge of hypocrisy is unjustified. One may disagree with the criteria, but assertion of such criteria nullifies the charge of hypocrisy. Finally, the charge of hypocrisy can be reduced in most cases to simple speciesism. For example, the quote above can be recast as: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a human but not for a plant; therefore, humans cannot have rights."

http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

This site goes more in depth on these issues if you wish to read further.

The curious ant.

It is hypocritical to assert rights for anything that has a central nervous system when you openly refuse to give rights to the very people who try to make a living and survive by killing other animals.

i would appeal to the reader as i would to a four-year-old, normally, because it looks prettier that way and i come off as both nicer and more thorough. but you know, it's late, and most of what you've said was a lie or a trick of sophistry (come on, pick your battles), and so i'll appeal to the reader as at least a minimally rational creature. all i really care to contradict at this time is: treating the sexual politics of meat like 'voodoo' is a pretty sappy way of refuting it. frankly you don't understand the philosophy, or you don't understand you're wrong: either way your response to it comes out rather sadly.
let me just highlight (and maybe demystify) that confusing sentence at the end of your paragraph on the topic. you say that necessarily we should delineation what's made from what makes what's made. that's either a tautology or just plain ol' self referential, considering the disguised-in-rhetoric (no doubt unintentionally) fact that to treat a carcass like a product is what started the whole mess in the first place (hint: objectification).

Okay here is the deal, if I don't get my Beef Jerky then my contry is going to war!!!! Trust me I dont keep 500000 Nucler bombs around for nothen! MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! :twisted: Okay I will shut up now........... :arrow:

Surprisingly I'm not going to read the whole six pages of this. I just want to say one thing.

B12.

(But, yeah, I'm a veggie, wouldn't want to eat something that was staring at me :| )

i would appeal to the reader as i would to a four-year-old, normally, because it looks prettier that way and i come off as both nicer and more thorough. but you know, it's late, and most of what you've said was a lie or a trick of sophistry (come on, pick your battles), and so i'll appeal to the reader as at least a minimally rational creature. all i really care to contradict at this time is: treating the sexual politics of meat like 'voodoo' is a pretty sappy way of refuting it. frankly you don't understand the philosophy, or you don't understand you're wrong: either way your response to it comes out rather sadly.
let me just highlight (and maybe demystify) that confusing sentence at the end of your paragraph on the topic. you say that necessarily we should delineation what's made from what makes what's made. that's either a tautology or just plain ol' self referential, considering the disguised-in-rhetoric (no doubt unintentionally) fact that to treat a carcass like a product is what started the whole mess in the first place (hint: objectification).


You know its a lot more honest to be just openly rude, instead of attempting to hide it. The fact that you despise them and hate their argument comes through loud and clear anyway.

I liked this bit : "you don't understand the philosophy, or you don't understand you're wrong"

Wow! Well that statement applies in equal measure to you :lol:

By the way P.E.T.A is as bad as any other organisation supporting terrorists. They all these organisations believe they're doing it for the right reason, that they are justified. That the suffering and misery they cause to people on a real and fundamental level is okay, because of the philosophical goals and aspirations they are fighting fore.

Basically their just fascist fundamentalists and the sooner they are all dead of old age the better for the rest of us.

Now I'm off to eat a bacon sarnie.

you know, it appears to me that when you warrant things, you actually make a lot of sense. i wish you would do that more. i'm really not trying to hide my contempt for sophistry. it's there. i meant it. i guess the reason you think i'm being surreptitious about it is because i try to maintain respect for the person. i have, however, no shame about attacking reason.

i'm not sure if the peta part is directed to me (i imagine it isn't, since i said nothing about them), but just in case: i agree with you- peta can just be a bunch of utilitarian jerks. it's sad that they get so much publicity for a cause that doesn't whole-sale endorse them.

There are two courses of action regarding the "philosophy of meat eating" and as a result, philosophy in general (I was tired when I wrote my original rant, so I'll make myself clearer here):

1. Separating end-product from ingredients, both logically and physically: This is what we do now. I believe that this is a NECESSARY OUTGROWTH of human development and is necessary for the continued technological, philosophical, and sociological growth of the human race. If we never disassociated the product from the ingredients, we, as a race, would never accomplish anything, always being scared of the affects on the ingredients, or being disgusted by what the ingredients are when they are perfectly safe. This is the principle behind eating ants/escargo/other disgusting foods or any similar such. We must disassociate the product from the ingredients to get things done, and often to survive. Think of this another way: working for money. Certainly working is unpleasant, and we do not like it. HOWEVER, we need money to survive, and therefore we must separate our hatred of our job from the product, money, so that we can continue to survive. Otherwise you will end up as a bum on the street, doing nothing for money (as you hate both working and money earned by working).

2. Fixing this supposed "absentee referrence" and associating the product with the ingredients. As I addressed above, I believe that this course of action is perilous and would set us back thousands of years philosophically, and tens or hundreds of years sociologically and technologically. And of course there is the conservative backlash from the reactive parts of society inevitable in any sort of massive ideological change like this. Therefore absentee reference is a necessary part of human civilization and should not change. Reference to it as some reason why beef-eating is evil is, at best, harmful to eventual human progress.

why would absent refers (as i've heard them called most commonly) be necessary? name something we have to disassociate (a cleaner word for objectify) that isn't a dead 'food.' working for money is a bad example for two reasons: first because some people enjoy their work, and second because it assumes that money being necessary for survival is okay. not the sexual politics of meat (absent the fact that you largely ignore the sexual part) is unfixed. then you assume that sociologically, technologically, and 'progressively,' we're all perfectly okay, and further development along these particular tracks we've taken are okay. check out ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE by robert pirsig: you'll like it just 'cause it has a neat title if nothing else.
the reason why absent refers are attached and bring a negative value to the eating of meat is because practicing them on a daily, weekly, or whatever kind of basis a person eats meat makes them more prone to them in other areas of life. it's a slippery slope. if you're trained in objectifying animals, how much easier it is to objectify people? ohh.

why would absent refers (as i've heard them called most commonly) be necessary?

Because then we would remember that simply by existing and thriving at our current state of economic and technological development, we would remember that we ALWAYS harm someone's feelings, or harm some strange small group by building a skyscraper, mining for coal, polluting the environment, etc.

name something we have to disassociate (a cleaner word for objectify) that isn't a dead 'food.' working for money is a bad example for two reasons: first because some people enjoy their work, and second because it assumes that money being necessary for survival is okay.

Money is necessary for survival. Anyway, let's see. As mentioned before, we have to continually objectify anything not a human to continue to exist as we always have (i.e. mining for coal, etc.)

not the sexual politics of meat (absent the fact that you largely ignore the sexual part) is unfixed.

WTF? "Sexual politics"? How the hell does sex work in with thsi argument? Obviously you are not right in the head and are not to be believed.

then you assume that sociologically, technologically, and 'progressively,' we're all perfectly okay, and further development along these particular tracks we've taken are okay.

DAMN STRAIGHT. That's been my point all along.

the reason why absent refers are attached and bring a negative value to the eating of meat is because practicing them on a daily, weekly, or whatever kind of basis a person eats meat makes them more prone to them in other areas of life. it's a slippery slope. if you're trained in objectifying animals, how much easier it is to objectify people? ohh.

You namby-pambies and your "objectification" arguments are inane and idiotic. Meat is an object. Animals are not, I will grant you, but meat is an object. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. There is nothing you or anyone else can/will say to change that for 95% of the population, who either doesn't care, or thinks your namby-pamby touchy-feely arguments are a load of crap.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that objectification of meat leads to objectification of, say, women (which is QUITE OBVIOUSLY what you are referring to in terms of objectifying people.). And as for objectifying people as things to toy with and kill without reason: If you are so mentally disturbed as to believe that, you were obviously not right in the head to begin with, and that has NOTHING to do with the objectification of meat.

And I am going to take this time to nullify any claims of "correlations," as I have said before: Correlation in a study does not mean a cause-effect relationship. Just because there is a "high correlation of spousal abusers and those who eat meat" or "a high correlation between mass murderers and meat eaters" (if we exclude your inevitable argument that meat eaters are, by definition mass murderers, by including the killing of animals in this case. In this case, I instead refer to people who kill many HUMANS.) does NOT mean that meat eating leads to either of those things.

your first paragraph: why would that be so bad? your second: money doesn't have to be. your third: er yes, i guess that we've largely underdiscussed the sexual politics of meat. the relationship (by way of absent refers) between sexism and meat eating is actually quite strong. by way of practicing absent refers on meat (as i understand the theory), it makes them easier to occur in say pornography, prostitution (::smiles::), rape, and otherwise in murder and war. the three former are part of what's known as the sexual politics of meat. also, please don't drag in slurs about mental disorder. some of the world's greatest artists (surprise, and thinkers) were what you're labelling as 'not right in the head.' your four: er, your point is that you unfoundedly assume something?
you digress from there, i'm afraid: resorting to name calling and random denial to make a point. there is, in fact, evidence (it's called, for god's sake THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT and it's by carol j adams). please, we're looking not for reiterations of the same ol' claims, but warrants. thanks.

your first paragraph: why would that be so bad?

It would mean the end of human civilization and progress as we know it. "Oh! We can no longer make computers or cars or anything becvause we pollute the earth." Well there goes technological innovation from the past 250 years. Yu'd just LOVE to put us back into the Dark Ages wouldn't you? No wait... we had *WAR* in the Dark Ages... Roman Emipire then? No... There was *WAR* there too. Iron Age? No, that won't do. Stone Age. Well that'll work. So I guess all you liberals want us all to revert back to stone age thinking where we are no longer capable of doing anything worthwhile, erasing thousands of years of human technological achievement, simply because one butterfly species is killed through our technological advancement and warring. I hate to break it to you, but wars are necessary (if undesired), and the extinction of many species (that can't be stopped) is due to survival of the fittest. Oh, but that's right, that's evolution, an idea fromt he 1800's. And we're supposed to go back to the STONE AGE for you losers to be happy. I guess I can't use that argument then.

your second: money doesn't have to be.

Do you mean that money can be used for non-survival things? (I agree) Or that you don't need to work for some sort of compensation to survive? (I disagree. I suppose you support people not working to get welfare, so that they can remain as useless parts of our workforce.)

your third: er yes, i guess that we've largely underdiscussed the sexual politics of meat. the relationship (by way of absent refers) between sexism and meat eating is actually quite strong.

Oh god, more "correlation" crap. I can't stand you and your so-called "correlations" (or in this case, a RELATIONSHIP). Not even a cause-effect relationship in this case no less! God! MEAT EATING DOES NOT CAUSE SEXISM. I don't know where you loons came up with this idea. JUST BECAUSE MORE SEXISTS ARE MEAT EATERS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MEAT EATERS ARE INHERENTLY (or will eventually become) SEXIST. That's a load of BS if I ever saw one.

by way of practicing absent refers on meat (as i understand the theory), it makes them easier to occur in say pornography, prostitution (::smiles::), rape, and otherwise in murder and war.

Unfounded beliefs in "correlations" make the basis of your argument. There is no scientific proof saying that meat eating triggers whatever chemical it is in the brain that causes spousal abuse, war, etc. Only your "correlation" between meat eating and objectification of females and war. You have to understand that there are way more people who eat meat than are vegetarian, so OF COURSE there are more people who objectify those things (in fact, if you wanted to make a more appropriate and probably more correct relationship, perhaps you could make it between conservatives and eating meat. I don't see a single conservative who eats meat. Why? Because it's based on their belief system. Eating meat does not make you a conservative, nor does conservatism force you to eat meat, but it sure as hell makes you less likely to)

the three former are part of what's known as the sexual politics of meat.

That's f-ing bs and you know it. Meat has nothing to do with sexuality and sexism (as I mentioned above, it's all based in your false beliefs that correlations necessarily indicate cause-effect relationships)

also, please don't drag in slurs about mental disorder. some of the world's greatest artists (surprise, and thinkers) were what you're labelling as 'not right in the head.'

I am saying (later on) that there are an EQUAL number of people who are mentally disturbed who believe that mass murder is perfectly fine, or (to a lesser extent) slapping your spouse around is as well. Or there are those who believe in such inane principles that you can't really believe a word they say.

your four: er, your point is that you unfoundedly assume something?

See my response to point one. You want to regress our society tens, hundreds, or thousands of years. Am I to say that's OK? Further development on the tracks we are currently on will CEASE if you liberals always got your way. Refer to the current intellectual property debates (though those are less liberalism against conservatism, and more the forces of the old entertainment industry against the people)

there is, in fact, evidence (it's called, for god's sake THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT and it's by carol j adams).

No doubt a vegetarian like yourself. So how are we to get an unbiased view on meats actual CAUSE-EFFECT relationship (if any) on sexism? JUST SAYING THAT THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE SEXIST WHO EAT MEAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT MEAT EATING CAUSES SEXISM.

so wonderful to hear from you yet again.
you're still assuming humyn progress and civilization as we know it are necessarily wonderful things on which no improvement can be made by removing objectification from the part you insist is so intrinsically plays. dialing the world back obviously is impossible. the kind of change i advocate is forward motion: such as the reduction of objectification by the switch to a vegetarian diet. there's no warrant on why war is necessary (see: gandhi, martin luther king jr). i don't see how name calling helps.
on the money issue i mean that we've only made it necessary to survival and there is no intrinsic moneyness in the survival of the humyn species or any other. again, please refrain from name calling the poor and the emotionally ill.
capital letters do not equal warrants. maybe if you'd take a look at the book (or even my summary of the theories it contains) you'd see that absent refers are a psychological event: the same event that occurs in meat-eating and rape alike. identical. the slippery slope theory has been empirically proved for thousands of years. then you trash on the book for being written (i guess i assume too) by a vegetarian. i really fail to see how that should diminish it's importance. she'd stand absolutely nothing to gain by being a vegetarian unless she believed in it for its rationality. maybe if you'd deign to join us in the world of rationality, you could take a look at those reasons too.
finally, there's no need to randomly label as liberal or conservative. see pirsig and his wonderful book.
thanks for your time.

the Holy Empire of Falaslonde
where ultra-right meets ultra-left.

oh i forgot to address your cause and effect business. firstly i'm not (and i think i see that you know i'm not) asserting that meat eating directly causes sexism. the trouble you seem to take is just that, though. you want a direct cause-effect relationship. however, cause and effect science (it being apparently the only one with which you are familiar, you being no doubt immersed in the culture of reductionism in this passing the systems age) is in fact a fatally flawed science that will eventually see it's own demise. beginning with reductionism, current science has seen that the atom is in fact not irreducible, but comes down to three subatomic particles which may be reduced even farther to quantic mechanics. reductionism calls for a basic irreducible fact: the same thing cause and effect calls for, which we will now explore.
in understanding things, we've said that we treat a thing like an effect and look for its cause. then to understand the cause, we treat it like an effect and look for its cause. you'll see the same infinite regression in analysis, reductionism, cause and effect: all of which call for a basic irreducible fact. a little philosophy (i really like lewis for his unity in dialectics and rhetoric) will show that even if you call it something else, the basic irreducible fact you're looking for is God: science's first cause, pirsig's Quality, the undefinable (irreducible). if you're ready to accept that (or interested, i guess, in accepting that) take a look at some lewis and some pirsig. mmm.
oh, well i guess i mostly mean to say that if you wanna dive into the cause and effect route, i can take you, but it's gonna go right through God and what He might be saying about this whole mess of vegetarianism.

so wonderful to hear from you yet again.
you're still assuming humyn progress and civilization as we know it are necessarily wonderful things on which no improvement can be made by removing objectification from the part you insist is so intrinsically plays.

Removing objectification will hurt human progress and civilization, yes.

dialing the world back obviously is impossible. the kind of change i advocate is forward motion: such as the reduction of objectification by the switch to a vegetarian diet.

Except by doing such you move backwards.

there's no warrant on why war is necessary (see: gandhi, martin luther king jr). i don't see how name calling helps.

Slavery.

on the money issue i mean that we've only made it necessary to survival and there is no intrinsic moneyness in the survival of the humyn species or any other. again, please refrain from name calling the poor and the emotionally ill.

I'll call them whatever the hell I want to. I'm not sanitizing my speach and calling them whatever the hell you want me to. I'll call them mentally disturbed if I want to. Who died and made you the politically correct speech police?

capital letters do not equal warrants.

