Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/09 05:52 PM, poxpower wrote: But the meat vs vegetable arguments pretty much all favor the vegan side. The only real reason you'd have for eating meat is because you like it and don't give a shit about the environment. Which is a good enough reason for me.

I was gonna argue with you until I read this and then I said to myself, "I really don't want to anymore." Mostly because of the last two lines.

Well played.

At 10/30/09 12:45 PM, pr0ded wrote: and if you keep cats as a pet you might get infected with toxoplasmosis which might lead to schizophrenia, which might reflect on your art

like louis wain
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&saf e=off&resnum=0&q=louis%20wain&um=1&ie=UT F-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Woah! Those are some of the most fantastic paintings I've ever seen in my life! Alright, I'm going to admit right now that I'm a huge fan of abstract art and of course cats, so putting the two together would make for the perfect bit of creativity! This guy's so lucky.

At 10/21/09 05:10 PM, riemannSum wrote:
You point out that vegans have lower obesity rates, that has nothing to do with the fact that they're vegans, but instead with the fact that they are more mentally aware of what they consume. Correlation =/= causation.

4th page already, wow.

No scientific studies proved that it is healthier and any good nutritionist will say that vegetables are far healthier than meat (except for fish, which tends to be really good for us). It's not a void statement because veggies are annorexic and become thin planks.

The similar argument is that we are in general picky meat eaters. I can't say that about everyone though. But generally we eat only the 'good' parts and eat everything cooked, but only a few people would eat stuff like eyes and the penis etcetera and would eat all of the meat raw.

Meat is not a necessity, but rather a luxuary, we treat ourselves to like cola, alcohol,...

At 10/21/09 05:10 PM, riemannSum wrote: My main point, though, is why do I care how animals are treated?

They had feelings. They felt pain.

I don't want to sound like broken record here, but some animals don't even get to stand up their whole lives.

You're a pathetic fuck if you don't understand that other things can feel pain.
You are disgusting.

At 11/1/09 03:10 AM, AmazingTheNinja wrote:
They had feelings. They felt pain.

I don't want to sound like broken record here, but some animals don't even get to stand up their whole lives.

You're a pathetic fuck if you don't understand that other things can feel pain.
You are disgusting.

Yeah, bawwww, the cute little cow got fucked up and died.

Whatever, I still don't care, and I don't see why I should. It's a cow. An animal. Why should I care if it gets hurt?

This just reminds me of animal's rights charities sending me crap in the mail begging for money so they can save some poor chickens when the kids dying of hunger are out there with no one to send mail for them.

Those chickens deserve that money way more.

At 11/1/09 03:55 AM, riemannSum wrote:
Whatever, I still don't care, and I don't see why I should. It's a cow. An animal. Why should I care if it gets hurt?

Welll, to care for something like that is ones own choice, really. But so is caring for the fact that an eight year old girl is raped and drowned somewhere in your neighbourhood.

At 11/1/09 05:57 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 11/1/09 03:55 AM, riemannSum wrote:
Whatever, I still don't care, and I don't see why I should. It's a cow. An animal. Why should I care if it gets hurt?

Welll, to care for something like that is ones own choice, really. But so is caring for the fact that an eight year old girl is raped and drowned somewhere in your neighbourhood.

Yeah, that sure changed my mind. Even though the two things are completely unrelated.

One's a crime, an act against society, and has a possibility to affect me.

The other is my dinner being prepared.

At 11/1/09 06:28 AM, riemannSum wrote:
One's a crime, an act against society, and has a possibility to affect me.

Sure, it's a crime but it doesn't need to affect you if you don't know the girl.

At 11/1/09 06:44 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 11/1/09 06:28 AM, riemannSum wrote:
One's a crime, an act against society, and has a possibility to affect me.

Sure, it's a crime but it doesn't need to affect you if you don't know the girl.

Which is why I don't go out with a shotgun looking for the guy. Crimes committed in an area near me always have a chance of affecting me. More crime = higher crime rate = higher chance of being affected.

At 10/29/09 01:39 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/28/09 11:13 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Just because humans are the dominant species doesn't mean we have to do things to benefit our race if we don't need to

who says we don't need to?

because they're morally wrong, etc.

i keep telling you, it's NOT morally wrong. other animals do it, how come it's only wrong when we do it?

It's like what Sensationalism wrote on page three:

"Tiger=carnivore, deer= herbivore
Hawk=carnivore, rabbit=herbivore
Human=OMNIVORE

Why do stupid people always think there are vegetarians who want to go out and stop predatory animals from eating their prey? It's about HUMANS, not about lions or tigers or sharks. You cannot claim a human is as incapable as a lion of understanding the way their actions affect the world. Our brains are not the same, and our minds are very different. If I were a tiger, I could kill anyone or anything I wanted without having to worry the other tigers would send me to jail or death. HUMANS have rules against such things and have laws, police, jails, courts, etc all set aside to deal with such matters. Stop concluding that it's okay for humans to do something so long as some other animal someplace else has done it."

It's also covered at the bottom of the FAQ.

This is what I'm arguing, in the case of farm animals. And what did dinosaurs do to benefit themselves the way we did?

they ate animals, the same thing we do.

They weren't even a quarter as smart as us.

that's not my point, my point is that they were the dominant species. they just got there a different way than we did.

So? OK, they were dominant and ate animals, but they did it because they chose to, like us? Yeah right.