I don't care about whatever you call warrants. I state my beliefs and truth. The burden of proving that meat-eating causes sexism is in your hands. It is not my job to prove that meat-eating DOESN'T cause sexism when YOU introduced that idiotic argument. You made the argument, you back it up. So go on. Back it up without telling me to "read a book". I want solid scientific facts that directly show that meat eating causes sexism, not "this many people who eat meat are sexist, this many who eat vegetarian are not." I WANT SCIENCE, NOT CORRELATIONS.

maybe if you'd take a look at the book (or even my summary of the theories it contains) you'd see that absent refers are a psychological event: the same event that occurs in meat-eating and rape alike.

Uh... Wow. This seems to be coming from only one source! ONE SOURCE DOESN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT.

identical. the slippery slope theory has been empirically proved for thousands of years. then you trash on the book for being written (i guess i assume too) by a vegetarian. i really fail to see how that should diminish it's importance.

It means it's biased, and therefore will not be likely to offer any contradictory material in the case of an argument on its principles.

she'd stand absolutely nothing to gain by being a vegetarian unless she believed in it for its rationality.

There is no rationality in vegetarianism. Only some feigned rationality justified by one biased source that came up with this objectification voodoo.

maybe if you'd deign to join us in the world of rationality, you could take a look at those reasons too.

And I've stated my reasons for eating meat. WE ARE OMNIVORES, NOT CARNIVORES, NOT HERBIVORES. Try telling a lion to not eat meat hmm? What gives the lion the right to kill animals when we dont' have that right? I thought animals had the same rights as us hmm?

finally, there's no need to randomly label as liberal or conservative. see pirsig and his wonderful book.

Except for the fact that most conservatives eat meat, and most vegetarians aren't conservative.

oh i forgot to address your cause and effect business. firstly i'm not (and i think i see that you know i'm not) asserting that meat eating directly causes sexism.

You sure seem like you are with this "slippery slope" business. If that's not implying that meat-eating causes sexism, I don't know what does.

the trouble you seem to take is just that, though. you want a direct cause-effect relationship.

Exactly. That is the logic behind the dimension of time, and why we only move one way in it. Cause creates effect invents cause creates effect.

however, cause and effect science (it being apparently the only one with which you are familiar

Science is based on cause and effect. There is no other form of science. All forms of science seek the CAUSE(S) of an effect. They seek the WHY and the HOW.

you being no doubt immersed in the culture of reductionism in this passing the systems age

So I guess the rennaissance and all things afterward, the human race has gone downhill from an increasing use of science (which is cause and effect no less), which lead to the enlightenment, which led to the romantic age, etc. So we should revert back 600 years to the dark ages, as I thought you meant.

is in fact a fatally flawed science that will eventually see it's own demise. beginning with reductionism, current science has seen that the atom is in fact not irreducible, but comes down to three subatomic particles which may be reduced even farther to quantic mechanics. reductionism calls for a basic irreducible fact: the same thing cause and effect calls for, which we will now explore.

And this is exactly what quantum physics seeks to do: To find the CAUSE. To find the WHY. To find that irreducible atom (one thing). We believe we hve found it, and now e are TRYING to unify our theories to solve this why into HOPEFULLY, something simple. Don't even *TRY* to argue Quantum physics. I bet I've read more books on that alone that you have on all of physics.

in understanding things, we've said that we treat a thing like an effect and look for its cause. then to understand the cause, we treat it like an effect and look for its cause. you'll see the same infinite regression in analysis, reductionism, cause and effect: all of which call for a basic irreducible fact.

Yes, this is what science seeks. The ultimate principle which can explain everything. If you watched any videos in your high school physics class, this is EXACTLY what Physics hopes to achieve: a simplification of the universe into as few equations as possible leaving as little left unexplained as possible.

a little philosophy (i really like lewis for his unity in dialectics and rhetoric) will show that even if you call it something else, the basic irreducible fact you're looking for is God: science's first cause, pirsig's Quality, the undefinable (irreducible). if you're ready to accept that (or interested, i guess, in accepting that) take a look at some lewis and some pirsig. mmm.

I will not argue this. and this is exactly (perhaps) why Science (for many people) is a religion. Or at the least does not conflict with religion. I am not religious, but I am spiritual. I believe there's some force, whether it be found in a simple explanatory equation, or in an unexplainable force.

oh, well i guess i mostly mean to say that if you wanna dive into the cause and effect route, i can take you, but it's gonna go right through God and what He might be saying about this whole mess of vegetarianism.

Then let's head that route if you want to. But before we go, explain where you're going to show me the proof that meat eating causes sexism and warfare, or drop your "slippery slope" idea of this absent refer philosophy right here and now (and thereby lose that argument).

the reason you're making this thing so difficult is because you ignore reasons. you even said it. you don't care for warrants: you'll damn well believe what you want to.
what do you mean when you say 'Slavery.' ?
i noticed you refuse to behave politely ('sanitize your speech'): i don't so very much mind the term mentally disturbed, but your application of it as a derogatory term to people (me) who in fact are not. that's a slur.
i don't see why you shouldn't check the evidence (since i've given you the warrants) in the book, still! if won't take my warrants (somehow they're not good enough for you) then take carol j adams's. i assume she's veggie, too. calling her biased isn't going to help. i can't show you a book about why you should be vegetarian by someone's who's not. that's like asking for a non-christian to prove the existence of a christian God- it isn't going to happen because every rational mind that studies the evidence and warrants earnestly comes to the same conclusion.
one source can damn well make an argument, or you're down the drain too. a reminder: an argument has two parts, warrants, and claims. all i get from you is claims. every claim you get from me has warrants. again: i stand (carol j adams stands) absolutely nothing to gain by being a vegetarian except that we believe its true. we aren't trying to trick you.
then you hyperbolize that animals have the same rights as humyns. as far as i understand it, lions have the right to kill animals and we don't because lions, unlike humyns, participate in the food chain. a simple example: we bury our dead while lions' are eaten.
i apologize for how i seem to you; i hope that the difference between direct and indirect cause will one day be demystified to you. i disagree with you on time (it'd been going on for years before cause-effect theories got popular). cause-effect should extend to the entire universe while time clearly (why, even scientifically) covers only parts.
there are not no other forms of science. all forms you are aware of are cause-effect, as you've been so kind as to demonstrate. i'm not suggesting (i'm really not) that we go back, but that we work our way forward to get out of the current mess of meat-culture and mass consumption. i will say again: vegetarianism is a practical way to dry up the market for a trade that causes (or is related to, or is correlated to...) animal suffering, humyn suffering, and environmental destruction.
you're right about quantam physics: i don't know much. i only alluded to it as an example that reductionism was implicity wrong.
is good that you agree with me on the irreducible Fact, but for that i ask that you take it to me in telegrams or email instead of on the thread. telegram me first for more.
you certainly do a fine job of conveying your strong belief on observable evidence, and i can respect that. however, what i'm good for is offering theories the way they're logically strung together. that's why i refer you to people who know better than me about observation: lewis, adams, pirsig. thanks.

The Federation of Currania Government's official position is that people should have the right to eat whatever they want. The FoC government has no right to interfere and will therefore vote against any proposal or resolution of this nature.

I love how all vegetarians are automatically labeled as liberals and how it is implied that being a liberal is such a horrible thing. I am a liberal and i eat meat and i don't support PETA. There are insults being hurled from both sides and it doesn't help either argument, when you constantly feel the need to insult people and call them names people stop taking you seriously and it just makes you look stupid.

the reason you're making this thing so difficult is because you ignore reasons. you even said it. you don't care for warrants: you'll damn well believe what you want to.

You wanna know why? Because I'm a libertarian. It's peoples' right to choose whether or not they eat meat. It's neither the right of meat-eaters to force meat-eating on vegetarians (I have never states such) nor the right of vegetarians to spew their views as justification to force meat-eaters to eat vegetarian. this is the point I ulimately want to make through your espousal of biased views.

what do you mean when you say 'Slavery.' ?

The Civil War. You believe it ended slavery don't you? (I'm not saying I believe that the Civil War was about slavery)

i noticed you refuse to behave politely ('sanitize your speech'): i don't so very much mind the term mentally disturbed, but your application of it as a derogatory term to people (me) who in fact are not. that's a slur.

Duh! When I get inflamed through throwing inane stupid falsely based accusations at my way of living, of course I'm not going to respond politely. ^_^

i don't see why you shouldn't check the evidence (since i've given you the warrants) in the book, still!

Because it is a biased source. Before I'll read it, I want a source that is equally biased on the other side. And unbiased view of things is best seen through seeing both sides of the argument. You only want to present your side.

if won't take my warrants (somehow they're not good enough for you) then take carol j adams's. i assume she's veggie, too. calling her biased isn't going to help.

I'm annoyed that you refuse to say justification =P

i can't show you a book about why you should be vegetarian by someone's who's not. that's like asking for a non-christian to prove the existence of a christian God- it isn't going to happen because every rational mind that studies the evidence and warrants earnestly comes to the same conclusion.

I never said you could. I merely say that people have different opinions, so you should provide me at the least with a source that is equally biased, using philosophy, that argues against your source. And I do not believe in the least that every rational mind comes to the conclusion that vegetarian is the only way to survive. Unless of course, you want to play hardball and consider liberals the only people with rational minds, which is an utter fallacy.

one source can damn well make an argument, or you're down the drain too. a reminder: an argument has two parts, warrants, and claims. all i get from you is claims. every claim you get from me has warrants.

There you go with these "warrants" again. Are warrants justification? Or just a liberal word for their own "claims"?

again: i stand (carol j adams stands) absolutely nothing to gain by being a vegetarian except that we believe its true. we aren't trying to trick you.

You believe it is true. Meat-eaters do not.

then you hyperbolize that animals have the same rights as humyns. as far as i understand it, lions have the right to kill animals and we don't because lions, unlike humyns, participate in the food chain. a simple example: we bury our dead while lions' are eaten.

I do not believe lions are cannibals. Please direct me to proof, however. And we do too partake in the food chain. If we did not, we wouldn't be eating.

i apologize for how i seem to you; i hope that the difference between direct and indirect cause will one day be demystified to you. i disagree with you on time (it'd been going on for years before cause-effect theories got popular). cause-effect should extend to the entire universe while time clearly (why, even scientifically) covers only parts.

Since when does time not exist? Time exists eternally. You can't stop time unless you go the speed of light. You can't just partition off part of the universe and say "here there is no time" because time is a fundamental part of the fabric of the universe. And it runs on cause and effect.

there are not no other forms of science. all forms you are aware of are cause-effect, as you've been so kind as to demonstrate.

Demonstrate a mainstream science that is not dependent on cause and effect.

i'm not suggesting (i'm really not) that we go back, but that we work our way forward to get out of the current mess of meat-culture and mass consumption.

Mass consumption (depending on the definition) is problematic I will grant. Meat-culture, I maintain, is not an issue, except to you, and the people who argue with you.

i will say again: vegetarianism is a practical way to dry up the market for a trade that causes (or is related to, or is correlated to...) animal suffering

There are many ways to kill animals without causing suffering.

humyn suffering

Meat-eating causes no human suffering. Unless you want to call your psychological suffering from seeing people continue to eat meat.

environmental destruction.

More of this is caused by farming on inherently unstable land, rather than stable land that is suddenly unstable due to one cow.

you're right about quantam physics: i don't know much. i only alluded to it as an example that reductionism was implicity wrong.

Our theories were wrong. Reductionism may yet NOT be wrong.

is good that you agree with me on the irreducible Fact, but for that i ask that you take it to me in telegrams or email instead of on the thread. telegram me first for more.

It's really a less important point, and starting to veer away from the vegetarian aspect of it all.

you certainly do a fine job of conveying your strong belief on observable evidence, and i can respect that. however, what i'm good for is offering theories the way they're logically strung together. that's why i refer you to people who know better than me about observation: lewis, adams, pirsig. thanks.

Observation does not necessarily make evidence (and this is a point I've been stressing with the correlation statements). Observation creates relationships. Further study (along the cause-effect line of reasoning that you refuse to espouse) may indeed lead to reasonable evidence. the majority of people recognize science only as cause and effect. Therefore, by providing direct evidence of the cause creating the effect, you justify the theory that there is a cause-effect relationship, whis is proof enough for most people who care.

You on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge cause-effect so that you are not forced to wait for justification of a relationship (and thus come the correlations). People who are too stupid will not differentiate correlations from justification. These are most of the people who will agree with you. Scientific minds however, wait for proof, as they are intelligent enough to know the difference between a cause-effect relationship and a correlation relationship, and they trust cause-effect relationships more than correlation relationships. I am the latter (waiting for a cause-effect relationship instead of a correlation relationship). You are the former (not necessarily too stupid to differentiate the two relationships, but rather unwilling to wait for or trust the latter cause-effect relationship, and turning instead to correlations to make your point.)

I love how all vegetarians are automatically labeled as liberals

Hehe! This comes to my correlation/cause-effect distinguishing. In my belief, MOST vegetarians are liberals. Contrapositively, FEW conservatives are vegetarians.

I am a liberal and i eat meat and i don't support PETA.

Good for you. I probably disagree with you on other issues (abortion primarily excluded), but please do not take me for saying that you, because you are a liberal, must be a vegetarian.

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

:evil: :twisted:

How about banning all idiot vegetarian slime that insists that we as a people can't make our own decisions? Gees, I am sick of these lunatics.

:twisted:

:twisted: surely you jest. after consulting out many doctors and other mdical feilds about the matter. i the president of voldamar has declared eating meat as something thats hould be done and enjoyed for god sake. Besides the human body was desighned to consume meat hence the orgns and the canine teeth. :idea: look if you vegetarians like not eating meat then thats fine, but don't come to voldamr expecting any salads with out some kind of beef or pork or chicken in it.

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

But animals are yummy...

That is not the argument here. In a sense, the first guy was right, the animals can and do hurt physically like all animals, specifically humans. This is part of the issue, but not the whole thing. I am personally a vegitarian, and will fight against meat eating. But, I understand that some do need meat! Not all people can survive without meat. This is why I say that meat eating should not be banned. These are some of the people who I believe do need meat for survival:

1. Labourers of all nature
2. The poor
3. Anyone who uses an extra-ordinary amount of energy, body builders, athletes, etc.

I am not one of these; therefore, I do not eat meat. I encourage others to follow me. But, for the reason above, I do not believe that meat eating should be completely banned.

World Marxism

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock: the anials like to be eaten, it's their way of saying, "thanks for letting me live on Earth this long."

I don't believe in this proposal. First off we were designed to eat meat. Who cars "if they are so cute" or "I just can't stand to let them die like that"

Animals eat other animals and WE are animals, so we have to eat other animals.

Plus all those vegetarians have to watch what they eat and make sure that they get all the nutrients that meat-eaters get naturally. It's just a lot easier to eat meat.

i really don't understand (and particularly don't care to) the throwing around of words like liberal and conservative.. i just really don't see how it helps anyone. you keep accusing me of being a liberal. ::shrugs::
on the topic of war: it admittedly can 'fix' things in the sense you named (now that i understand): slavery. however, you'll of course if you killed ([can't help myself] and ate) me that there'd be no conflict. naturally this is true, but useless unless you accept that decimating life to end a conflict is okay. a thing i don't.
i don't see why you won't play fair (though i do appreciate your last post being free of slurs against the mentally ill).
on the topic of warrants: arguments have two parts, warrants and claims. claims are basically summaries or tag lines, and warrants are the evidence and (as i use the word more often) logical trails that lead to the claim as a conclusion. i don't know what you mean by justification: if that's it, then sure, justification.
i didn't mean to imply lions are cannibals (i don't know) but that carrion birds will eat them. then, your choice of words becomes important: 'partake' instead of participate. however, we're 'partaking' of the food chain (eating things in it) instead of also contributing to it (hence my lion example- er, i guess it was yours first?). we only take, but we don't give back. i don't necessarily think this wrong- but i think that combined with the meat-culture the way it is today (that's easy enough for defining mass consumerism, right?), it creates serious problems. that flows nicely into the suffering: animal suffering, unfortunately, is not so much used any of these nice 'dying with dignity' ways you imply exist. humyn suffering: you continue to deny the sexual politics of meat, but they're there; in addition (i believe?) the connection to world hunger was articulated earlier, and of course, the health benefits of vegetarianism are (more mildly) grouped here too. finally, when we talk of environmental destruction we mean blood run off, forest destruction, and over fishing.
on the science / philosophy parts: my voice on this does not need to be restated, having most everything i feel about it written earlier. some notes, though: on time i only meant to mention how it's not consistently linear.. oh who cares anymore. on cause and effect: why mainstream? on the irreducible Fact: i guess that means you don't wanna talk about it? on observation: i just used that word because i thought i would appeal to your continually asserted 'scientific' side- observation being the definition of science. allow me to repeat (haw, haw, i couldn't have said it better myself): "what i'm good for is offering theories the way they're logically strung together. that's why i refer you to people who know better than me about" err, science? ": lewis, adams, pirsig. thanks."

i really don't understand (and particularly don't care to) the throwing around of words like liberal and conservative.. i just really don't see how it helps anyone. you keep accusing me of being a liberal. ::shrugs::

Probably because you have livberal beliefs, whatever political afiliation you might call yourself.

on the topic of war: it admittedly can 'fix' things in the sense you named (now that i understand): slavery. however, you'll of course if you killed ([can't help myself] and ate) me that there'd be no conflict. naturally this is true, but useless unless you accept that decimating life to end a conflict is okay. a thing i don't.