On foot. Don't give me that straw man argument.

alright, give me an example, just ONE example of how a cow can save someone's life.

It could be like the same situation you gave. An animal is trained to deliver a message on foot or dial 911.

How long were you watching the cow(s)? A few minutes? If so, that doesn't count.

i watched them long enough, in fact, have YOU ever gone to a farm? if not, then you have no right to dispute this agruement.

"Long enough" doesn't do it for me. Yes, I have been to a farm, but I was only there to see animals for about 20 minutes. They were not eating or grazing even half of the time, as I recall.

I guess not like dogs, but not all common pets are like dogs. I did find this on cows: "Most cows kick because they are frightened, are in pain, or have been mistreated." The rest of the article also has relevant information.

like anyone's gonna hear kicking.

It probably wouldn't just be kicking. Other animals in the pen may become distressed and make noises. It also depends how far away the pen is from the farmer's house.

why do you think farmers like to keep dogs in the pens?

How many farmers do that? Does it even work?

So that's your excuse for not proving this one wrong? Not all animal rights websites are one and the same.

from the site you gave me: " plants do not have a central nervous system and it is generally agreed upon in the scientific community that plants are incapable of suffering."

from peta.org: "There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains."

I said one and the same. So what if they have one thing in common that you provided?

The article never actually said the problem was fixed. Whether the pieces are microscopic or not, "E. coli O157:H7 kills an estimated 60 Americans each year and sickens an estimated 73,000 more, mostly children and the elderly." Besides, as I said, it was just an example. Here's an article that's only two days old, and it says the problem is still ongoing.

the same e. coli that can easily be killed by proper cooking?

I dunno if all of it can be killed. Why are millions of pounds of meat being recalled because of it?

Livestock are branded for ownership. Anyway, I guess it depends on the size of the farm, if farmers were to form a bond with one or two of the animals. For big farms, which have at least hundreds of animals, probably not, but farms with less than forty, maybe. If farmers use tags or collars for small farms, they might come in handy for recognizing, or the farmer just know from something to distinguish the animal from the rest.

BOTTOM LINE, THEY ARE BRANDED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE!

Just for ownership. Hence, the Wikipedia link. That still doesn't justify the rest of what I wrote.

I'm not talking about those kinds of researchers.

then WHAT kind of researchers?

Ones that don't abuse and/or kill animals.

No, I said, "Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?"

are you, or are you not making the arguement that dogmeat tastes just as good as regular meat?

If you won't dance around the question again, I personally don't know.

It's funny how this section of the Wikipedia article is all there is compared to other extremist animals right groups. Mercy for Animals "adheres to nonviolent principles".

i never said they were extreme, i said they were nuts, there's a difference.

Alright, but you said "maybe" they were extreme.

I definitely don't think they're nuts.

And i quote: "Free-Range products promote animal cruelty"

Did you even read the article? If they were nuts, then why would it say:

"While these products may be less cruel than the typical factory farm products..."

"While small-scale animal farming is typically less damaging to the environment than the large-scale factory farms..."

"While organic animal products don't have the artificial growth hormones and antibiotics often found in factory farmed products..."

A Futurama episode is your proof? I mean... really?

i have more.

and this

also this

there's plenty more than that, but i think i made my point.

No, you haven't. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia or a news source. I guess you didn't get it when I wrote, "I mean... really?"

Alright then:

Heart disease
Cancer
Diabetes

google searches? why, because you couldn't find real sources?

Real like Uncyclopedia?

i don't need sources, i can disprove any global warming arguement you can throw at me. right here, right not.

Funny spelling mistake with "right not". Anyway, I guess we'll start with this site's categories: weather patterns, health, wildlife, and glacier and sea levels.

It's not just global warming. There's wasting resources,

how? by feeding them grass, seeds, or trash that we don't eat?

Read.

extinction,

because everyone knows that when you control a population effectively, by breeding them and eating them in equivilent numbers, you're contributing to extinction.

It doesn't have to do with the extinction of cattle.

and pollution. They're all covered on the site.

by "polution", you mean cow farts.

I mean this.

Depends on what you exactly mean by that.

i mean this

Well, yes. Learning about that stuff is part of it.

Alright, I'm on the 'I love eating cows' side.

Would you kindly stop saying 'It's morally wrong'? Morals are relative. What one person believes another could condemn.

Also, we eat cows but not cats and dogs because most find cows delicious and find cats and dogs to be useful for other things.

At 11/2/09 06:54 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/29/09 01:39 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/28/09 11:13 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Just because humans are the dominant species doesn't mean we have to do things to benefit our race if we don't need to

who says we don't need to?

because they're morally wrong, etc.

i keep telling you, it's NOT morally wrong. other animals do it, how come it's only wrong when we do it?

It's like what Sensationalism wrote on page three:

"Tiger=carnivore, deer= herbivore
Hawk=carnivore, rabbit=herbivore
Human=OMNIVORE

basically, it doesn't matter if we have "choice" or not, it's about the survival of OUR species, not their's.

It's also covered at the bottom of the FAQ.

dude, stop sending me to the same shitty site. get your pathetic arguements from somewhere else for a change.

This is what I'm arguing, in the case of farm animals. And what did dinosaurs do to benefit themselves the way we did?

they ate animals, the same thing we do.