Your opinion, not mine, not everyone else in the nation (necessarily).

i don't see why you won't play fair (though i do appreciate your last post being free of slurs against the mentally ill).

Because I know that if I play fair, you would force me into losing by playing unfair in your own ways. Fight fire with fire, as they always say.

on the topic of warrants: arguments have two parts, warrants and claims. claims are basically summaries or tag lines, and warrants are the evidence and (as i use the word more often) logical trails that lead to the claim as a conclusion. i don't know what you mean by justification: if that's it, then sure, justification.

justification is a warrant then, except using empirical and scientifically illustrated examples instead of merely logical thinking.

i didn't mean to imply lions are cannibals (i don't know) but that carrion birds will eat them. then, your choice of words becomes important: 'partake' instead of participate. however, we're 'partaking' of the food chain (eating things in it) instead of also contributing to it (hence my lion example- er, i guess it was yours first?). we only take, but we don't give back.

Except we do! It is, however, in a strangely different way than the way most animals do. Instead of allowing ourselves to return to the food chain by allowing more advanced carrion eaters to do so for us (excepting the Parsis), we return ourselves (typically) into the ground, where bacteria and worms and other LOWER life-forms have a chance to breed and survive on our flesh. they, in turn, fertilize the soil for plants. Which in turn helps feed smaller animals. Contrary to what you seem to believe, there is NO way (short of sending our bodies into space) that will NOT return our bodies to the food chain!

i don't necessarily think this wrong- but i think that combined with the meat-culture the way it is today (that's easy enough for defining mass consumerism, right?), it creates serious problems.

These problems are unwarranted. See above. We DO return to the food chain.

that flows nicely into the suffering: animal suffering, unfortunately, is not so much used any of these nice 'dying with dignity' ways you imply exist.

Please restate this sentence. The grammatical errors in it confuse me.

humyn suffering: you continue to deny the sexual politics of meat, but they're there;

You believe they are. I believe they aren't. The sexual politics of meat are philosophical and psychological in nature, and thus more open to interpretation.

in addition (i believe?) the connection to world hunger was articulated earlier, and of course, the health benefits of vegetarianism are (more mildly) grouped here too.

Perhaps, but then we return to other issues such as the inability of countries to properly distribute food to the hungry because of political reasons and greed. Vegetarianism alone can't and won't solve world hunger.

finally, when we talk of environmental destruction we mean blood run off, forest destruction, and over fishing.

Blood runoff is not harmful in anyway. Blood is actually fertilizer. Nice nutrients you see. After all, they ARE cells. The latter two are more pressing concerns, but at least one of them (forest destruction) can be eliminated by replanting the trees you cut down (did you know that there are so many trees in Alaska that even if you could cut them all down (which you environmentalists won't let us do by the way) and you replanted a tree for every one you cut down, by the time you get halfway through cutting down all of Alaska's lumber, the first trees you replanted would be old-growth forests? Over fishing is the only serious concern. Though vegetarianism can help, restricting fish eating alone could also help, or at least restricting the harvesting of such from the oceans.

on the science / philosophy parts: my voice on this does not need to be restated, having most everything i feel about it written earlier. some notes, though: on time i only meant to mention how it's not consistently linear..

Do you mean to say that time machines can exist? *snicker*

oh who cares anymore. on cause and effect: why mainstream?

WQell, I suppose mainstream doesn't matter. But a science that is generally perceived as a credible one sure.

on the irreducible Fact: i guess that means you don't wanna talk about it?

Not particularly interested in getting into a long conversation on that, no.

on observation: i just used that word because i thought i would appeal to your continually asserted 'scientific' side- observation being the definition of science. allow me to repeat (haw, haw, i couldn't have said it better myself): "what i'm good for is offering theories the way they're logically strung together. that's why i refer you to people who know better than me about" err, science? ": lewis, adams, pirsig. thanks."

I may or may not investigate.

please don't label me liberal 'cause i hold (apparently) liberal beliefs on a single topic. or do, and just don't apply all the incompetence most modern day liberals have to strategic essentialize. er, on the play fair, i really want to discourage you from using slurs (i am so grateful you've behaved these last few post! ::huuugs::)- it really does no help to discussion. i can see to a point you view on the food chain (it's certainly creative), but i think it misses the main point: we aren't in the evolutionary chain any longer. we've become 'stewards' and we're bad at it (i believe).
animal suffering: you say that there's mostly painless ways of killing animals, and i contend that if they do exist, they are so much used. mass consumerism stacks them on top of each other in tiny cages and / or runs them through on conveyor belts; anal electrocutes or 'knocks' in the brain with a cyringe.
on the cause-effect science? you know what's fun? non-euclidian geometries! and at long last, i hope you do investigate =)
thanks so much for the (quite long) time and logical effort!

please don't label me liberal 'cause i hold (apparently) liberal beliefs on a single topic. or do, and just don't apply all the incompetence most modern day liberals have to strategic essentialize.

Most liberals whine. You, (thank god_ don't seem to. You just put up a half decent argument (if an annoying one)

er, on the play fair, i really want to discourage you from using slurs (i am so grateful you've behaved these last few post! ::huuugs::)- it really does no help to discussion.

I apologize for attacking you, but on these issues, such things will happen. I honestly don't care what you believe, as long as you don't force me to believe what you do.

i can see to a point you view on the food chain (it's certainly creative), but i think it misses the main point: we aren't in the evolutionary chain any longer. we've become 'stewards' and we're bad at it (i believe).

Perhaps if you see it in that wya, then yes. The way I see it, we give back pretty well. Certainly there are environmental blunders, but those are unrelated to the issue at hand (meat-eating).

animal suffering: you say that there's mostly painless ways of killing animals, and i contend that if they do exist, they are so much used.

You still don't make sense. Do you mean to say that they are not used often?

mass consumerism stacks them on top of each other in tiny cages and / or runs them through on conveyor belts; anal electrocutes or 'knocks' in the brain with a cyringe.

This again seems to mostly stem from anti-meat-eating sources. I've seen nothing to support or dispute your claims otherwise. But if you were of the belief that animals can be raised in cages, think again. Most cattle raisers know that you can't have good sales of your cows (i.e. they don't have enough meat) if you leave them in cages.

on the cause-effect science? you know what's fun? non-euclidian geometries!

They are amusing.

and at long last, i hope you do investigate =)
thanks so much for the (quite long) time and logical effort!

I will likely disagree for the rest of my life, but hey, that is the nature of political debates. They rarely, if ever, win anyone over.

On channel 1288 (Samoeria TV) President Somebody Or Other goes up onto a podium to speak to his nation. "A member of the UN has recently suggested a ban on eating meat, this is a horrible violation of human rights to eat what you want. Samoeria, as a one of the leading supporters of human rights, is apalled by this." [cheers]. "Heheheh, that oughta keep the cattle at bay... YOU'RE STILL ROLLING!?!?!? TURN THE CAMERA OFF YOU MORON!!!"

The Government of Panthea will neither endorse nor deny the rights of the population to be omnivours, carnivours or vegetarians.

We DO require our school children to see where and how their foods are processed so they can appreciate the process involved and, in the case of animal products, can possibly thank the animals for their gifts to us as the children develope their own spiritual paths.

We also would like to officially thank all of you vegetarians out there for allowing us a greater share of the meat available.

"You, (thank god_ don't seem to. You just put up a half decent argument (if an annoying one)" aww =) you're being nice! ::is flattered::
let me just say on the slur issue: it isn't me i'm concerned so much about, but the impact of the language on readers. there isn't any reason (and you're finally playing fair!) to bring in derogatory lies (in fact, i notice, once you dropped them you geared up on the logic part. cool).
::laughs:: i guess on the animal suffering thing i can't seem to spit out a decent sentence. i do mean that they aren't used. yes. that.
did you know that the cattleme/n's beef board, national catteleme/n's beef association, and the lobby group voice of agriculture are all totally silent on the issues of animal treatment? they provide absolutely no code of standards or even aspired-to ethics. no wonder the evidence appears so one sided. i also maintain that the authors on the topic who've looked into it have been convinced: that's why nobody writes with warrants- er, justifications?- on why eating meat is okay. (not nobody: i've read a few articles [with fatal flaws] on why vegetarianism kills more animals than meat-eating [the fatal flaws being this: first, all that farming that goes on to feed veggies still goes on, only to feed animals, in meat-eating, and secondly not all farming is performed the way the thing described with pesticides, er...weed..icides.., and heavy equipment]).
you know, it's true that political debate rarely changes a person's mind. ..that's debating, anyway. in the end, you and i may disagree, but the arguments are laid bare for other people to evaluate. the seeds have been sown! and you and i both are better critical thinkers for it. thanks for your time and thought!

"You, (thank god_ don't seem to. You just put up a half decent argument (if an annoying one)" aww =) you're being nice! ::is flattered::

Well, I'm trying ^^;;;;

let me just say on the slur issue: it isn't me i'm concerned so much about, but the impact of the language on readers. there isn't any reason (and you're finally playing fair!) to bring in derogatory lies (in fact, i notice, once you dropped them you geared up on the logic part. cool).

when you get tired because of other work you're doing and you don't have time to get riled up, things like this happen @_@

::laughs:: i guess on the animal suffering thing i can't seem to spit out a decent sentence. i do mean that they aren't used. yes. that.
did you know that the cattleme/n's beef board, national catteleme/n's beef association, and the lobby group voice of agriculture are all totally silent on the issues of animal treatment? they provide absolutely no code of standards or even aspired-to ethics. no wonder the evidence appears so one sided.

I can't vouch for them, but it seems like either they think it is a non-issue, or they know that everything that anyone says regarding it is most likely based on hearsay rather than actual inspection of practices during the past 10 years.

i also maintain that the authors on the topic who've looked into it have been convinced: that's why nobody writes with warrants- er, justifications?- on why eating meat is okay.

Perhaps they haven't been convinced, but the majority of arguments for meat eating are either based on freedom of choice or merely have to fend off the more bogus accusations made by vegetarians. Nothing book worthy I imagine.

(not nobody: i've read a few articles [with fatal flaws] on why vegetarianism kills more animals than meat-eating [the fatal flaws being this: first, all that farming that goes on to feed veggies still goes on, only to feed animals, in meat-eating

I would maintain that it doesn't hold with cattle (being grazers on grasses, which tend to grow naturally. Hay would probably be the exception to the rule.), though you may be more correct with other livestock. The more troublesome side of the argument is whether or not MORE vegetables would need to be grown to counteract the lowering of the need for livestock (and thus more animals killed through such practiced). Noone seems to be able to truthfully prove either way with solid relatively unbiased facts.

, and secondly not all farming is performed the way the thing described with pesticides, er...weed..icides.., and heavy equipment]).

Not all, but any type of farming with high yields would pretty much need those things (so if you don't want to do that, you cut back on the yields of produce, and actually potentially hurt your claim that we could solve hunger with 10% of the country being vegetarian. Depends on whether those figures assume 100% low yields or the current higher yields. If the 10% figure assumes high yields, then the actual figure would be higher if you don't want high yields through pesticides and heavy equipment and so forth.)

you know, it's true that political debate rarely changes a person's mind. ..that's debating, anyway. in the end, you and i may disagree, but the arguments are laid bare for other people to evaluate. the seeds have been sown! and you and i both are better critical thinkers for it. thanks for your time and thought!

No problem. It's always better to judge when presented both sides of an argument than to be given only one side that attempts to render all the other side's POTENTIAL arguments invalid without the other side having a chance to make a logical response on whatever argument is trying to be rendered invalid.

at last it's being fun =)
those cattlefolk, i wrote them a letter asking about ethical treatment practices, and they haven't responded =\
it should be noted on free choice that many of us rather 'militant' (i use it loosely) vegetarians actually don't go around trying to obstruct free choice. my own personal stance on 'spreading' vegetarianism is individual advocacy (largely because it's the only effective method). my own decision to switch i know was very deeply personal, tied closely to my morals and ethics. the existence (like it or not) of free choice doesn't, however, invalidate the arguments for a switch to veggie.
i never said a word about high yields =)
anyway, thanks again for the time and thought.

In the United Socialist States of Pobyeda, meat-eating is "frowned upon". However, even though I myself am a vegetarian, I don't believe that you should govern other people's diets. Which is even more evidence that one's country is not necessarily a mirror reflection of its creator's views. Cheers! Vashe Zdarove.

Pigs are banned because they are genetically unclean. The consumption of pork raises the probability of giving birth to a child with a hormonal imbalance that increases the chances of him or her turning to homosexuality.


*spits out his bacon sandwhich,* wtf! :shock:

I agree.

And, Man is designed to survive eating meat and vegetables. Not just meat, not just vegetables. That is why I'm against eating meat.

Never.

What is this "healthier" propaganda? You're all suffering from deficiencies, especially iron deficiencies. You are weaker, and will live shorter, sicklier lives, as humans are omnivores.

Also, the so-called "ethical" viewpoint is hypocritical. What about the poor veggies? They're just as alive.

MEAT. MEAT. MEAT. MEAT. MEAT. MEAT.

it should be noted on free choice that many of us rather 'militant' (i use it loosely) vegetarians actually don't go around trying to obstruct free choice.

However, you do support such a resolution as proposed as the bass of this thread, yes?

my own personal stance on 'spreading' vegetarianism is individual advocacy (largely because it's the only effective method).

Seems likely to me. The more you fight, the less people want to join (though that doesn't mean I'm more likely to give up my meat eating ways >D)

the existence (like it or not) of free choice doesn't, however, invalidate the arguments for a switch to veggie.

No. It merely makes them more pertinent, and more likely to be proven false if based on incomplete scientific proof.

i never said a word about high yields =)

I know. I'm just making a point that higher yields are nade possible due to the farming techniques that do result in the deaths of the mice and so forth. Lower yields are found otherwise (in my opinion) and that means more land must be dedicated to farming in order to solve the "hunger" issue, even while ignoring the fact that other countries may make it difficult enough to feed the hungry.

Vegetables and non-meat foods are good for you, sure, but there are certain vitamins and minerals (especially protein) that you can get primarily from meat. Sure you can get protein from eggs and beans, but if you're vegan, then no eggs, and you have to eat a lot of beans to equal the protein in a steak. Why not eat meat? The animals have already been killed, so why waste the food? Also, it is much easier to raise animals than to grow crops and animals yield greater products.

allow me to debunk your outrageous theory on the protein myth. according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.

er, whoops =) i actually didn't even join the discussion (quite on purpose) until something was said about language, and i was dragged deeper on the topic of objectification. i can't remember if saw or endorsed it as a proposal, but if it went to vote, i probably would affirm it. i guess what i basically wanted to aid in this discussion was the merits of vegetarianism on a micropolitical level: i don't know so much about the rest. as i said, my own advocacy is on an individual level.

If meat is murder, is milk rape?

The V.L.O. who's status in the U.N. is currently pending, suggests that a voting and active member of the U.N. add an additional clause dictating the cessation of eating fruits and vegetables - with said ammendment to go into effect upon the 40th year following the passing of the resolution.

Furthermore, said ammendment will dedicate 8 billion in funds toward genetic research to advanced the human species and enable it to photosynthesize and thus produce it's own food supply.

To quote a great speaker... "Not eating meat is a choice. Eating meat is an instinct." - Denis Leary

I Love Meat! I mean if you eat too many vegetables your poop gets all squishy, then there is the chaffing :cry: , and all of those wonderful times when you thought that you were farting and you ended up having to soak your undies in bleach overnight.... :oops: Meat never does that to you.
There was actually a case in which a vegetarian turned orange from eating too many carrots. He had developed keratosis.
It was not fatal.
But he could no longer wear blue denim without creating a blinding color clash.

If meat were banned people would not be able to use the atkins diet to treat their crippling weight problem. Therefore, i move for a provision that would allow medicinal meat. :wink:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

If meat were banned people would not be able to use the atkins diet to treat their crippling weight problem. Therefore, i move for a provision that would allow medicinal meat. :wink:

You could pull it off with beans. But it is problematic (and soemthing I was thinking about when the protein point was raised). My parents are pretty much on an Atkins diet, some I'm fairly aware of what's going on on that side. They could manage to do it without meat... But it's rather difficult.