They weren't even a quarter as smart as us.

that's not my point, my point is that they were the dominant species. they just got there a different way than we did.

So? OK, they were dominant and ate animals, but they did it because they chose to, like us? Yeah right.

again, choice has no relevance. in fact, name one dominant species that didn't eat meat.

On foot. Don't give me that straw man argument.

alright, give me an example, just ONE example of how a cow can save someone's life.

It could be like the same situation you gave. An animal is trained to deliver a message on foot or dial 911.

only in a cartoon could a cow ever do that. face it, the only way that cows aid our species is on a plate.

How long were you watching the cow(s)? A few minutes? If so, that doesn't count.

i watched them long enough, in fact, have YOU ever gone to a farm? if not, then you have no right to dispute this agruement.

"Long enough" doesn't do it for me. Yes, I have been to a farm, but I was only there to see animals for about 20 minutes. They were not eating or grazing even half of the time, as I recall.

i watched for about 2-3 hours, and they grazed the entire time.

I guess not like dogs, but not all common pets are like dogs. I did find this on cows: "Most cows kick because they are frightened, are in pain, or have been mistreated." The rest of the article also has relevant information.

like anyone's gonna hear kicking.

It probably wouldn't just be kicking. Other animals in the pen may become distressed and make noises. It also depends how far away the pen is from the farmer's house.

animals ALWAYS make noises, how are these any different?

why do you think farmers like to keep dogs in the pens?

How many farmers do that? Does it even work?

dogs bark, which is a far more effective method of signaling the farmer.

So that's your excuse for not proving this one wrong? Not all animal rights websites are one and the same.

from the site you gave me: " plants do not have a central nervous system and it is generally agreed upon in the scientific community that plants are incapable of suffering."

from peta.org: "There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains."

I said one and the same. So what if they have one thing in common that you provided?

face it, they all operate on the same wavelength.

the same e. coli that can easily be killed by proper cooking?

I dunno if all of it can be killed. Why are millions of pounds of meat being recalled because of it?

meat ISN'T recalled because of e. coli because it's the most easily preventable disease in the world.

No, I said, "Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?"

are you, or are you not making the arguement that dogmeat tastes just as good as regular meat?

If you won't dance around the question again, I personally don't know.

okay, for the record: i have NEVER eaten a dog/cat, i don't plan to, and dogs/cats don't gain much weight in their lifetime (unlike cows or pigs), so they wouldn't be much of a feast even if i did.

It's funny how this section of the Wikipedia article is all there is compared to other extremist animals right groups. Mercy for Animals "adheres to nonviolent principles".

i never said they were extreme, i said they were nuts, there's a difference.

Alright, but you said "maybe" they were extreme.

no, i never said anything about extremity, so can you just drop it?

I definitely don't think they're nuts.

And i quote: "Free-Range products promote animal cruelty"

Did you even read the article? If they were nuts, then why would it say:

"While these products may be less cruel than the typical factory farm products..."

"While small-scale animal farming is typically less damaging to the environment than the large-scale factory farms..."

"While organic animal products don't have the artificial growth hormones and antibiotics often found in factory farmed products..."

notice all the "whiles"? those mean that they're dropping all their more reasonable arguements in favor of some good, old fashioned insanity.

A Futurama episode is your proof? I mean... really?

i have more.

and this

also this

there's plenty more than that, but i think i made my point.

No, you haven't. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia or a news source. I guess you didn't get it when I wrote, "I mean... really?"

i'm trying to prove that animal rights is a joke, so joke sites are my proof.

google searches? why, because you couldn't find real sources?

Real like Uncyclopedia?

if you're trying to find jokes, you use uncyclopedia, if you're trying trying to prove that something is public opinion, you use youtube, if you're looking for facts, you use wikipedia etc. but no matter what, you don't use google as a source.

i don't need sources, i can disprove any global warming arguement you can throw at me. right here, right not.

Funny spelling mistake with "right not".

i meant right now, but i'm not a very good typist.

Anyway, I guess we'll start with this site's categories:

*cracks knuckles*

:weather patterns,

the weather fluctuates regularly, anyway. we have only been keeping track of it fora couple hundred years out of 4 billion. in fact, it's been getting MUCH colder the last few years.

health, wildlife, and glacier and sea levels.

that's not evidence, those are merely proposed effects. but the sea levels one can be attributed to the regular fluctuations.

It's not just global warming. There's wasting resources,

how? by feeding them grass, seeds, or trash that we don't eat?

Read.

again, we don't eat "grain", we aren't running out of water, etc. eating meat doesn't make us lose resources, deal with it.

extinction,

because everyone knows that when you control a population effectively, by breeding them and eating them in equivilent numbers, you're contributing to extinction.

It doesn't have to do with the extinction of cattle.

then we shold just find better grazing areas, end of story.

by "polution", you mean cow farts.

I mean this.

manure runoff? really? that can be solved by better containment and purification methods.

Depends on what you exactly mean by that.

i mean this

Well, yes. Learning about that stuff is part of it.

no matter what, we should NEVER teach kids through opinions, that's indoctrination. if we were to lecture to school kids about animal rights, that would be wrong. regardless of the opinion in question, i am ALWAYS against indoctrination.

My 2 cents:
If dinosoars still walked the earth, they really wouldn't give a damn that I feel pain. They just know that they're hungry and I taste good. They would be higher on the food chain. If you wanted to tell the dinosoars that I had rights, be my guest and nice knowing ya.