And what would the people do who support this proposal if we tried to ban their vegetables? You can't take away someones right to eat what he/she wants.

There is nothing wrong with meat. It is not the cause of obesity. People not getting enough exercise is the cause of obesity. Sure you can stop eating meat. And you probably will lose some weight. This does not mean that you are healthy. Your cardiovascular system will still be in terrible state if you do not exercise.

For those of you who want it banned because you think that it is cruel to the animals, just try not to think about it is all i can tell you. These animals have no other purpose but to be eaten. If they were allowed to go free some other animal would eat them and they would be extinct in a matter of years.

NO NO NO NO

Steak is GOOD :)

allow me to debunk your outrageous theory on the protein myth. according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.

We eat both, and as such get the nutrient benefit of both. You're grasping at straws.

Even though it would produce a great uproar in any country if meat was banned, there really is no argument against not eating it. I've been vegetarian for 14 years now and have never had any health problems due to my diet and nor do I look like an American (disgustingly obese, on average).
I went veggie on principle.
1. Who says we have any right to kill any other creature for any reason? Nobody/nothing. If an animal kills a person, we kill the animal. I thought revenge was one of the seven deadly sins? If so and you believe in God, you are then going against God's word. Because it is REVENGE.
2. If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so.
3. Do we need to eat meat to survive? No, as proved by millions of vegetarians. People eat meat because in the olden days, they needed to. Now, we don't.
The way I see it is that vegetarianism is a form of mental evolution. We have gone beyond that ancient thinking. We don't have the right to decide on any other creature's life. Other animals do because they don't have the mental capacity (or are not omni/herbivores) to be able to.
Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.

your whole argument is blatantly hypocritical... if you find that killing all other living things is cruel, even little fishies, then leave vegetables alone! year after year, billions of innocent vegetables, fruit plants and grains are mercilessly harvested and consumed in mass quantities by ruthless vegetarians... STOP THE SLAUGHTER!

come on people, if you're going to get all worked up about killing living things, why not go all the way and just eat dirt and rocks and drink water? meat eating is a natural, healthy thing to do, and noone has the right to say it is or isnt (i.e. its a personal choice)

oh, and as a side note on your first point, even though some animals have killed humans, thus making the killing of animals an indirect means of revenge, i'm sure many people have been crushed by trees and died from ingesting poisonous materials from plants, thus making vegetarianism equally as vengeful

ya'll need to figure out the difference between 'living' and 'sentient.'

Even though it would produce a great uproar in any country if meat was banned, there really is no argument against not eating it. I've been vegetarian for 14 years now and have never had any health problems due to my diet and nor do I look like an American (disgustingly obese, on average).
I went veggie on principle.
1. Who says we have any right to kill any other creature for any reason? Nobody/nothing. If an animal kills a person, we kill the animal. I thought revenge was one of the seven deadly sins? If so and you believe in God, you are then going against God's word. Because it is REVENGE.
2. If a person kills another person, do you then have the right to kill the killer? No, (unless you are in mediaeval Texas), you will be imprisoned for it and rightly so.
3. Do we need to eat meat to survive? No, as proved by millions of vegetarians. People eat meat because in the olden days, they needed to. Now, we don't.
The way I see it is that vegetarianism is a form of mental evolution. We have gone beyond that ancient thinking. We don't have the right to decide on any other creature's life. Other animals do because they don't have the mental capacity (or are not omni/herbivores) to be able to.
Oh and by the way, people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish are not vegetarians. They still eat killed animals.

While I did enjoy the remark about killing animals being a sin (very good Bible skills), I am offended by your remark about Texas. We're not heartless killers. Why does everyone always pick on Texas? The freakin' Simpsons pick on Texas. I do know that we have a rather embarrassing reputation for executing people, but still. That's just our court system... And I am for compulsory vegetarianism.

i have 6 reasons to reject meat eating and become vegetarian. they are as follows:

1. it's bad for you.
the hormones pumped into livestock as a means to 'enrich' them are not meant to be consumed by huymns. red meat, because of this, is the only known cause of breast and colon cancer. children are developing at earlier ages each year due to the consumption of hormones found in chicken. these hormones are not made for your body. everyone likes to throw the 'argument' out there that you should eat meat 'because it tastes good.' ever wonder why this is? we've even altered the language to make up this word 'meat', so we don't have to call this food 'fried animal flesh' or 'a patty of dead animal flesh'. does that sound appealing? would you cut off an arm of a dead humyn, throw it on the grill and eat it? of course not. meat 'tastes good' because of these hormones. humyns have become addicted to them, thus making this 'cooked animal flesh' appealing to us. but, like all addictions, this one can be overcome. before the ketchup goed on a hamburger, do you know what gives it flavor? the feces and blood from the animal which have gotten mixed in during the slaughtering process. ohh, slaughtering process, brings me to point number two.

2. it's cruel.
anal electrocution is the current slaughtering technique used on cattle farms. basically, an electric rod is inserted into the anus of the animal, and an electric shock them follows which destroys the nervous system. the animals bowels are released, all the while the animal is letting out a high pitched scream. pigs are raised in crates that do not allow them to be mobile, resulting in deformities. it has been proven also, that fish can feel pain when killed in the sea. the cruelty of animals is endless; these are just a few examples.

3. precious land is destroyed.
acres of rainforest are cut down daily, yielding to slaughtering grounds which in turn, only pollute the soil, ruining it. the feces and blood left over from a slaughter destroy the ground on in which the facility is located.

4. world hunger.
if a mere 10% of the united states population would become vegetarians, we could wipe out world hunger. if we shut down these slaugtering grounds, and reclaimed the land, it would enable us to grow produce and grains that would be sent to starving nations. only 10%, and we would wipe out hunger. that's reason enough.

5. conservation. these days water is extremely precious and growing so by the mintue. it takes 10 times the amount of water to produce a pound of meat, as it does for a pound of grain. this by definition then leads to making a vegetarian diet less costly than a meat based diet.

6. here's the kicker: absent refer. (objectification is bad)
a reaction takes place in every humyn's mind when there eyes look upon meat. it's called an 'abset refer'. it is the same reaction that takes place everytime you objectify something, whether it be murdering someone, or looking at pornography. we have become this way sever since aristotle divided the world into subject and object. when you look at meat, you see it as an object, thus allowing you to consume it.

to pre empt arguments i think will be brought up, i will try and answer as best as possible. i have already addressed the 'argument' that meat tastes good, thus we should eat it. another, is the concern that without meat, humyns are unable to obtain the daily amount of nutrition recommened. the truth is, meat eaters consume more than twice the amount of protein one needs to stay healthy. there is nothing, absolutely nothin,g that cannot be obtained from other foods. many of my friends eat veggie, and we are all very healthy. refer to point number one, and see on the contrary, we are more healthy than meat eaters.

every point i have made is warranted, and if you would like further information, or the source of where i obtained them, feel free to ask and i would be more than happy to post a link to anything you are hesitant to believe.

i thank you for your time, and i would love to recieve responses for a good discussion.

sincerely,
the curious ant


That's kind of running reading this.

1. If I remember correctly, plants also produce hormones. It is one of the largest ways they reproduce. They use it to attract animals too. I think there are a lot of hormone replacement drugs made from plants.

I call it animal flesh. It doesn't bother me. As for eating humans, it would be tempting if they didn't carry so many illnesses and all the "Mad Human" scares. I see a constant reference to "feces." What do you think fertilizer is?

2. Pigs are raised in cages and pens because they are cannibals. They will eat other pigs, especially their young. Mother pigs will eat their own offspring.

3. If we didn't kill and eat them, they would bring about the end of the world... Livestock, especially cows, produce around 90% of all the greenhouse gases like methane in the atmosphere.

4. Being a vegitarian is a luxury. In the United States, large amounts of agriculture can be produced. Much of the land in the United States is suitable to agricultural. Many countries cannot produce near as much.

5. Then why are many vegitable cost prohibitive? In some countries, a single apple cost well over $10. The same thing for all vegitation except maybe grass.

6. Early "humyn" (as you spell it) hunted for food. That is as simple as it gets. Many many generations later, they were able to domesticate crops and animals. I'm sure they looked the animals in the eye when they hunted and killed them. Some "object." As for your "healthier" argument, back in the day, "humyns" needed the protein in meat to even get their food. How many vegitarians run their own farms? It takes a lot of energy that very few vegitables provide.

All I can say is "Do you want fries with that?"

1- my forte isn't the science, and so i'm going to try a little logic on this (just for a spin). the difference between animal and plant hormones is that plants circulate theirs by diffusion and animals circulate theirs by blood stream. as far as i can tell, it seems that our bodies can pass plant hormones like fiber. there's no place for it to go in our bodies; nothing to tell 'grow roots.' however, with animal hormones, they have at least the potential to severely mutate our bodies (breast and colon cancers) because we have some similar parts to the animals that, er, are eaten.
2- i don't know about the pigs, either, but it's ultimately irrelevant to unethical treatment. separation is not the main contention: it's confinement, poor quality of life, and painful (read also: reasonless) execution.
3- retrace your logic another step: if we didn't -breed- them to be killed and eaten, there wouldn't be so many to be producing greenhouse gas. also, cutting back on greenhouse gas won't matter if it's not combined with oxygen production. we need forests in a way we can't need cattle grazing land. also, the effects of overfishing should not be overlooked!
4- if by agriculture you mean plant farming, then your being right would either be irrelevant to or support for the argument made.
5- if you explain where and why the cost of vegetation is so high, we can look at how that fits into the argument. even so, it doesn't change the fact that drastically less water is required for the production of a veggie diet than is required for the production of a meat diet.
6- i fail to see how early people and modern people are at all practicing the same style of meat consumption. i would even for myself contend that meat eating has not always by necessity been unethical, but that an aristotelian reality has been the conductor to make it so (yea for pirsig).
_ on health: if you look back a few posts at my response to highwind boku, you'll see all the answer you could want to the protein pillar. on energy, a body makes it from calories. in theory, eating enough of anything with calories to meet your age, weight, activity level, et cetera -precipitated need isn't usually tough. (in theory) a person could acquire all the calories they need from- that's right- anything with calories.
_ no =)

*the ambasador to the UN for Old brittania takes a stand and starts his speach*
it is completely and utterly rediculous to suggest all animal eating should be outlawed it is well known that meat is an efficient source of protein and not only do our bodies require it for healthy consumption then our ecomomies or at least some of them thrive on the meat industry it would be an international disaster to outlaw meat,
some of the more fragile UN members would be hit extremely awfully remember not everyone can produce a sifficient amount of crops to feed their population such as waterlogged hilly nations

i completely disagree with this notion the empire of old brittania will not follow this if made a resolution

*patriotically eats a steak and kidney pie*

I'm just gonna pick and chgoose my battles, since these aren't arguments to me directly (and some of the other anti-vegetarian arguments are admittedly pretty stupid)

ya'll need to figure out the difference between 'living' and 'sentient.'

Some would argue that most animals aren't sentient (based on different opinions on what sentient means).

however, with animal hormones, they have at least the potential to severely mutate our bodies

Just because there's the potential, based on analogous body parts doesn't necessarily mean that they do. I greater chance does not mean it will.

it's confinement

Confinement leads to poor quality meat from the confined animal. Most animals bred for meat are not confined (unless the breeder is pretty stupid)

poor quality of life

Quality of life is relative, particularly for animals that we cannot easily sympathize with (not being that animal and being about to properly judge what a good quality of life is for that animal. By making quality of life judgments on animals, you are likely to make mistakes, not being one of those animals yourself.)

and painful (read also: reasonless) execution.

Reasonless (in your opinion) "execution" does not mean the "execution" is particularly painful (as you imply). It's difficult to judge if an "execution" really is painful, as a quicker death will actually make a death less painful (less time to feel pain).

if by agriculture you mean plant farming, then your being right would either be irrelevant to or support for the argument made.

Not sure what the argument is, but his argument could be used to nullify any argument that would state that vegetarianism is now possible because eating meat is no longer necessary (his argument would be that in poorer rgions, they can't afford the necessary supplements to go to vegetarianism full time.).

sentience- by sentient, i mean having the ability to feel pain. that's a key difference between animals and plants.
hormones- i only speak with reservation where i'm not scientifically educated because i don't want to overstate.
Quality with a captial Q, damn it- Quality is the word i use to describe a reunion between subject and object: what you're doing is make quality seem unimportant by making it fit beneath subject (which is the perception of object) in the aristotelian reality. pirsig rectifies this so that Quality's at the top and subject and object are equal (ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE). in that sense, quality of life is -not- relative. the analogy you give destroys all empathy ever and we just might as well keep our traps such and never talk about anything but ourselves ever again.
execution: by reasonless i mean to illustrate how the very existence of healthy vegetarianism makes meat-eating unnecessary. then you (perhaps unknowingly) put forth a measurement of pain which is very bad: deciding between the length of pain and the amount of pain is not always so easy (id est, would i rather be poked by a paper clip for a year or set on fire for a day?). =)
i don't see what supplements you mean. finally, the argument i was addressing was oppressed possums's four: 'being veggie is a luxury.' they said that the a lot of US land is good for 'agriculture,' about which i was unclear (plant, or animal?), and that not all countries were so well endowed. the four they were addressing with this was the combatting of world hunger. if the argument were true (i don't so much care right now), it's either irrelevant (so what? how does that mean that the US couldn't reclaim its animal farms and make them plant farms and fight hunger with that?) or support for the very argument (if the US has all this great land, then hey, we could use it to fight hunger!).
thanks again =)

sentience- by sentient, i mean having the ability to feel pain. that's a key difference between animals and plants.

Others would believe that sentience is the capability to verbally differentiate right from wrong.

Quality with a captial Q, damn it- Quality is the word i use to describe a reunion between subject and object: what you're doing is make quality seem unimportant by making it fit beneath subject (which is the perception of object) in the aristotelian reality.

You're starting to banter off into apparent mumble-jumble again. In any case, to simplify: quality of life (in my opinion) is dependent on the subject whose life is being judged. For a dog, living with a pack that cares about it is good quality of life. A cow is not necessarily the same way, and certainly not cats. quality of life is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand.

pirsig rectifies this so that Quality's at the top and subject and object are equal (ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE). in that sense, quality of life is -not- relative.

It's only absolute if subject and object are equal. Exactly. However, I maintain that humans cannot consider themselves fundamentally equal to an animal (there are certain equivalent parts, but there are other aspects that prevent a human from being considered the same as other animals (and thus making it difficult to safely say that quality of life is absolute). Whether or not quality of life is absolute depends on how equal you say we are to animals.

the analogy you give destroys all empathy ever and we just might as well keep our traps such and never talk about anything but ourselves ever again.

If it works. ^_^

execution: by reasonless i mean to illustrate how the very existence of healthy vegetarianism makes meat-eating unnecessary.

Unnecessary, yes. Unworthy of use as a personal lifestyle, no.

then you (perhaps unknowingly) put forth a measurement of pain which is very bad: deciding between the length of pain and the amount of pain is not always so easy (id est, would i rather be poked by a paper clip for a year or set on fire for a day?). =)

It is difficult. In either case, a day in an arbitrarily long period of time. I would say it would be comparable to a pencil eraser poking you for a year and a paper cut.

i don't see what supplements you mean.

Vitamins, so as to supplement the diet and replace what essential vitamins and minerals they do not get. After all, most people in the world cannot be bothered with having to remember to thatk eht right supplements every day. They have much more pressing issues. Meat-eating may in fact, be easier and more beneficial in this case (as it reduces the need for monitoring your diet to ensure you get the right nutrients)

finally, the argument i was addressing was oppressed possums's four: 'being veggie is a luxury.' they said that the a lot of US land is good for 'agriculture,' about which i was unclear (plant, or animal?), and that not all countries were so well endowed. the four they were addressing with this was the combatting of world hunger. if the argument were true (i don't so much care right now), it's either irrelevant (so what? how does that mean that the US couldn't reclaim its animal farms and make them plant farms and fight hunger with that?) or support for the very argument (if the US has all this great land, then hey, we could use it to fight hunger!).

Alright. I was uncertain. However, my argument on the subject of difficulty in moderating diet (for people in third-world countries) is indeed a concern, and certainly something to consider in supporting any broad proposal as the on e that formed the basis of this thread. I will make no claims that it is just as impossible to moderate a diet in a first-world country (pre-existing vegetarians are proof of that), but I can and will claim that there are many people who simply cannot/do not want to be bothered with monitoring their diet to ensure they get all of the required nutrients. I am not saying that is necessarily healthy to not pay attention, but I am saying that it could be potentially much more of a hassle for those who know and eat well enough proper diets WITHOUT having to monitor diet intake.

Here is a true news item by way of the Cyantian Chronicles forum:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tree That Give Meat Instead Of Fruit!
Friday May 16, 2003




By MICHAEL CHIRON

MANCHESTER, England -- Here's some good news that vegetarians can really sink their teeth into: Researchers have developed genetically engineered fruit trees that bear real meat!

Fruit from the new Meat Trees, developed by British scientists using gene-splicing technology, closely resembles ordinary grapefruit. But when you peel the large fruit open, inside is fresh beef.

"Our trees may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but it's really a simple, down-to-earth idea whose time has come," declares Dr. Vincent Tartley, director of agricultural bioengineering research for the UltraModAgri Group, which created the amazing trees.

"Vegetarians have been complaining for years that despite their moral convictions against consuming meat, they still crave the flavor of a good steak once in a while. Now they can have their cake and eat it too."

Although it's taken 12 years to develop the trees, the concept is simple.

"We take the genes from cattle that produce key proteins and splice them into the reproductive cells of grapefruit trees," he says. "When the seeds mature into trees, instead of producing ordinary citrus fruit, the pulp contains meat. You get the flavor, texture -- even the smell."

Those who've sampled the meat agree it tastes like the real thing.

"I was a bit skeptical at first when I sank my teeth into a hamburger after they told me it grew on a tree," says Londoner Mark Basker, 41, who participated in a consumer taste-test. "But it was juicy and delicious -- nothing leafy about it at all."

Meat grown on trees needs only sun, water and fertilizer and thus is more cost-effective than raising livestock, Dr. Tartley also points out.

Meat Tree products could be on the market in Great Britain by year's end and, pending USDA approval, on dinner plates in the U.S. by 2005.

Some fanatical vegetarians insist they could never eat meat -- even if it grew on a tree and no animals had to be killed. Others love the idea.

"My mouth is watering already," says a committed vegetarian of 20 years.

But religious leaders are uneasy about "trans-species genetic engineering." "Mixing animal and vegetable DNA to create a new species is playing God," argues Rev. Lawrence Bedlow, Britain's leading expert in medical ethics.

Why do I smell onions? Oh, never mind, it's just the Weekly World News (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030516/105309720008.html)

OOC: :shock: Do you mean to tell me the initials PETA do not stand for People Eating Tasty Animals? A website lied to me?

These are general OOC thoughts on random topics brought up in the previous posts. Sorry but there are too many to quote directly...

As a former hunter, I never objectify my kill, I thank it for every lifegiving mouthful, Nor do I think the meat of my deer, rabbit, wild turkey, etc., tastes good because of any added hormones. And I am a former hunter due to life situations, not out of any belief that I shouldn't hunt or fish (I still track wild game for photos because it is fun).

I do agree that cattle take up an inordinate amount of resources to bring each pound of flesh to market. Rabbits and ducks are much more efficient to raise for meat but the American public isn't interested. That also doesn't mean I am prepared to give up my burnt-on-the-outside, bloody-on-the-inside T-bone just yet!

As for humans giving back to the cycle of life & death, in most of America we do not. When we die, the body gets pumped full of chemicals to temporarily preserve the body then aid in decomposition a few days later. This would be fine except most, if not all communities require the body be buried in a fashion that keeps our meat as far away from the "natural" earth as possible to avoid any possible contamination. Many areas require interrment of the coffin in a concrete vault. Or we get cremated but are not allowed to scatter the ashes without a lot of red-tape. Heck, most of us don't even recycle our food in compost heaps, so I guess not allowing our bodies to become compost is just more of the same.

I just do not see where either side has the God/dess given right to tell the other side what they can or cannot eat. And I will defend your right to choose FOR YOUR SELF to the best of my abilities.

:cry: Ban eating meat.... Yeah...Ok....Why? Because you feel sorry for the animals?!!!! WWaaaahhhh..WWaaaahhh..WWaaaahhhh.. :cry: Poor animals, I feel so sad for them.

If you ban meat eating then not only do you take away peoples rights to choose but you also put animals that are farmed for meat at risk of extinction. Many of these animals no longer have a place in the wild due to their dependancy on those who farm them. If they were no longer profitable for farmers to raise then they could well end up being wiped out.

Queen Freyja Wolff V

Much of the current large scale farming uses genetically mutated crops now.

Doesn't that bother people? To be able to produce 100% of all of the food in the world, crops will still need to be further "enhanced" to further produce larger and larger yields.

One odd story comes to mind. As an "act of kindness," the President pardons a White House turkey. That poor thing lives a life of suffering as a result. As part of the practice, they pick the largest, plumpest turkey. Well, that turkey continues to grow because they breed them to grow big and die when it is time to be eaten. The turkey gets to the point where it's no longer able to stand.

If we ban meat eating, then are we condeming them to the same fate? That seems a little evil. Another direct side effect would be the introduction of larger numbers of predators. Wolves and coyotes will thrive until they bring the numbers into check then they would need other sources of food (maybe people).

I'd like to point out that a certain amount of meat is... nutritionally advisable. Since the brain is primarily made up of fatty tissue, a well-developed and well-functioning brain requires at least a nominal amout of fat in the diet. The best place to get this fat is in meat.

I'm sure this argument's been made, and I really hate the fact that I'm to lazy to go back and read the whole thing and I prefer not to be a "me too" kind of person, but evolutionarily speaking, the human body is designed for an omnivore diet-meat cutting teeth in the front, and vegitation-grinding teeth in the back.

Besides, if you're not convinced, I'd say, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of tasty, tasty meat"

Doesn't that bother people? To be able to produce 100% of all of the food in the world, crops will still need to be further "enhanced" to further produce larger and larger yields.

Actually, to keep the price of produce at a level that farmers can actually SURVIVE off of production, the United States government purchases a LARGE amount of all crops, and disposes of them into the ocean. Furthermore, it also pays a significant amount of the farming population to *not* grow on their land, again, raising the prices to a level where farming is actually profitable. If the need and the money were there, the united states-by itself-could easily feed the population of the world for years to come, and that is without any other farmland in the world being used for anything. Hunger in other countries is not a result of lack of food as much as an economic decision by governments in Europe and North America (canada does this too) to dispose of the food rather than ship it to people in need.

Right. We don't want our nations to end up like vegetarian India, do we? Thousands die when animals infest the cities. ARG!

all i have to say is support PETA, People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

Hoorah to that!

and another thing, i cant stand all these people who say not eating meat is good for you. I know that you can survive without meat, im not arguing that. What i mean is that meat contains essential protiens that take a good 7 to 8 hours for our system to break down. these (for the most part, im no nutritional scientist) can only be obtained through the consumption of meats, or through supplements. All that a non meat diet provides is a stream of carbohydrates and fibers, along with those nice vitamins and minerals. These break down much quicker, and thus do not prvide as much energy as meat. so as you see, meat is a much more efficent food source, when was the last time you saw a vegetarian body builder

lol. true true.

See, I'm against cruelty to animals, but I'm hardly against having a good
Thanksgiving dinner.

If we didn't kill the chickens (when we "ban" them), they would out number all other forms of life on the planet. To survive, they would move like a plague across the world and eat all vegitation.

I ran over a cat on the way to work today! :twisted: :lol:

Some day I want to tear apart my own cow and eat it (with a nearby fire for cooking, of course).

Actually, this proposal couldn't be passed. There was already a UN resolution that protected the rights of people to determintetheir own sexual orientation and thus a proposal for mandatory homosexuality has no grounds.

Actually, this proposal couldn't be passed. There was already a UN resolution that protected the rights of people to determintetheir own sexual orientation and thus a proposal for mandatory homosexuality has no grounds.


ROTFL! :twisted: That is TOO funny!

Actually, this proposal couldn't be passed. There was already a UN resolution that protected the rights of people to determintetheir own sexual orientation and thus a proposal for mandatory homosexuality has no grounds.
How true! I agree!

thanks. the point just had to be made. and yes, i know determinte isn't a word... i meant determine. however, a determinte does sound delicious right about now.

:x The fact that eating meat gives the population the necessary protines and enzimes to properly break down the meats into simple sugars.

The real issues is weather the human race will stay on the top of the food chain by eating all other types of life.

Who can claim that the fruits and vegitables don't have a soul or conscienceness? The reality of the issue is that most people choose to become vegatarians for the myth that it will make them healthier. But the true facts are that most vegan and vegatarians are more sickly and malnurished because of the lack of many animal fats, protein, amino acids, vitamins and minerals.

If for some un-godly reason you choose to do away with meat, you fill your body with synthetic vitamins and minerals to create the illusion of health in the consumer's mind. :wink:

:D The only reason to stop eating meat is to drink a nice cold beer then eat more meat.

:twisted: Eat animals! The utopia is in the 20 oz. T-bone, bake potato, salad and a nice pint of beer. :twisted:

*eats a big mac*

Red Meats contain great vitamins actually, and are especially good for your brain. Fish is also called a 'brain food' and so from this I can conclude that vegitarians are.... *drum roll* stupid. :D

I'm just joking, but yes meats contain great nutrician and when eaten in moderation can add to a very healthy lifestyle.


I support meating eating. I also support the right to choose what you eat.

~Korunida~

In the Kingdom of Scottoria, only the rich can afford to eat meat because of all the taxes on meat eating, the poor cannot afford it

Meat tastes like murder, and murder tastes goooooooood...

PETA= People Eating Tasty Animals :lol:

:? It is the resposibilty of the ruler to furnish the neccessities to the masses.

i'll eat anything or anybody i damn well please

Meat is murder, a GOOD kind!
My nation will never give up its carnivorus ways! :twisted:

The Parliament of Argyres will soon be considering a law banning vegetarianism and all forms of veganism :wink:

YOU SHOULD LOVE ANIMALS NOT EAT THEM! Did you know that most meat rots in your large intestines? Though we have eaten meat for millions of years our body is still not evolved enough to completely digest meat. :roll:

Is there really a distinction to be drawn between plants and animals? After all, both emerged from the primordial soup millions of years ago; and both are alive.

I think the argument is that one is more sentient than the other. However, I'd suggest listening to "Carrot Juice is Murder" by the Arrogant Worms, it may just open your eyes to the plight of our brothers and sisters in the ground. :>

I think the argument is that one is more sentient than the other. However, I'd suggest listening to "Carrot Juice is Murder" by the Arrogant Worms, it may just open your eyes to the plight of our brothers and sisters in the ground. :>

Amen to that! I played that song to a friend who is a vegan and he laughed his ass off!
:D

sentience- by sentient, i mean having the ability to feel pain. that's a key difference between animals and plants.

Definition from Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: sen·tience
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&n(t)s, 'sen-tE-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 1839
1 : a sentient quality or state
2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought

Plants grow better when you play certain types of music, they stop growing when you play other types of music. They grow toward light and away from darkness. What I'm getting at, is that all living things are sentient by the dictionary definition: one of the requirements of life is that it respond to stimulus, in order to respond to stimulus you must sense or feel said stimulus.

So, arguing that you only eat non-sentient things doesn't work.


Quality with a captial Q, damn it- Quality is the word i use to describe a reunion between subject and object: what you're doing is make quality seem unimportant by making it fit beneath subject (which is the perception of object) in the aristotelian reality. pirsig rectifies this so that Quality's at the top and subject and object are equal (ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE).


Philosophy is not science, beat this through your head. There is a subjective perception and an objective perception, you even objectify yourself when you're introspective (this is, of course, assuming you're introspective). It is natural to objectify. Do you think that dolphins think of the Orca as a subject when they kill it? No, they just kill it, it's an object, a threat to their species.

Your problem is that you think that perception of quality is the same as quality, Pirsig is wrong on this account. Quality is a sum of an objects attributes, ie: There isn't a nebulous OIIOness, nor an vegetarianess, which exists in space, it is an a priori concept that is imposed on our consciousness as a prerequisite for conscious thought. The ability to seperate an object from its ingredients. A simple test, are you your hand? If you lose your hand, are you still you? If a lion eats your hand, are you the excrement waste that is left after it digests? No, you're still yourself, minus one hand.


in that sense, quality of life is -not- relative. the analogy you give destroys all empathy ever and we just might as well keep our traps such and never talk about anything but ourselves ever again.


Ah, but perception is relative, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, you're mistaking quantity (length of life) with quality (a full life), animals bred for food aren't selected out by natural selection, they aren't eaten by predators because we protect them, they don't starve because we feed them. Breeding animals for slaughter is the ultimate welfare system, and it's completely utilitarian. They get several years of an easy life, and we gain the benefits of cheap and easily obtained nutrients.


execution: by reasonless i mean to illustrate how the very existence of healthy vegetarianism makes meat-eating unnecessary.


And the very existence of healthy carnivorism makes vegetarianism unnecessary. Necessity isn't why we eat meat, utility, and ease is why. Hell, we could all eat dirt and eventually we'd evolve to where we'd be able to gain proper nutrition from it just like worms do, why don't we, because it is easier and more beneficial to eat meat and vegetables.


then you (perhaps unknowingly) put forth a measurement of pain which is very bad: deciding between the length of pain and the amount of pain is not always so easy (id est, would i rather be poked by a paper clip for a year or set on fire for a day?). =)


You're making the same mistake by claiming that breeding animals for food is worse than making them compete. Which would you prefer, to live luxuriously for a few years, or live a hard life, fighting for food with others of your kind, hiding in fear from predators for decades?

so what? how does that mean that the US couldn't reclaim its animal farms and make them plant farms and fight hunger with that?) or support for the very argument (if the US has all this great land, then hey, we could use it to fight hunger!).
thanks again =)

So what? Just because we -can- do something doesn't mean we -must- do something. I have a cat at my feet right now, I -could- step on his head and it would piss him off, this doesn't, however, translate into a requirement for me to do so. It costs money and resources to grow food, why should we bear that cost for the "hungry" people when they've got food there they won't eat (for religious reasons or what have you)?

And further, as for granting animals human rights, do you propose that they should be able to vote? Should we start campaigning for the first Chihuahua president? Should they be able to drive? Should they be able to attend our public schools? After all, if you admit they have one right, it means you confer all rights to them.

I don't think they have human rights. Then again, I'm biased as a human. My foremost interest is maintaining the superiourity of the human race... not trying to save species that in the big picture, don't matter.

[OOC: I've been a (utilitiarian) vegetarian, I've also done work for the EPA, I've helped endangered species, I used to think that the environment needed human help in saving. Then the ecoterrorists pissed me off, and I read some real science, and I realised, first: Environmentalists aren't doing anything for then environment, they're making motions that don't do anything, second: That the planet will absorb any screw-up we make, and the only people who have to deal with it are us. If we kill ourselves off, the planet will eventually fix itself and go on. Third: Vegetarians are hypocrites unless they actually get out and do things to save endangered species, and no, throwing paint on old ladies' fur coats isn't doing anything to help you... it's ageist and sexist. (So take that you PC dunder-heads! )]

[Also OOC: I'd like to see environmentalists and vegetarians throw paint at bikers, that would be a laugh-riot. IMHO, YMMV, HAND]

In the Kingdom of Scottoria, only the rich can afford to eat meat because of all the taxes on meat eating, the poor cannot afford it

I hear poor people are a good source of meat.

YOU SHOULD LOVE ANIMALS NOT EAT THEM! Did you know that most meat rots in your large intestines? Though we have eaten meat for millions of years our body is still not evolved enough to completely digest meat. :roll:

Did you know that is a form of digestion? Technically, all food rots inside you...

well if they can talk, display intelligence, then we of Last Exile will not eat them, because they will become citzen of our nation.

If they don't fit the rules, then we can eat them!
Unfortunately due to this new law, we can't eat bimbos because by difinition they can communicate, a self-awareness, and a small display of pre-setient intelligence.
bah.

well if they can talk, display intelligence, then we of Last Exile will not eat them, because they will become citzen of our nation.

If they don't fit the rules, then we can eat them!
Unfortunately due to this new law, we can't eat bimbos because by difinition they can communicate, a self-awareness, and a small display of pre-setient intelligence.
bah.

In some cultures, they used to eat their dead out of respect. It's a way for them to always be with their friends and family.

In Qaaolchoura we disallow most meateating, but as some is allowed, I had to vote no. You should have added a third option.

Third option? You either eat meat or you don't....

I see no practical way to ban meat eating without supply the whole world with an alternative. (At your expense)

I see no practical way to ban meat eating without supply the whole world with an alternative. (At your expense)

Right, and that alternative had better either be pez or meat! Mmmm... cow-pez...

I see no practical way to ban meat eating without supply the whole world with an alternative. (At your expense)

Right, and that alternative had better either be pez or meat! Mmmm... cow-pez...