On the same note, I am higher on the food chain than cows and I like a good steak now and then. Deal with it. As with obesity, most of us just eat too much meat that has too much fat (it's not our fault it tastes so damned good!). You need to have the right balance of your food groups. Too much of ANY food will make you unheathly. If you only eat meat, you're going to miss out on the vitamins that leafy greens have. And salad lacks the protein that lean meat has. They go hand in hand.

Heath wise, your body needs meat AND greens, in their respective portions.

And for animal rights, that is a question that you must answer for yourself.

At 11/4/09 05:07 PM, iloveTyler wrote: My 2 cents:
If dinosoars still walked the earth, they really wouldn't give a damn that I feel pain.

Because they're not humans. You, on the other hand, can feel concern for things that can feel pain. See the difference?

They just know that they're hungry and I taste good. They would be higher on the food chain. If you wanted to tell the dinosoars that I had rights, be my guest and nice knowing ya.

Not this argument again. HUMANS ARE NOT DINOSAURS. Humans understand empathy and can choose not to maker things suffer. Dinosaurs could not. This is one of the worst arguments and analogies out there, and I'm shocked that people take it seriously. This goes for comparing humans to any other animal as well.

It all goes back to the main point, whomever is highest on the food chain makes the rules. On a personal note, I don't think animals have "rights" as humans do. I love meat, it tastes good, (I know, that's what she said), and it requires the death of an amimal. If the slaughter houses made everything painless for the animals, great. If they don't, it makes me sad, but I'm not going to stop eating meat because of it.

Alright, I'm back for another round.

At 11/2/09 07:41 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/2/09 06:54 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: It's like what Sensationalism wrote on page three:

"Tiger=carnivore, deer= herbivore
Hawk=carnivore, rabbit=herbivore
Human=OMNIVORE

basically, it doesn't matter if we have "choice" or not, it's about the survival of OUR species, not their's.

We're not gonna die if we don't eat meat. Are you thinking that animals are gonna take over? I don't see the ones Sensationalism mentioned doing that.

It's also covered at the bottom of the FAQ.

dude, stop sending me to the same shitty site. get your pathetic arguements from somewhere else for a change.

I know you don't like the site, but you've still yet to prove the info wrong with sources.

So? OK, they were dominant and ate animals, but they did it because they chose to, like us? Yeah right.

again, choice has no relevance. in fact, name one dominant species that didn't eat meat.

What would be the point in naming one that's not as smart as humans? Being smart also has no relevance?

It could be like the same situation you gave. An animal is trained to deliver a message on foot or dial 911.

only in a cartoon could a cow ever do that.

I bet you'd say the same thing for a bird if you hadn't found out about that one story.

face it, the only way that cows aid our species is on a plate.

Still not buying that. Eating animals, who feel pain and aren't as smart as us, because we can doesn't make sense to me.

"Long enough" doesn't do it for me. Yes, I have been to a farm, but I was only there to see animals for about 20 minutes. They were not eating or grazing even half of the time, as I recall.

i watched for about 2-3 hours, and they grazed the entire time.

I dunno whether to give you the benefit of the doubt, regarding cows. How am I suppose to know that if they were grazing the 2-3 hours you saw them then they're always grazing when they're not sleeping? I'm not saying you're wrong on their behaviour, but I dunno if you're right.

It probably wouldn't just be kicking. Other animals in the pen may become distressed and make noises. It also depends how far away the pen is from the farmer's house.

animals ALWAYS make noises, how are these any different?

Because it's not like they're making noises at random or for other non-threatening reasons. When they're altogether, it's different than when they are separate.

why do you think farmers like to keep dogs in the pens?

How many farmers do that? Does it even work?

dogs bark, which is a far more effective method of signaling the farmer.

Depending if one is kept in a pen and if the farmer can hear him or her.

I said one and the same. So what if they have one thing in common that you provided?

face it, they all operate on the same wavelength.

You're arguing from silence.

I dunno if all of it can be killed. Why are millions of pounds of meat being recalled because of it?

meat ISN'T recalled because of e. coli because it's the most easily preventable disease in the world.

So are you claiming what the article said isn't true?

If you won't dance around the question again, I personally don't know.

okay, for the record: i have NEVER eaten a dog/cat, i don't plan to

Alright.

and dogs/cats don't gain much weight in their lifetime (unlike cows or pigs), so they wouldn't be much of a feast even if i did.

Since dogs and cats aren't raised for food, at least commonly, then isn't it obvious that we don't feed them like cows and pigs? Obese dogs and cats do also exist.

Alright, but you said "maybe" they were extreme.

no, i never said anything about extremity, so can you just drop it?

I'd just like to point out where you said it:

At 10/24/09 09:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/24/09 05:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Well, Mercy for Animals (who made the ChooseVeg website) isn't extreme like those groups.

maybe, but they're still nuts like those groups.

Anyway...

Did you even read the article? If they were nuts, then why would it say:

"While these products may be less cruel than the typical factory farm products..."

"While small-scale animal farming is typically less damaging to the environment than the large-scale factory farms..."

"While organic animal products don't have the artificial growth hormones and antibiotics often found in factory farmed products..."

notice all the "whiles"? those mean that they're dropping all their more reasonable arguements in favor of some good, old fashioned insanity.