Exactly!!! How can we expect to ban meat if we cannot or do not supply everyone with something other than meat: vegitables or something.

meat is meat is meat, it's meant to be eaten

meat is meat is meat, it's meant to be eaten

I'm glad you cleared that up. I thought it was for throwing.

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

But animals are yummy...

Agreed.

All proposals about banning meat eating are banned.

Niallia doesn't give a fig what people eat, so long as they don't expect the Government to provide it for them.

:evil: coz i feel sorry 4 the anmails! :shock:

Your an ass. This isnt even something for the U.N. to be concerned about.

World hunger is a concern for the UN.

pages and pages. jeez. i think it's cute that so many of ya'll are so convinced in yourself and the people that you agree with that beginning a sentence with the phrase 'the fact is..' substitutes for warrants. cute.

as for the solitary analysis being made:
first you say that sentience resides in plants equally to animals because of response to stimuli, in which case i think you might be taking a poor definition of feeling. biologically, a nervous system is required for the feeling of pain: and pain not exclusively physical.
uhh, why isn't philosophy science? i also thought that objective perception what a contradiction in terms, being that objectivity = externalness, or something acted on (like grammatically). then you go confusing Quality all over again. neither do i see the delineation in function between a physical existence and a conceptual exitence of a priori things. i don't see the reason (or utility) in your (rhetorical?) questions either.
then you say perception is relative, which if true is redundant. then you paint a cute and untrue picture of food animals as living a life of luxury. if only it were true (perhaps this is why you have shifted back [have you?] to meat-eating: a utilitarian concept of pain and life). uh, i guess my parenthesis can be turned into an argument also by saying: even so? i alternately offer a deontological framework where revocation of sentient life ain't right. also, utilitarian, is convenience really the greatest good?
your inversion of my statement makes it lose all meaning. healthy carnivores depend entirely on healthy vegetarians. healthy vegetarians are independent of healthy carnivores. i don't know about this worm thing, but i'm guessing it's either untrue or irrelevant, seeing as how we're animals, and nonphotosynthetic.
you relapse into your pretty picture of luxurious life and before that the framework of pain i talked about earlier.
the ability to fight hunger should be combined with the obligation to fight hunger, a thing you are in your analogy. then, you allege the starving of our world as being self-imprisoned, refusing animals ("food"). this is almost never the case, and even were it, hinges on the humyn-centered conception of animals as food. this flows nicely to your next paragraphs.
the broadening and broadening of the term 'humyn rights' is tricky. the key to answering you back here is first to reject the notion that presidency, driving, voting, and public education are humyn rights, second to argue for the acknowledgement of the fundamental humyn right, right to life, and third to jack the humyn rights rhetoric and just call 'em rights.
you are indeed a biased humyn! but your interest need not be maintaining the superiority of your species (speciesist, yes, but also self destructing, we'll get there).
[1 i'm sorry the sad state of the movement upset you. i don't see why that means you abandon it's ideas, goals, or recourses altogether. 2 if you didn't notice, we all ready kind of have screwed up the planet quite a bit, and unless we reverse our trend it may not in fact recover. even if it is true that in killing ourselves off the planet will get on, it won't if we kill it and everything in it. 3 yes.]
finally, let's talk a little about how your mindset, humyn-superiority, causes all forms of domination! this is what happens explicitly when we talk about super awesome books like carol j adams's SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT. drawing on a more or less acceptable framework of subject and object, adams shows how dehumynization is the key to both meat eating and sexism. adams speaks specifically about the use of absent referents in meat-eating and the parallel use of them in sexism. where absent referents are less apparent, however, dehumynization makes a nice bridge too. conceiving of yourself as superior or more important than another person, on whatever grounds of differences, can only come from a framework where differences equal lesser. take a quick look at some racial, social, sexual, or gender slurs for a gruesome illustration of how negative separation from the ecosystem affects not just the environment, but the humyn species too.
thanks for writing. sorry i took so long to get back to you.

love.
-falaslonde

What the fuck is a humyn?

What the f--- is a humyn?

A member of the species Homo Politicus Correctus

Quote from a sweet potato in an R. Crumb cartoon:
"I think; therefore I yam."

what about bugs - can I eat bugs even though they're
animals? :shock:

what about bugs - can I eat bugs even though they're
animals? :shock:

first you say that sentience resides in plants equally to animals because of response to stimuli, in which case i think you might be taking a poor definition of feeling. biologically, a nervous system is required for the feeling of pain: and pain not exclusively physical.


You didn't specify what type of stimulation, you said feeling. Plants respond to stimuli, therefore by (dictionary) definition they are sentient.

uhh, why isn't philosophy science? i also thought that objective perception what a contradiction in terms, being that objectivity = externalness, or something acted on (like grammatically).


Philosophy isn't science because it doesn't empirically test its facts. I cannot take Kant or Hume and empirically try their hypotheses and arrive at the same results, therefore, since it cannot be empirically and independently verified it isn't Science.

then you go confusing Quality all over again. neither do i see the delineation in function between a physical existence and a conceptual exitence of a priori things. i don't see the reason (or utility) in your (rhetorical?) questions either.


I'm not confusing the nature of "Quality" it's a metaphysical construct, as such we can never prove nor disprove its "existence" (See Kant's Prolegomena: to any future metaphysics). My point is that you have to objectify things to determine their quality, you cannot find the Perfect Horseness (to paraphrase Plato), and then compare that Horseness against a fine Thoroughbred, you can only compare it to what came before it, a posteriori, which is the antithesis of Pirsig's metaphysical Quality. (I've read Zen, and also Lola, they're good books, but they shouldn't be applied to every facet of reality any more than Battlefield Earth should).


then you say perception is relative, which if true is redundant. then you paint a cute and untrue picture of food animals as living a life of luxury. if only it were true (perhaps this is why you have shifted back [have you?] to meat-eating: a utilitarian concept of pain and life).


It is not redundant, and I said it half in jest, but half in all seriousness--you claimed that quality of life was not relative, but that's untrue. A king hundreds of years ago had a worse quality of life than the poor of America. The poor have colour televisions, cable, refridgerators and computers. The King just had lots of gold and a cold, drafty castle. If you were to take a rich Medieval person and transplant them, do you think they would pine for home?

And the picture I paint is not untrue. My grandfather has a farm, and he keeps cattle, they live their lives fully until they either get violent or sick, then he puts them down and doesn't waste anything, with the skins my grandmother makes boots and bags, they eat the meat and pass it around the family. He feeds them twice daily with hay and oats, he has horses who he feeds twice daily as well, chickens who run freely, sheep. You would rather that he "free" them all to go about their business? Who would feed them? Who would keep wolves from eating them? Who would keep them from breaking their legs and dying painfully from infection?


your inversion of my statement makes it lose all meaning. healthy carnivores depend entirely on healthy vegetarians. healthy vegetarians are independent of healthy carnivores. i don't know about this worm thing, but i'm guessing it's either untrue or irrelevant, seeing as how we're animals, and nonphotosynthetic.


My inversion puts it in perspective. You cannot go to one extreme or the other and expect to stay a rational and thinking species. All intelligent species we've encountered are omnivorous, not vegetarian, not carnivores, omnivores. If every intelligent species (primates, dolphins, dogs and cats) are omnivores as we are, and we're arguably intelligent, then there is good reason for us to eat both meat and vegetables. There are no intelligent plants because photosynthesis doesn't provide enough energy for locomotion, for a central nervous system. There are no intelligent worms because dirt doesn't provide enough energy for an advanced central nervous system, and because constantly eating doesn't provide time to bang out a tome about the joys of eating dirt.


the ability to fight hunger should be combined with the obligation to fight hunger, a thing you are in your analogy. then, you allege the starving of our world as being self-imprisoned, refusing animals ("food"). this is almost never the case, and even were it, hinges on the humyn-centered conception of animals as food. this flows nicely to your next paragraphs.


Again, the ability to do something doesn't require the obligation to do something. Nations are provided food from the West, how they distribute it is up to them, if they don't distribute it fairly, take it up with them, not with us. There is enough arable land in the US to feed everyone both meat and vegetables, the reason we don't is because it would kill our economy to try, and because nations would just let it waste when we shipped it to them. We -try- to help the less fortunate, but you can't help a person whose government doesn't want to be helped. It is more beneficial for the third-world to let their people starve than to feed them. Starving people aren't going to revolt.


the broadening and broadening of the term 'humyn rights' is tricky. the key to answering you back here is first to reject the notion that presidency, driving, voting, and public education are humyn rights, second to argue for the acknowledgement of the fundamental humyn right, right to life, and third to jack the humyn rights rhetoric and just call 'em rights.


There are no such things as "rights" in reality, every right that we come up with is a product of polemic and human philosophy. As such every right we accord ourselves is not an inviolable dictate, it's a recommendation, a social contract that we won't violate it. You don't piss on my feet, I won't chop your head off, that sort of thing. As a social contract, they require two things, first sociability, they have to interact with humans on a human-social level to qualify. Dogs and cats don't because they don't communicate with us via human language, they communicate through body language and rudimentary communication forms. The second, is the ability to rationally accept the contract, children don't count because they're not sufficiently able to reason, and that is why they can enter and leave any contract at will without penalty. Since we've never met an animal capable of entering the "rat-race" of human life, and consciously accepting that it has social obligations to uphold, we have no obligation to extend our "rights" to them.


you are indeed a biased humyn! but your interest need not be maintaining the superiority of your species (speciesist, yes, but also self destructing, we'll get there).


I'm unabashedly speciesist, show me another species capable of doing what we've done and I'll concede the argument. Show me an animal ready to hold down a 9-5 at EvilCorp, and I'll buy you lunch (And me below the poverty line). You can't show me an animal capable of entering into our social structure, because they're not capable of understanding our social environment. If I was in the woods, and I had a broken leg, and a hungry bear happened upon me, I wouldn't expect it to respect my "right" to live, and if it ate me, I wouldn't begrudge it. It would suck, yes, but there are worse ways of dying.

The giving of "rights" goes two ways, they have to respect mine if I'm to respect theirs. It works well that way, I can punch the air all I like and I'm not infringing anyones "rights" until I hit them in the face.

2 if you didn't notice, we all ready kind of have screwed up the planet quite a bit, and unless we reverse our trend it may not in fact recover. even if it is true that in killing ourselves off the planet will get on, it won't if we kill it and everything in it.


That's so egotistical it isn't funny, thinking we're capable of destroying every species on the planet. There are iron-eating bacteria that live at 250 atmospheres (2500 m below the surface of the ocean) and thrive at 121 degrees C (thats 21 degrees celsius above the boiling point of water), you're insane if you think that we're currently able to kill them. We can't even people to them without dying.


finally, let's talk a little about how your mindset, humyn-superiority, causes all forms of domination!


I'm dominating? Who am I dominating? My cat? My neighbors? My girlfriend? My boss and coworkers? You're making a common logical fallacy, by thinking that a corrolation equals causation.

this is what happens explicitly when we talk about super awesome books like carol j adams's SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT. drawing on a more or less acceptable framework of subject and object, adams shows how dehumynization is the key to both meat eating and sexism. adams speaks specifically about the use of absent referents in meat-eating and the parallel use of them in sexism. where absent referents are less apparent,


And I can write quite extensively on how vegetarianism is the key to both anti-semitism and mass-murder. I could speak specifically how the Nazi Party leaders (Hitler and Goering specifically) were both vegetarians. Should we therefore hold that vegetarians are anti-semitic mass-murderers? How about impotent people? Uncles? Hitler, Goering, and Stalin were uncles, Fathers? Stalin had sons. Sexual deviants? Goering wore leather and carried a riding crop. Asians? Pol Pot was an Asian.

The point being, that while there are people who engage in actions that we don't agree with, and they do bad things, it doesn't mean that everyone who engages in the actions we don't agree with do the same bad things.


however, dehumynization makes a nice bridge too. conceiving of yourself as superior or more important than another person, on whatever grounds of differences, can only come from a framework where differences equal lesser.


Animals aren't human though, so I can't dehumanise them.


take a quick look at some racial, social, sexual, or gender slurs for a gruesome illustration of how negative separation from the ecosystem affects not just the environment, but the humyn species too.


I'm not a sexist, my boss and coworkers are female, I've no problem with this. My girlfriend is female, (hence the "girl" part). Hell, my mom and grandmothers are female, I've got lots of female friends, and if it wasn't a permanent operation, I'd probably be female too. (*wink*).

I'm not a racist either, in fact, I go far beyond anti-racism, and PC bullshit, I don't think that race matters at all. No one should get special preference based on the amount of melanin in their skin, nor the shape of their skull.

And, to conclude: You seem to think that there was a "utopia" in the past where man and nature got along and there wasn't any pollution or war. But that's a patent lie... the archaelogical record shows that we like to fight... it's our thing. We pollute too, just like every other species, and you know what... We're the only species that cleans up after ourselves.

_ i specify now. the advantage of accepting my interpretation over your dictionary defintion is that mine draws a nice, clean bright line, without which none of what we talk about (your arguments or mine) would make much sense.
_ in that case, what's wrong with philosophy not being science?
_ (finally someone who knows my vocabulary!) your paragraph here contains quite a bit of things that have no meaning to me. for example, why a person would have to objectify to determine quality if quality is something beyond object. if i'm understanding you, the example you give has a certain logical lapse in that your perfect horseness is something you've all ready gotten around to objectifying before you even begin comparison, which trickles down and troubles your empirical horseness and your concrete thoroughbred. reacknowledging that subjectivity is so crucial: without it, the reason built amounts to nonsense.
_ maybe i should be more clear: Quality of life.
your grandfather's farm sounds pretty not regular.
would i rather have them free? even if that means pain, hunger, and being hunted by other animals? reintegration into the natural ecosystematic order of things? hell, yes. i'm not saying we can't ever care for animals, or interact with them: i'm just saying we shouldn't take away their subjectivity at any cost and make them our resources.
_ your answer here to the inversion thing.. well, it's not really an answer. 'healthy carnivores depend entirely on healthy vegetarians. healthy vegetarians are independent of healthy carnivores.' trying to relate humyn animals to the more intelligent nonhumyn animals isn't a warrant. it's just a claim with no implications.
_ yes. i assert the obligation to not let people die (what? am i not making the thesis of my case clear?). it's charming, very charming to consider that 'nations,' these benevolent nebulous food-receiving entities, need only a little fine tuning to stop starving their people. it's a little (okay, rather quite) outrageous when you say 'you can't help a person whose government doesn't want to be helped.' the person and the government aren't synonymous. you can help the person: you may just have to jack the government.
_ the capstone of your social contract argument is taking polemics as external and giving a little credit to perception. ::sniffles:: =) it's nice to think of yourself (your species) as the givers and takers of rights. we all just kind of agree to them, too, and that's why they're there. but a little lower we'll get into why the alternative, that we merely acknowledge or ignore these rights, is pretty much the only acceptable avenue.
i fail to see, if children don't meet sociability, why we don't eat them? and why, especially, if they don't meet the rational acceptance criteria..
_ species, species, species. this whole paragraph is the prime illustration of how being different than humyn allows us to conceive of nonhumyn animals as less than humyn. this is where we talk about domination. it's nice that you have friends and things. it's nice that the nazis were vegetarian, and stalin had children. but it's also ultimately irrelevant: the mindset, the putting of the humyn species at the center of all things, is what births domination within the humyn species itself. 1 strange that you cold concede my absent referents are bad argument (ohh and illustrate the impacts nicely in your argument about starving people and mean governments). 2 i make no arguments at all about correlation. i'm giving you specific warrants about causation (id est, absent refers), and you're being hyperbolic. hyperbole (although it seems many people disbelieve me,) does not = warrants. 3 i hope you only misunderstood when i talked about dehumynizing animals. the specific warrants in that paragraph you quoted talk about the framework where different = lesser, and how that framework is born of a humyn animals - nonhumyn animal dichotomy.
_ and to conclude. i guess i do seem to think that, except that my utopia would include womyn. and i guess that even if i'm wrong about it existing in the past, there's no reason (as i have illustrated) to disbelieve the possibility of one to come. can it hurt to try?

- the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

I dont know if this has been mentioned i didnt feel like reading everything.
If we band meat eating many thing will happen. First thing that would happen is 50% of the worlds population would die with in a year from starvation. There is not enough land in the world to grow enough crops to feed every person. Next thing that would happen is the land would die from over use fromt he large demand. That in turn killing the rest of the world from unfertile land. This would happen with in the next 50 years. Also if it wasnt for meat we wouldnt be the intellgent creatures we are today. Meat has protein and we need protein to develop our brains and other muscles. Thats about it

To quote a great speaker... "Not eating meat is a choice. Eating meat is an instinct." - Denis Leary

I Love Meat! I mean if you eat too many vegetables your poop gets all squishy, then there is the chaffing :cry: , and all of those wonderful times when you thought that you were farting and you ended up having to soak your undies in bleach overnight.... :oops: Meat never does that to you.
lol ha ha... ha haha.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

This thread is amazing. It's out lived the nation that posted it.