So why is it insane? Don't forget they provide references.

No, you haven't. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia or a news source. I guess you didn't get it when I wrote, "I mean... really?"

i'm trying to prove that animal rights is a joke, so joke sites are my proof.

Rape, murder, suicide, and burglary are also on Uncyclopedia. When there's a discussion about them, are you honestly gonna use that site to prove they're a joke and expect people to take you seriously?

Real like Uncyclopedia?

if you're trying to find jokes, you use uncyclopedia, if you're trying trying to prove that something is public opinion, you use youtube, if you're looking for facts, you use wikipedia etc. but no matter what, you don't use google as a source.

What makes Wikipedia more trustworthy than Google, especially if you refer to Google's top pages? I bet you wouldn't even have known I used Google to find those sources if I had just posted them alone.

Right now, it's past 1am, and I have to go to bed. I'll finish either in the afternoon or the next day.

At 11/2/09 07:41 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/2/09 06:54 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Anyway, I guess we'll start with this site's categories:

*cracks knuckles*

weather patterns,

the weather fluctuates regularly, anyway. we have only been keeping track of it fora couple hundred years out of 4 billion. in fact, it's been getting MUCH colder the last few years.

I know it fluctuates, but the problem is it's rising, anyway.

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/i ndicators/C51/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature _record_of_the_past_1000_years

health, wildlife, and glacier and sea levels.

that's not evidence, those are merely proposed effects. but the sea levels one can be attributed to the regular fluctuations.

I dunno what you mean by proposed effects. This is what I found on sea levels.

Read.

again, we don't eat "grain", we aren't running out of water, etc. eating meat doesn't make us lose resources, deal with it.

What do you mean we don't eat grain? Do you have any sources on the not running out of water issue?

It doesn't have to do with the extinction of cattle.

then we shold just find better grazing areas, end of story.

What do you mean by that? How would it not contribute to extinction, as well?

I mean this.

manure runoff? really? that can be solved by better containment and purification methods.

Like?

Well, yes. Learning about that stuff is part of it.

no matter what, we should NEVER teach kids through opinions, that's indoctrination. if we were to lecture to school kids about animal rights, that would be wrong. regardless of the opinion in question, i am ALWAYS against indoctrination.

I think you're looking at the first definition of indoctrination. I'm looking at the second. Teachers wouldn't be telling children or teens that animal rights is good. They'd be teaching them about animal rights. It's like how I went to a media studies class in high school. I wasn't forced or told to agree with what we were studying. I was perfectly allowed to disagree.

At 11/4/09 05:59 PM, iloveTyler wrote: If the slaughter houses made everything painless for the animals, great. If they don't, it makes me sad, but I'm not going to stop eating meat because of it.

But isn't that ignorance? My guess is you don't care because you're not looking at the animals being abused before you eat. You may see the undercover videos of the abuse, and it makes you sad, but you just go on with your day after the video's over. If you had to watch the way your meat is prepared, at least from the moment the animals arrive at the slaughterhouse, would you still feel the same when you eat?

I love both cats and chickens, just in a different way.
I love how cats are cute and how chickens are tasty.

At 11/10/09 11:25 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: But isn't that ignorance? My guess is you don't care because you're not looking at the animals being abused before you eat.

Are you looking at the field mouse or rabbit that was cut to shreds by a combine before you eat your bread?

would you still feel the same when you eat?

At 11/12/09 01:48 AM, Toggaf wrote:

At 11/2/09 06:59 PM, CaptainChip wrote: Alright, I'm on the 'I love eating cows' side.

Would you kindly stop saying 'It's morally wrong'? Morals are relative. What one person believes another could condemn.

Rape is moral?

Some people have no moral objection to rape. And even those that view rape as immoral, the type differs. For example I was having this conversation with someone on these forums a few years ago and we brought up rape. Even with that someone said that it isn't rape if someone consents while under the effects of drugs (whether or not the drugs were voluntarily taken) yet I have a huge problem with that.

There are serial rapists that think that what they did was the right thing, therefor it was not immoral to them.

BTW you complain about the treatment of the animals, such as the male chickens that are crushed.

Is this something that is humane? Maybe not, but as some of these companies that do this have said, if you want the baby roosters they are yours. But they simply are not economical to raise, and no one wants them.

So what do we do with them?

What do we do with the cows if we all stop eating meat? Their closest thing to a wild ancestor died out a long time ago, and cows, in their current form, would likely not survive very well in the wild. It would likely be similar to if we released all of the poodles of the world into the wild. They just wouldn't survive.

I'll eat anything that isn't poisonous, genitalia, or human

First, I want to point out that using health benefits to favor vegetarianism is silly. Even if it is more healthy, you can be at least equally healthy while eating meat. It's fine if you want to be health conscious, but don't say it makes vegetarians better, because diets are not exclusive to them.

Next, there are many things wrong with the world that are much worse than killing animals, like child labor, and avoiding Nike shoes is way easier than being a vegetarian. I know a couple of vegetarians, and none of them care about nike or coke or any of the other myriad of problems in the world, and they can't. There's just too much fucked up shit. It's impossible to care about all of them.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about anything, I'm saying why not care about worse problems, and enjoy your meat? If you have to worry about something (and I don't) why not worry about how coke is treating people in south america for water? why not research companies that use child labor and boycott them? we can't do everything, so why not do the easy stuff, especially since, to me at least, they can be more noble causes?

finally, why caring for cows and chickens is stupid. suppose you saw someone playing with their dog or cat. "aww, how cute!" is what I would think. now, suppose you saw someone playing with a chicken. "what a loony!" is what I would think. chickens and cows do not play, they do not interact with people, and they do not give off the impression of love that so many people find in their dogs and cats. maybe, if I spent enough time with one, these connections would develop. However, as it stands, dogs and cats, as species, are associated with fun and affection and playing in my mind. I would even believe that they have emotions. Cows are associated with dull while alive and tasty while dead. I have no compassion for them, and I see no need to convince myself of their feelings. I am happy without compassion for them, and my lack of cow compassion does not realistically hurt one person. unless it hurts a vegeterian's feelings, in which case, stop being a pussy.
I refuse to spend so much effort shifting my mind to care and worrying so much about what I eat when it doesn't help people, and to me, it seems silly when other people do.
If the compassion somehow came naturally, and you found that one day you couldn't bring yourself to eat a cow, fine. but if you convince yourself with the logic "they're just like us!!" you're very, very, silly.

At 11/17/09 07:56 PM, FAtmat666 wrote: First, I want to point out that using health benefits to favor vegetarianism is silly. Even if it is more healthy, you can be at least equally healthy while eating meat. It's fine if you want to be health conscious, but don't say it makes vegetarians better, because diets are not exclusive to them.

Not necessarily. There is a much greater risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart attacks, Ovarian cancer, etc if you eat meat. Not saying though that vegs cannot get those problems but meateaters have a much better chance.

Next, there are many things wrong with the world that are much worse than killing animals, like child labor, and avoiding Nike shoes is way easier than being a vegetarian. I know a couple of vegetarians, and none of them care about nike or coke or any of the other myriad of problems in the world, and they can't. There's just too much fucked up shit. It's impossible to care about all of them.

I take a stand towards animal abuse/slaughter, child abuse, child labor, Environmental,etc., It doesn't drain me and I do not find it difficult to stand up for multiple causes that I believe in. You can't say that we vegetarians ONLY care about animals when there are many who care about multiple different issues.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about anything, I'm saying why not care about worse problems, and enjoy your meat? If you have to worry about something (and I don't) why not worry about how coke is treating people in south america for water? why not research companies that use child labor and boycott them? we can't do everything, so why not do the easy stuff, especially since, to me at least, they can be more noble causes?

Every cause has its purpose there is no "more noble cause" than the other.

finally, why caring for cows and chickens is stupid. suppose you saw someone playing with their dog or cat. "aww, how cute!" is what I would think. now, suppose you saw someone playing with a chicken. "what a loony!" is what I would think. chickens and cows do not play, they do not interact with people, and they do not give off the impression of love that so many people find in their dogs and cats. maybe, if I spent enough time with one, these connections would develop. However, as it stands, dogs and cats, as species, are associated with fun and affection and playing in my mind. I would even believe that they have emotions. Cows are associated with dull while alive and tasty while dead. I have no compassion for them, and I see no need to convince myself of their feelings. I am happy without compassion for them, and my lack of cow compassion does not realistically hurt one person. unless it hurts a vegeterian's feelings, in which case, stop being a pussy.

They have life, they deserve to keep it. Not have it brutally taken away. Cows and chickens both have personalities and the ability to make lasting bonds with their group. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and have the mind of a three year old. So honestly I see no difference between animals we keep as pets and animals you consider food.

I refuse to spend so much effort shifting my mind to care and worrying so much about what I eat when it doesn't help people, and to me, it seems silly when other people do.
If the compassion somehow came naturally, and you found that one day you couldn't bring yourself to eat a cow, fine. but if you convince yourself with the logic "they're just like us!!" you're very, very, silly.

It isn't "silly", they breathe, form bonds, feel pain, etc. I am not saying they are exactly like us but they do have alot of the qualities we do. I am not trying to change your small way of thinking ( I know it would be a waste) but I just find it appalling that people (such as you) try to "rate" the importance of Activist Groups. They all have their purpose and each are just about as important as the other to the minds of those specific activists.

At 11/18/09 01:28 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

At 11/17/09 07:56 PM, FAtmat666 wrote: First, I want to point out that using health benefits to favor vegetarianism is silly. Even if it is more healthy, you can be at least equally healthy while eating meat. It's fine if you want to be health conscious, but don't say it makes vegetarians better, because diets are not exclusive to them.

Not necessarily. There is a much greater risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart attacks, Ovarian cancer, etc if you eat meat. Not saying though that vegs cannot get those problems but meateaters have a much better chance.

Those studies aren't blind studies, they are purely statistical studies and I'm willing to bet highly biased. Yes, meat eaters have a higher chance at those things, but it's not because they eat meat, it's that they eat too much and likely have other extremely unhealthy choices. One reason that vegetarians are generally healthier, is that they watch what they eat more carefully. Believe it or not, I recently found out that one of the women I work with is a vegetarian, and to my surprise she's over 200 pounds. My wife pointed it out to me how she eats too. She eats salads every day at lunch (huge salad full of croutons and dressing) and then when she's done she eats an equally unhealthy after lunch snack.