_ i specify now. the advantage of accepting my interpretation over your dictionary defintion is that mine draws a nice, clean bright line, without which none of what we talk about (your arguments or mine) would make much sense.


My definition has a bright line too, which means that all life is sentient, because all life reacts to stimuli.


_ in that case, what's wrong with philosophy not being science?


Nothing is wrong with Philosophy being Philosophy and not being science. The problem I had, was that you were quoting Philosophical works as being empirical facts and they aren't, they're subjective opinions.

_ (finally someone who knows my vocabulary!) your paragraph here contains quite a bit of things that have no meaning to me. for example, why a person would have to objectify to determine quality if quality is something beyond object.


Because Quality (large 'Q') is a metaphysical construct that doesn't exist in the phenomenal world, and quality (small 'q') is a subject interpretation of the attributes of an object. Since Quality is unknowable, we go by quality, which is subjective, and since it's subjective, we have to objectify to determine it.


if i'm understanding you, the example you give has a certain logical lapse in that your perfect horseness is something you've all ready gotten around to objectifying before you even begin comparison, which trickles down and troubles your empirical horseness and your concrete thoroughbred.


Plato would have thought so too and lots of Philosophers after him, but it doesn't fit reality. Kant's Metaphysics fixed that, we can't know anything about the numinal realm of gods and goddesses, of magic, of "Quality" because it doesn't interact with the phenomenal world. It is wholly apart from it. So, even if there exists an a priori Horseness in the numinal realm, it couldn't "trickle" down into the phenomenal realm because they (if the numinal exists) are mutually exclusive.

your grandfather's farm sounds pretty not regular.

No, it's quite regular, an abused animal harms other animals, its meat is tough, and they tend to get sick more often. Abused animals cost more money than non-abused animals.

would i rather have them free? even if that means pain, hunger, and being hunted by other animals? reintegration into the natural ecosystematic order of things? hell, yes. i'm not saying we can't ever care for animals, or interact with them: i'm just saying we shouldn't take away their subjectivity at any cost and make them our resources.

Animals are subjects, meat isn't a subject though, it's an object. There is a distinction. The same sort of distinction exists between iron and steel, steel comes from iron, but it isn't iron. It's different. Unless, as I said in my first post, you believe that you are your hand. If you lose a hand, your hand isn't still you.

_ your answer here to the inversion thing.. well, it's not really an answer. 'healthy carnivores depend entirely on healthy vegetarians. healthy vegetarians are independent of healthy carnivores.' trying to relate humyn animals to the more intelligent nonhumyn animals isn't a warrant. it's just a claim with no implications.

First, I have -no- clue what these things you call "warrants" are. Second, my point is that carnivores can exist without vegetarians. Smaller carnivores can be eaten by larger ones, and on and on. Vegetarianism isn't the end-all of food-processing. In fact, if you notice, vegetarian animals have to continuously eat in order to survive. Vegetarianism is an inefficient form of consumption.


_ yes. i assert the obligation to not let people die (what? am i not making the thesis of my case clear?).


And I deny that obligation, you've given no evidence for it, and merely stating it doesn't make it so. The only people who have an obligation (self-imposed, but still an obligation) to not let people die are doctors and emergency rescue personel. I'm neither, therefore, I'm not obligated--nor responsible to save someone from dying.

it's charming, very charming to consider that 'nations,' these benevolent nebulous food-receiving entities, need only a little fine tuning to stop starving their people. it's a little (okay, rather quite) outrageous when you say 'you can't help a person whose government doesn't want to be helped.' the person and the government aren't synonymous. you can help the person: you may just have to jack the government.

So, since people are starving it's our responsibility to go in and interfere with their lawfully appointed government? The only way to do that would be to go to war, and that would cause more deaths than starvation does. You've got yourself a catch-22, you say that vegetarianism is a peaceful ideology, but you're advocating violence against other nations.


_ the capstone of your social contract argument is taking polemics as external and giving a little credit to perception. ::sniffles:: =) it's nice to think of yourself (your species) as the givers and takers of rights. we all just kind of agree to them, too, and that's why they're there. but a little lower we'll get into why the alternative, that we merely acknowledge or ignore these rights, is pretty much the only acceptable avenue.


No, I'm stating that there are no external "rights" that rights are ideas we formed ourselves, and gave ourselves.


i fail to see, if children don't meet sociability, why we don't eat them?


Some of us do, what's your point? You're forgetting natural selection, we are a species whose instinct toward self-preservation means we don't eat our young. It's also because we're a social species that we don't eat our young.


and why, especially, if they don't meet the rational acceptance criteria..

The point wasn't that we should eat them, but that other "human" rights don't apply to them.


_ species, species, species. this whole paragraph is the prime illustration of how being different than humyn allows us to conceive of nonhumyn animals as less than humyn.


If you think that other species are equal or superiour to humans, give evidence, otherwise, quit stating it. I've evidence to prove that we are superiour to other species, we build and invent, we rationalise, we socialise globally, we don't eat our young, we clean up after ourselves...


this is where we talk about domination. it's nice that you have friends and things. it's nice that the nazis were vegetarian, and stalin had children. but it's also ultimately irrelevant: the mindset, the putting of the humyn species at the center of all things, is what births domination within the humyn species itself.


You've only given a correlation, you've given no evidence of causation. My argument about vegetarianism and fathers is that you can find a correlation between anything, but that doesn't mean that one causes the other or vice-versa. You're claiming that eating meat causes racism, but you've given no evidence--and no, citing a book isn't providing evidence, it's trying to get someone else to do your work for you.


i make no arguments at all about correlation. i'm giving you specific warrants about causation (id est, absent refers),


No, you're not, you're claiming that absent referent causes all the worlds ills without providing evidence to prove your statement.


and you're being hyperbolic. hyperbole (although it seems many people disbelieve me,) does not = warrants.


I was being hyperbolic to show you the extremes we could go if we all subscribed to your point of view.

and to conclude. i guess i do seem to think that, except that my utopia would include womyn. and i guess that even if i'm wrong about it existing in the past, there's no reason (as i have illustrated) to disbelieve the possibility of one to come. can it hurt to try?

Yes it is wrong to try, because your "utopia" is flawed, and it is a step backwards. We would lose all our advancement if the entire world became vegetarian, we'd be stuck eating all day with no time for "unnecessary" pursuits as art, science, philosophy, and hell, society.

When I say I want the human species to survive above all else, I also want the human species to grow above all else. I see no cause to elevate animals who won't reciprocate at the deficit of humanity.

in overview: if we ultimately accept your points of view, we lose some fundamental ground that makes it impossible to argue. also, arguments may begin to flow together. you may therefore experience some difficulty in responding quote by quote next time. time for numbers!

1 the point of a bright line is exclusivity. the nice thing about my bright line is that it excludes things: living things, plants, that don't experience pain. the advantage of accepting this defintion is that it allows us to continue the things that constitute our humynness (eating, and eating living things) while still retaining room for respecting the right to life. (see 8 ) your bright line is nonexclusive (therefore not a bright line) and has no advantages.
2 maybe i get ahead of myself. maybe you don't really take the attitude your writing implies toward philosophy. however, i couldn't otherwise imagine why you're pointing out that it ain't science. then, you must have missed the point of ZEN if you're dissin' on the subject and glorifyin' the empirical. the empirical has no rational ground for being a predictor of the future, and certainly even less room for being a code for decision making about it. also, you're doing that blurring thing again, where you ignore the distinction between opinions and the use of reason. again, give polemics a little credit.
3 on the numinal: let me take the opportunity to explain here what i mean when i say i want warrants! arguments have two parts: warrants, and claims. claims are what you're making. they're tidy little summaries of what you want to say, sometimes conclusions. warrants are the reasons, the whys, the merit. for example, warrants are the things a person is left wanting after you say that the numinal and the tangible (is that interchangeable with phenomenal as you mean it?) are mutually exclusive.
4 its tough for me to reconcile the conception of your grandfather's farm (managed, if its like you tell it, by his wife and family) with the commonplace industrial size factory. they aren't the same. while it's true that the 'meat' of animals that are intentionally abused (kicked, beaten, misfed, what have you meant) is comparatively 'tougher,' the same uneconomic attributes are true of animals that have eaten naturally, moved about regularly, and grown their own muscles naturally. if your grandfather's farm is really a wonderful place, that's great. it's a step. it isn't widespread.
5 the difference between animal -> 'meat' and iron -> steel is the absent referent. i'm pretty happy you're granting out animal subjectivity. that easily concedes all of the absent referent concept: that is, the very word 'meat' (the referent) is nonsensical until something is lost (dies!)- the animal. this is the process of objectification: the death of the animal (a very dramatic absence) is the death of the subjecthood and the counterfeiting, if you will, of 'meat,' the object. the same phenomenon occurs in sexual objectification (which is what adams writes about). a person looking at a pin-up girl is creating an absent refer, seeing only a sexual object, devoid of personhood, of subjectivity. only an object. just a piece of meat. (cause enough yet? it's the same damn thing.) here's a good place for talking about the rest of domination. your remaining answer back is mainly that humyns do good shit. the things you list, though (rationalize, build and invent, socialize globally, don't eat our 'young,' clean up) are not things that all members of the humyn species can do. let me ask you, in all seriousness, if it's okay by you to then eat those incapable of these things? what about those who just flat refuse to do these things? to retain consistency, you can only answer yes, and i'm going to flat reject that framework (er, nice bright line, there). where is that right to life when we need it (see 8 )? (also, canines, felines, beavers, birds, lots of animals!, racoons.)
6 vegetarians don't eat constantly. (i don't get where this is coming from). i don't. i'm super =) a literally dog-eat-dog world would result in the extinction of dogs: when no animal is connecting the (ugh) 'food chain' to plants, animals will die. they either all eat each other or get ill. the damage is irreparable (didn't your mother ever tell you to eat your vegetables?). in fact (there it is again! lord), though there are (admittedly?) omnivores, they are entirely dependent on herbivores. and, functionally, the humyn species could be herbivorous. the summation here is that there's no need to eat meat.
literally god forbid we should do the right thing (see 8 ) at the cost of 'efficiency.' damn.
7 war. you're trying to pin me with a warmongering mindset? let me just untangle your alleged catch 22. vegetarianism is (can be) a peaceful ideology. it advocates (i advocate) respect for the right to life, refrain from inflicting pain, and nonviolence. the beautiful out of your corner is that war is not the only way to interfere with (lawfully? hee hee) appointed governments. nonviolent civil disobedience works awesome when you can't manage the system from inside (::huuugs gandhi and martin luther king jr:: ).
8 rights and obligation! here is the core of the argument. i think a pretty decent 80 pages of everyone's life could be spent reading cs lewis's ABOLITION OF MA/N. we'll use your very argumentation as an avenue to explain this concept: the self-evidence of moral precepts.
you call my utopia a step backward. you talk about the superiority of the humyn species. your rhetoric generally implies the desirableness of humyn society. what you want is 'reciprocity' and not a 'deficit of humynity.' all this i am willing to accept. (if you wanna reject it, you're gonna have to throw out everything you've said and go back to the beginning.)
all your talk of efficiency is only a substitute for my talk of goodness. if i ask you why efficience? effecting what? i hope you'll see it will come down to some good in its own sake. if you want to defend this goodness as your own opinion of your end, your society, then your undertaking to share it with other's is either villiany or foolhardy. try to explain away obligation. try to explain away value, virtue, morality, ethics. there is no cause of which ethics are an affect, there is no ground for which ethics are a consequent. there is no substitute for them which does not end in the abolition of humynkind. if we can accept this, we can agree, and move forward. if not, there is no reason to continue this discussion because there is no Reason.
now, we can look at these foundational precepts and say, hey, domination isn't so cool (a thing you have not explicitly disagreed with). i'm not asserting a correlation. i'm asserting a direct causation. humyn-centeredness is the framework for all other forms of domination (remember slurs?). we causally otherize animals, viewing their diffence, their non-rationalizing, non-inventing, non-global socialization, non-humynness (!) as not just difference but lesser-ness. that's the framework. otherization with zero-sum values.
the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.

summarily, warrants are good, and i've got them. domination is bad, and vegetarianism is a great avenue of reform. welcome, my utilitarian friend, to the frightening world of a deontologist =)

it's been a blast writing with you. thanks for your time.
-the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

"Word salad" does not a sound argument make.

in overview: if we ultimately accept your points of view, we lose some fundamental ground that makes it impossible to argue. also, arguments may begin to flow together. you may therefore experience some difficulty in responding quote by quote next time. time for numbers!


I know, that's what I've been trying to do.


1 the point of a bright line is exclusivity. the nice thing about my bright line is that it excludes things: living things, plants, that don't experience pain. the advantage of accepting this defintion is that it allows us to continue the things that constitute our humynness (eating, and eating living things) while still retaining room for respecting the right to life. (see 8 ) your bright line is nonexclusive (therefore not a bright line) and has no advantages.

Ah, but my bright white line is exclusive, it's exclusive of the non-living. Logically if you "respect" the "right" of life, you'll respect that right for everything, but I'll come back to this later.

2 maybe i get ahead of myself. maybe you don't really take the attitude your writing implies toward philosophy. however, i couldn't otherwise imagine why you're pointing out that it ain't science. then, you must have missed the point of ZEN if you're dissin' on the subject and glorifyin' the empirical. the empirical has no rational ground for being a predictor of the future, and certainly even less room for being a code for decision making about it. also, you're doing that blurring thing again, where you ignore the distinction between opinions and the use of reason. again, give polemics a little credit.

There is no rational ground for predicting the future, but the empirical shows after experimentation a good start for what we expect the future to be like. That said, a scientific theory is only given credence if it starts to predict the "future" of some portion of reality. It doesn't predict the future in macrospace, but it predicts the outcome of certain reactions.


3 on the numinal: let me take the opportunity to explain here what i mean when i say i want warrants! arguments have two parts: warrants, and claims. claims are what you're making. they're tidy little summaries of what you want to say, sometimes conclusions. warrants are the reasons, the whys, the merit. for example, warrants are the things a person is left wanting after you say that the numinal and the tangible (is that interchangeable with phenomenal as you mean it?) are mutually exclusive.


This is going to be long, because I'm going to have to explain Immanuel Kant's Prolegomena (which you should read, real philosophers are better than armchair philosophers any day).

People claim that there is a nebulous metaphysical reality where all sorts of nifty things happen and live. They claim gods and messengers thereof exist in this metaphysical realm. The more arduous claim that they messages from their metaphysical gods. In other words, people are claiming to get a priori (literally: before experience) information from this metaphysical world.

There are problems with that, though. First, there is the fact that merely by -existing- they've exerted experience (a posteriori). Second, there is no evidence that a priori has been given to them.

So, we're presented with a connundrum, do we accept that their voices are god, or do we put them in an asylum for the insane? Kant would suggest that we should put them in the asylum.

And here's why:

For Kant, there exist only two peices of a priori knowledge, the concept of time and space. These are inherent in the human condition and a prerequisite for conscious thought. Since there's no evidence that the Numinal (metaphysical) realm exists, we can only assume that if it does exist, it has no interaction with the Phenomenal (physical, tangible) realm.

Because, by existing and exerting influence on the phenomenal realm, the numinal realm would have to be giving a priori information to people, but by their very existence, this can't be true.


5 the difference between animal -> 'meat' and iron -> steel is the absent referent. i'm pretty happy you're granting out animal subjectivity. that easily concedes all of the absent referent concept: that is, the very word 'meat' (the referent) is nonsensical until something is lost (dies!)- the animal. this is the process of objectification: the death of the animal (a very dramatic absence) is the death of the subjecthood and the counterfeiting, if you will, of 'meat,' the object. the same phenomenon occurs in sexual objectification (which is what adams writes about). a person looking at a pin-up girl is creating an absent refer, seeing only a sexual object, devoid of personhood, of subjectivity. only an object. just a piece of meat. (cause enough yet? it's the same damn thing.) here's a good place for talking about the rest of domination. your remaining answer back is mainly that humyns do good shit. the things you list, though (rationalize, build and invent, socialize globally, don't eat our 'young,' clean up) are not things that all members of the humyn species can do. let me ask you, in all seriousness, if it's okay by you to then eat those incapable of these things? what about those who just flat refuse to do these things? to retain consistency, you can only answer yes, and i'm going to flat reject that framework (er, nice bright line, there). where is that right to life when we need it (see 8 )? (also, canines, felines, beavers, birds, lots of animals!, racoons.)


Here we get back to what I was saying about the right to life... first, when I eat meat (mostly chicken and fish, because I don't really like beef) I know I'm eating an animal, I know that it was alive at one time, and I know that it probably had a crappy life... that doesn't mean that I'm not going to eat meat though. I can accept that cruel things happen to some animals (because you haven't proven or "warranted" that it happens to all), and still eat meat.

It's not absent referent, it's the seperating the end from the means. Unless that's what you mean... the problem with "absent referent" is that ALL humans objectify, even themselves.

When you think introspectively (a "why did I do that" after a mistake), you're objectifying, the self you're questioning is not the self questioning, you've narrowed yourself down to only the point in question. (I'll get you the name of the psychologist who determined this when I remember).

That said, it's ironic that you'd use a "feminist" manifesto to argue against something that both males and females do.

That said further, no, I do not advocate cannibalism, there is a difference between arguing against preachy vegetarians, and arguing for the consumption of your own species. First: Cannibalism is the cause of several delapidating diseases, second, cannibalism decreases the gene pool of humanity, third, a species cannot survive by -consuming- itself.

My evidence for the first is Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the evidence for the second is easy, you have a pool of twenty healthy people, five of them are eaten, now you have a healthy pool of 15 people (Count laughs HA HA HA!), and the third, going back to our pool, if they consume 25% of the population a day, they'll die in about 2 weeks.


6 vegetarians don't eat constantly. (i don't get where this is coming from). i don't. i'm super =)


Pandas do, they're a carnivorous animal that was forced into vegetarianism, and they have to eat all day. Lots of vegetarian animals have to eat constantly, therefore, by extension, if we were to switch to a completely vegetarian diet, we'd have to eat all the time too in order to have the strength to grow food.


a literally dog-eat-dog world would result in the extinction of dogs: when no animal is connecting the (ugh) 'food chain' to plants, animals will die. they either all eat each other or get ill. the damage is irreparable (didn't your mother ever tell you to eat your vegetables?). in fact (there it is again! lord), though there are (admittedly?) omnivores, they are entirely dependent on herbivores.


Not true, single-celled organisms exist in a "dog-eat-dog" world and they still exist.


and, functionally, the humyn species could be herbivorous. the summation here is that there's no need to eat meat.
literally god forbid we should do the right thing (see 8 ) at the cost of 'efficiency.' damn.


No, we couldn't. Farming is -hard- work, it requires lots of energy that will last through-out the course of a day. Carbohydrates don't -do- that. And soy protein doesn't provide the same type, and the soya farmers would be eating all the soy and leaving the rest of the world without protein. Which brings us back to meat.

That said, you're moralising, we're having a debate. If you continue to bring morals into it, we can't argue, becuase morals are inherently irrational.


7 war. you're trying to pin me with a warmongering mindset? let me just untangle your alleged catch 22. vegetarianism is (can be) a peaceful ideology. it advocates (i advocate) respect for the right to life, refrain from inflicting pain, and nonviolence. the beautiful out of your corner is that war is not the only way to interfere with (lawfully? hee hee) appointed governments. nonviolent civil disobedience works awesome when you can't manage the system from inside (::huuugs gandhi and martin luther king jr:: ).


Non-violent civil disobedience only works in a nation with a free press, most of the nations that we provide food to aren't democratic republics, and don't have free presses, therefore non-violent civil disobedience won't work. Therefore, the only recourse is to go to war, ergo you advocate killing humans over killing animals.


8 rights and obligation! here is the core of the argument. i think a pretty decent 80 pages of everyone's life could be spent reading cs lewis's ABOLITION OF MA/N. we'll use your very argumentation as an avenue to explain this concept: the self-evidence of moral precepts.


And I think that every person should be required to read Kant's Prolegomena, and JS Mill's On Liberty, but it'll never happen, so there. :P


all your talk of efficiency is only a substitute for my talk of goodness. if i ask you why efficience? effecting what?


Why efficiency? Because nature tends toward the bottom, so if we raise the bottom we raise the species. Making things more efficient also means we're less wasteful, if we're less wasteful we make less of an impact on the environment, and if we make less of an impact on the environment we ensure our species survival.


i hope you'll see it will come down to some good in its own sake. if you want to defend this goodness as your own opinion of your end, your society, then your undertaking to share it with other's is either villiany or foolhardy. try to explain away obligation.


Obligation is easily explained away by Free Will, unless you want to impose requirements that everyone do "good". The only problem there is that when you obligate someone to do something it is insincere and it is likely to be done wrong, not only that, but they begin to resent you.


try to explain away value, virtue, morality, ethics. there is no cause of which ethics are an affect, there is no ground for which ethics are a consequent. there is no substitute for them which does not end in the abolition of humynkind.


Value is the sum of all objective observation of an object or subject. Morality and ethics are mutable. All moral and ethical codes are by there nature utilitarian, or people wouldn't use them. (I'm not a utilitarian in the philosophical sense, I'm utilitarian in the sociological (scientific) sense that I think that utilitarianism explains why people have moral and ethical codes).

That said. morality and ethics are determined by those in power (Nietzche), whether good or ill for the rest of us, those in power influence social structures.


if we can accept this, we can agree, and move forward. if not, there is no reason to continue this discussion because there is no Reason.


Aha! We come back to Kant! There is Reason, it's one of the defining characteristics of humanity, but! You cannot get new information through Reason, you can only interpret, and interpretation is Objectification!


now, we can look at these foundational precepts and say, hey, domination isn't so cool (a thing you have not explicitly disagreed with)


Because domination isn't very cool...

i'm not asserting a correlation. i'm asserting a direct causation. humyn-centeredness is the framework for all other forms of domination (remember slurs?).


But you haven't -proven- your assertion, all you're putting forth evidencially is a correllation.

we causally otherize animals

We casually otherise ourselves too.

viewing their diffence

That's what we do. Our nature is to analyse patterns, to discern differences between things. Without that ability to see the differences we wouldn't be able to see the things that are the same, and without that, you're asking us to step back to loosely banded tribes of... dunanana! Hunter-Gatherers!


their non-rationalizing, non-inventing, non-global socialization, non-humynness (!) as not just difference but lesser-ness.


It is lesser, though. The differences between a thousand dollars and a million dollars aren't subjective, a thousand is less than a million.


that's the framework. otherization with zero-sum values.


It's not zero-sum, though, life isn't a zero-sum game.


summarily, warrants are good, and i've got them. domination is bad, and vegetarianism is a great avenue of reform. welcome, my utilitarian friend, to the frightening world of a deontologist =)


Evidence is better though.

Thanks,
OIIO

You people are way to friggin long-winded in this thread.


Not eating meat is a choice, eating meat is an instinct. Who am I to screw with the instincts millions of years of evolution have given me?

i see someone likes denis leary

i see someone likes denis leary


Doesn't everyone? :lol:

1 a) you didn't come back to respect the right to life for everything. b) if you did, we'd be back to your speaking nonsense, because your interpretation of 'sentient' excludes only nonliving things. c) that interpretation sucks because it's non-exclusive within the world of living things. this brings us back to the advantage of my interpretation: we retain our humyn constitution and the room for respect. this advantage to mine is something you're conceding.
2 a) check back what kant says (man you get excited there =p ) about reason being a defining characteristic of humynity. i don't know if he says ( i thought he did) that polemics are external. you should thrill to this since you're all about the external here. b) on the empirical: it's only good so far as it gives us grounds for expectation. it doesn't set up any laws or causation. keeping that in mind helps to see why though we've been omnivorous in the past, it is possible to be herbivorous (even if unlikely or whatever).
3 luckily the numinal argument has become quite extraneous. maybe once i look in on the prolegomena i'll understand, but as you represent it, i can only make the following notes: a) if the phenomenal is the only thing acceptable as experience and therefore the only things acceptable as evidence, we're all effed: i) time and space, the prerequisite a priori concepts for conscious thought, are unverifiable and therefore ii) nothing we ever thought consciously is verifiable. b) (this is where i mostly doubt my own understanding- please clarify) there is nothing that constitutes the numinal as nonphenomenal, and if there is, nothing that constitutes it as non-experiencial, and as i mention earlier, nothing that constitutes experiencial as phenomenal and only phenomenal. c) it isn't. language proves this true. while our senses do shit when we read or listen, like see and hear, the understanding process is something totally different: it isn't sensational at all. the whole point of language is the words (be they shapes or sounds) are symbols.
4 a) yes, separating the ends from the means, then. not just separating, but severing. oh, wait, considering an animal with subjecthood to be a means! the framework of domination in action. b) your example about introspection isn't viable: the situations are different (but not lesser =) ). it may help, if you know anything about grammar, to conceive of this grammatically (that's what helps me). you're not taking away the subjectivity of yourself by asking 'why did i do that?' although it appears you are admittedly also acknowledging the object. in this case, the two aren't mutually exclusive (a good thing here). c) in the case of animals, as exemplified by absent referents, the referent (object) (meat) comes specifically from the loss of something (subjectivity) (life). meat can only ever get to being meat by way of death, absence. the introspective unity isn't possible. d) i don't see why it's irony. i guess i believe that straight up feminism shouldn't be about dissin' on men, or inverting the power structure. it should be about rejecting the power structure, and reintegrating men and womyn. even so (especially), it doesn't mitigate the truthfulness of adams's work, or my argumentation either. e) here's where i have fun! i) meat eating is the cause of several dilapitating diseases too: unnatural chlorestorol, heart disease, addiction to hormones, breast and colon cancers! some preliminary studies are finding that alzheimers may really just be cjd. they do the same things to a brain. also, we incited cjd by 'recycling' cow bone meal back into cow feed. gross. ii) the analysis you give on why we shouldn't eat each other is exactly right. all you need is the application of it to a broader-than-species picture. luckily, we are not single celled organisms. you have got to stop shallowly isolating things and look at them more broadly.
5 a) i don't believe i am a panda. i don't know exactly how to stress that i am living proof that this doesn't extend to humyns: i am, as is every vegetarian i know.. i write poetry, too. i don't spend every waking minute eating. hank aaron played baseball, susan b anthony helped achieved womyn's suffrage, albert einstein was a physicist, gandhi freaking changed a country or two, philip glass is a composer, dustin hoffman acts, carl lewis was an olympian, your beloved plato =). i think you get the picture. b) you get a little closer to the heart of the matter when you talk about farming.. but gandhi lived on a tidy ashram for a long time and did great. it's true that soy protein alone is probably insufficient for really hard farm work. the cool thing is that proteins and the essential amino acids aren't found only in animals or soy. they're also in every living thing (!), that is, plants, in varying amounts. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, to get enough protein. if i ate only potatoes (admittedly a bad idea, but a good example), and ate enough potatoes to meet my energy needs, i'd get all the protein i needed. c) 'according to nutrionist and dietician suzanne havala, a slightly-overestimated amount of protein for your body can be found by multiplying your body weight in kilograms by 0.8. for me, i need less than 53 grams of protein daily. a variety of foods will meet your needs for all nine essential amino acids. there are lots of sources of protein: veggie burgers, tempeh, tofu, soymilk, beans (burritos, black bean soup, chili, baked beans, salad garnish), nuts, seeds, peanut (and other nut-) butters, whole wheat bread, bran, whole-grain cereal, oatmeal, bagels, pasta, rice, flour tortillas, and most vegetables (green beans, tomatoes, cabbage, broccoli).. as you can see, vegetarians (even vegans) aren't just stuck with 'beans.' in fact, our diet (when done right) meets the requirements and exceeds the constancy of meat-eaters: that is, we eat more kinds of good stuff.'
6 a) what happened to our ability to socialize globally, hm? suddenly a local media is the absolute key to nonviolence? the world will find out (why suddenly so desparate?) and b) even if they didn't, you give no analysis on why that should be the only method of successful nonviolence. c) it isn't. free press isn't the only method of raising awareness. sometimes people talk to each other. sometimes people write subversively. sometimes people nail shit to the doors of churches. it's neat.
7 even if you don't wanna read it, it doesn't make it less true what i've articulated about it. a) why survival? in your quotation, you grouped my analysis on 'because survival is cool' with try to explain away obligation. what this means is that you're trying just as much as i am to ensure that we all do 'good.' you just like to call it 'do things for survival.' what's so hot about survival? b) again, if you want to say you personally like survival, then hawking it to the rest of us is either dumb or sinister (dumb: why waste your time? sinister: no standard exists, according to you then, that justifies your trying to hawk your own opinion of liking survival over somebody else's destroying it. the game means nothing then). c) maybe if i try to obligate people, they'll do it wrong, or resent me, sometimes sure. but that ain't gonna stop me from doing the right thing on face. perhaps here's another utilitarian deviance? i have no choice but to do what's right and hope for the best, knowing for myself that this screwing up or resentment isn't always the result, and even were it, it's just a chance i have to take. (so?)
8 now. a) who's in power that's making my ethics? especially seeing that vegetarian ethics are about four billion people in the minority. b) if there's reason, the only point in using it is discovering things we hadn't thought of before. i) there's no analysis on why interpretation is objectification ii) it's not: interpretation is the by-product of having subjectivity. that's what perception -is-. iii) no impact: you'd be objectifying objects (precepts, reasons), and that wouldn't make much sense (or harm).
c) the ABOLITION OF MA/N talks specifically to this argument that ethics are mutable (or inherently irrational, or whatever other collection of words you'll apply to discount them). there's a couple of problems with you thinking this. i) the first is that it takes out any sense you might have made earlier, specifically when talking about efficiency or survival. why do you want those things?? ii) the second is that it turns back any chance you had of reaching those ends (survival now?) because there isn't any way to get there. if there are no ethics, nothing is ethical, nothing is unethical, and nothing has value (i don't understand the usefullness of how you called it. i think it's better if we identify it with virtue, or good v bad, because it makes the discussion make sense and have a vocabulary). iii) if nothing has goodness or badness, then we can all only seek the things we want. that's the only remaining thing to act on. the things we want are quickly revealed to be a collection of irrational things: the weather and the state of my digestion define these things almost entirely when we leave out ethics. and so in your haste to destroy ethics as the basis of reason, to remove the goodness or badness from things, you've brought yourself full circle, a slave to the irrational forces that determine the things you want.
9 evidence is better than, er what? i assume you mean warrants, 'cause you quote me saying warrants are good.. but that's nonsense, 'cause they're the same thing, unless you mean something secret by evidence. remember, two parts to an argument: claims, which are helpful, but warrants, which are essential.
10 domination is not cool! the answers you're making here have been tied up earlier in the post: we don't otherize ourselves (see 4). viewing differences isn't bad in itself: it's condemning them that's bad. confusing the argument with a zero-sum example (money) isn't gonna work: you say right next that life isn't zero-sum (i know!). the point is that we apply zero-sum frameworks (i'm better than you) and that = domination (therefore i can beat the crap out of you because it benefits me. or therefore i can enslave you, lynch you, gas you, make your life a living hell.)
this leads back into the 4: absent referents argument. you're conceding my analysis on why the framework for any freaking form of domination identifies perfectly with the first, causal framework we ever make: humyn animals over nonhumyn animals. in fact, you don't even quote it, i assume so that you don't have to answer it. allow me: 'the impact is cross-application of this framework onto humyn people. whether its sexual, gender, socioeconomic, or racial difference, we have a whole lot of practice at recognizing the difference and then passing it off as less. welcome to the world of dehumynization.'

thanks again =)
the Holy Empire of Falaslonde

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IT'S SPELT -HUMAN-


HUM A N

HUM A N

HUM A N

See? It's not that hard.

Falaslonde, think formatting. formatting!

The study on this issue has concluded and proven the following.
1: Meat contains necessary nutrition that would other wise be unobtainable and thus is a necessary part of a healthy eating plan.
2: If everyone's eating plan had no meat, all would be eating more carbohydrates, such as in sugar, bread, fruits and vegetables and in doing so developing hyperinsulinism and carbohydrate addiction and thus developing severe obesity and health problems.
Meat is therefore an essential part of a healthy eating plan.

this research done by a team of doctors under Dr. Atkinmeyer of the Drinkers of Beer board of investigation health department

Beef-based agriculture is one of the two main piller's of Veksar's economy. Banning the eating of meat would severely cripply our economy and make thousands of citizens unemployed. Meat is healthy and does your body good. Eat more meat!!! Especially beef.

vegetarians aren`t homosexuals, though they can be :P

vegetarians are gay & fuck the animals

vini, vedi, vegi