Next, there are many things wrong with the world that are much worse than killing animals, like child labor, and avoiding Nike shoes is way easier than being a vegetarian. I know a couple of vegetarians, and none of them care about nike or coke or any of the other myriad of problems in the world, and they can't. There's just too much fucked up shit. It's impossible to care about all of them.

I take a stand towards animal abuse/slaughter, child abuse, child labor, Environmental,etc., It doesn't drain me and I do not find it difficult to stand up for multiple causes that I believe in. You can't say that we vegetarians ONLY care about animals when there are many who care about multiple different issues.

finally, why caring for cows and chickens is stupid. suppose you saw someone playing with their dog or cat. "aww, how cute!" is what I would think. now, suppose you saw someone playing with a chicken. "what a loony!" is what I would think. chickens and cows do not play, they do not interact with people, and they do not give off the impression of love that so many people find in their dogs and cats. maybe, if I spent enough time with one, these connections would develop. However, as it stands, dogs and cats, as species, are associated with fun and affection and playing in my mind. I would even believe that they have emotions. Cows are associated with dull while alive and tasty while dead. I have no compassion for them, and I see no need to convince myself of their feelings. I am happy without compassion for them, and my lack of cow compassion does not realistically hurt one person. unless it hurts a vegeterian's feelings, in which case, stop being a pussy.

They have life, they deserve to keep it. Not have it brutally taken away. Cows and chickens both have personalities and the ability to make lasting bonds with their group. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and have the mind of a three year old. So honestly I see no difference between animals we keep as pets and animals you consider food.

What do we do with all of these cows, chickens, and pigs? What should South Korea do with all of the dogs?

Dogs and cats have generally been useful around farms in the past, which is why humans have bonded with them so well. Dogs were work animals, sheep herders, hunting partners, and cats kept mice and rats away (protecting the family from many diseases). Generally, pigs and cows have been food. If you want to bond with them, go ahead.

I refuse to spend so much effort shifting my mind to care and worrying so much about what I eat when it doesn't help people, and to me, it seems silly when other people do.
If the compassion somehow came naturally, and you found that one day you couldn't bring yourself to eat a cow, fine. but if you convince yourself with the logic "they're just like us!!" you're very, very, silly.

It isn't "silly", they breathe, form bonds, feel pain, etc. I am not saying they are exactly like us but they do have alot of the qualities we do. I am not trying to change your small way of thinking ( I know it would be a waste) but I just find it appalling that people (such as you) try to "rate" the importance of Activist Groups. They all have their purpose and each are just about as important as the other to the minds of those specific activists.

Many people see it as silly. While I'm not a huge fan of making animals suffer, I'm not about to stop eating meat. I eat meat regularly, and I am healthy. My dad eats meat, and he's unhealthy. But guess what, I eat a balanced diet while he doesn't. How many "meat eaters" in your studies at healthy and balanced diets? I doubt that was a question on the questionnaire.

The countries with the longest life span eat meat too.

At 11/18/09 01:43 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 11/18/09 01:28 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

At 11/17/09 07:56 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

Those studies aren't blind studies, they are purely statistical studies and I'm willing to bet highly biased. Yes, meat eaters have a higher chance at those things, but it's not because they eat meat, it's that they eat too much and likely have other extremely unhealthy choices. One reason that vegetarians are generally healthier, is that they watch what they eat more carefully. Believe it or not, I recently found out that one of the women I work with is a vegetarian, and to my surprise she's over 200 pounds. My wife pointed it out to me how she eats too. She eats salads every day at lunch (huge salad full of croutons and dressing) and then when she's done she eats an equally unhealthy after lunch snack.

Yeah I am aware that there are some vegetarians who do not eat completely healthy and are over a certain weight margin and that there are some healthy meateaters. Of course it depends on how you take care of yourself that contributes to you being healthy or not. I just find more pros than cons being a veg instead of a meateater. It isn't all about being healthy but eliminating suffering, helping the planet, feeding the starving, etc. Eating meat limits those things.

What do we do with all of these cows, chickens, and pigs? What should South Korea do with all of the dogs?

Dogs and cats have generally been useful around farms in the past, which is why humans have bonded with them so well. Dogs were work animals, sheep herders, hunting partners, and cats kept mice and rats away (protecting the family from many diseases). Generally, pigs and cows have been food. If you want to bond with them, go ahead.

Yes, thats true. But we are not in an archaic age where meat is a necessity. We know now how to take care of ourselves without the slaughter of an animal in a factory farm. Honestly it isn't even the eating of meat that blows my mind it is the fact all this meat is manufactured and treated with no respect from neither the killers or the consumers. I find it difficult that we as whole consider these animals products and ours for the taking. I would have much less angst towards the consumption of meat if you had to raise and kill the cow yourself without the cruel methods used in factory farming.
Let them have a somewhat great life before ending on your dinner plate.

At 11/18/09 01:28 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

At 11/17/09 07:56 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

Not necessarily. There is a much greater risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart attacks, Ovarian cancer, etc if you eat meat. Not saying though that vegs cannot get those problems but meateaters have a much better chance.

see above

I take a stand towards animal abuse/slaughter, child abuse, child labor, Environmental,etc., It doesn't drain me and I do not find it difficult to stand up for multiple causes that I believe in. You can't say that we vegetarians ONLY care about animals when there are many who care about multiple different issues.

I only listed a couple of the problems in the world. There are many, many, more. and there is only so much someone can truly care for without being completely depressed. everyone has their limit, and the amount of human rights violations alone is enough to fill even Gandhi's limit twice over.

Every cause has its purpose there is no "more noble cause" than the other.

There are, though. Humans should always be considered before animals. If you think that humans and animals are equal, then you sir are a loony. And there would be no arguing with you, as your core beliefs would be very different from those of a sane person.

They have life, they deserve to keep it. Not have it brutally taken away. Cows and chickens both have personalities and the ability to make lasting bonds with their group. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and have the mind of a three year old. So honestly I see no difference between animals we keep as pets and animals you consider food.

Trees have lives too! okay, that is a silly argument. But my point is that your true argument is that we are taking away the animals conscious, personality, bonds, etc. You are trying to see them as human, and then treat them like we would humans. Again, if you can't help it and it just one day happened that you had extreme pity for cows, fine. I myself am guilty of treating my dog like a human, and would never think about eating him. But to actively convince yourself that all animals are like humans is silly.
My sense of compassion was evolutionarily designed to be directed to humans. To consider myself a better person for directing them at animals is what I consider silly. I can't help doing it a little bit, I would not torture an animal. If I naturally couldn't eat an animal, then fine. But when I actively convince myself is when I have crossed the line to rediculous.

I just find it appalling that people (such as you) try to "rate" the importance of Activist Groups. They all have their purpose and each are just about as important as the other to the minds of those specific activists.

You're absolutely right. The advocate group that stresses the importance of opening your string beans in the correct manner is just as important as the advocate group for Darfur. My bad. I guess I'm appalling for ever considering otherwise.

At 11/18/09 02:29 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

At 11/18/09 01:28 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

At 11/17/09 07:56 PM, FAtmat666 wrote:

I only listed a couple of the problems in the world. There are many, many, more. and there is only so much someone can truly care for without being completely depressed. everyone has their limit, and the amount of human rights violations alone is enough to fill even Gandhi's limit twice over.

That is obvious.

Every cause has its purpose there is no "more noble cause" than the other.

There are, though. Humans should always be considered before animals. If you think that humans and animals are equal, then you sir are a loony. And there would be no arguing with you, as your core beliefs would be very different from those of a sane person.

I never said animals should be thought of before humans, that is yet another false assumption about vegetarians. I'm not saying they are equal in a way that they should vote or drive cars... But They have an equal right to life, like it or not.

They have life, they deserve to keep it. Not have it brutally taken away. Cows and chickens both have personalities and the ability to make lasting bonds with their group. Pigs are also smarter than dogs and have the mind of a three year old. So honestly I see no difference between animals we keep as pets and animals you consider food.

Trees have lives too! okay, that is a silly argument. But my point is that your true argument is that we are taking away the animals conscious, personality, bonds, etc. You are trying to see them as human, and then treat them like we would humans. Again, if you can't help it and it just one day happened that you had extreme pity for cows, fine. I myself am guilty of treating my dog like a human, and would never think about eating him. But to actively convince yourself that all animals are like humans is silly.

I am not looking at them as humans. They ARE beings and do suffer. (especially in factory farms which you help fund). I do not pity cows I pity the people who show no sign of respect towards the animals they consume and think of them as just "dinner".

My sense of compassion was evolutionarily designed to be directed to humans. To consider myself a better person for directing them at animals is what I consider silly. I can't help doing it a little bit, I would not torture an animal. If I naturally couldn't eat an animal, then fine. But when I actively convince myself is when I have crossed the line to rediculous.

I don't think of myself as a better person for caring about animals and choosing not to eat them, that has nothing to do with why I live my life this way. I just love animals enough not to eat them so I don't.
It is rather simple.

I just find it appalling that people (such as you) try to "rate" the importance of Activist Groups. They all have their purpose and each are just about as important as the other to the minds of those specific activists.

You're absolutely right. The advocate group that stresses the importance of opening your string beans in the correct manner is just as important as the advocate group for Darfur. My bad. I guess I'm appalling for ever considering otherwise.

Haha wow. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. World Causes, Not mechanical Correctness....

At 11/18/09 03:01 PM, Fingercuffs wrote:

the amount of human rights violations alone is enough to fill even Gandhi's limit twice over.

That is obvious.

you have admitted to point 1: innumerable human problems to worry about

I never said animals should be thought of before humans, that is yet another false assumption about vegetarians. I'm not saying they are equal in a way that they should vote or drive cars... But They have an equal right to life, like it or not.

you have admitted to point 2: humans are more important than animals

I am not looking at them as humans. They ARE beings and do suffer. (especially in factory farms which you help fund). I do not pity cows I pity the people who show no sign of respect towards the animals they consume and think of them as just "dinner".

you have admitted to point 3: animals are not humans

The logical conclusion of accepting all of these points is that you should spend the energy you do have on humans instead of animals.

I don't think of myself as a better person for caring about animals and choosing not to eat them, that has nothing to do with why I live my life this way. I just love animals enough not to eat them so I don't.

Like I have said, if the love for all animals comes naturally and randomly, fine. Kinda sucks, but whatever. If you looked for it, you are retarded. Also, question: do you think that I am a worse person for eating meat?

Haha wow. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. World Causes, Not mechanical Correctness....

This was simply an exaggeration of my point, it can easily be extended to world causes. Some things are just more important than others. Like humans are more important than animals.