Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Then they come out with some new experimental fake meat shit that gives everyone cancer and no one dares try it again.

Or it just tastes crappy, hasnt happened yet but give it time....

At 8/30/10 08:29 PM, tarahloveshentai wrote: So as most of you know, a new video has come out of a girl throwing puppies into a river. It's gained the attention of /b/ and NG so far.


For some reason, I don't understand how her argument is valid. One side of the spectrum is society slaughtering animals for food. This is a girl just throwing puppies that are probably days old into a river with no chance of survival.

Can you find logic in the whole PETA scene?
Other weird ways of people finding sense in bad or cruel situations?

Okay, lets show videos of Chinese killing dogs for food. It's not a pretty sight either.

You cool with it?

PETA is a bunch of Hollywood circle jerking fags who like to one up eachother on how supportive they are on animal rights.

The ALF is where its at :P

Animal abusers deserve jailtime, they torture animals. Most animals that are killed to be eaten are killed quite humanely, with a few exceptions such as the geese made they use to make liver patte but still, its more humane than throwing a dog barely old enough to open its eyes into an icy river.

Why are puppies valued more than say, pigs?
I don't get the difference.

Frankly, Your PETA supporting friend is stupid. That argument stops making sense as soon as you put some THOUGHT into it.

At 9/2/10 12:48 AM, Gustavos wrote: Frankly, Your PETA supporting friend is stupid. That argument stops making sense as soon as you put some THOUGHT into it.

How so.

If you're cool with eating dogs, then you aren't being contradictory.

But if you are opposed to eating dogs in the same fashion as other animals, then you are.

Why do people associate cruelty and killing for food? Admittedly, some places do torture the animals they kill, but that's just another annoying case of the vocal minority. Most animals killed for food are treated as humanely as any creature in their situation can be.

Also, yes we can survive on just fruit and veggies. You could also drive with your feet, but that don't make it a good fuckin' idea.

Death is unavoidable, you eat solely planets, you are killing plant life, animals, animal life, so I just try to respect what I eat by eating out of necessity, and not wasting anything.

Also their is a difference because the reason why is different, Killing a small puppy won't really provide food, and if you kill it just to kill, that is murder, however, killing a pig in order to survive, or even a plant is survival, you kill it out of a need instead of a want.

One of my friends who's a PETA supporter and a vicious Vegetarian said today:

"You cry over a puppy, and wish the girl who killed it was dead.
But what about the cows, chickens, and pigs that are killed for you to eat?
Mmmmhm."

I'm a VEGETARIAN.
And I would not throw puppies for the sake of throwing them (unless they're non-living remakes)
I don't eat chickens, pigs or cows (a strict no-no for everything that lives)

Can you find logic in the whole PETA scene?
Other weird ways of people finding sense in bad or cruel situations?

Maybe. Search on google.

Puppies are cute, farm animals shit everywhere allthetime.

At 9/2/10 09:39 AM, sanjeev98 wrote: I don't eat chickens, pigs or cows (a strict no-no for everything that lives)

Plants are living creatures too.

I was just talking about this with my mom the other day. We agreed that cows and chickens are bred to be eaten. In a strange way, we are actually ensuring the continuity of the species. Animals like cats and dogs were domesticated because they were useful. Dogs could be used for hunting and cats can catch mice. While they may not be that useful anymore, we have simply gotten into too much of a rut to change it. Besides, they're cuter.

At 9/1/10 10:05 PM, harryjarry wrote:

At 9/1/10 05:06 PM, Xgsniper wrote: And a complete misinterpretation on your part. Being heterotrophs, we need to metabolize other organisms to continue living. Last time i checked, plants were organisms that live.

Vegetation is enough by itself to sustain human life. Being a heterotroph has nothing to do with whether or not consuming animals is morally right. We have to consume organisms, but we don't have to consume animals.

Then what is it about? Please divulge whatever else it could possibly be about.

Sentience. Animals don't want to die; they want to continue living.

And plants don't? Yeah, i guess you're right. I mean it makes total sense that plants don't want to live, i mean, it's like like they continue to metabolize sunlight and water in order to live and reprodcuce....oh wait....

Where the hell did you get that from?

You said:

Morals are just a human concept and it has no bearing in nature. And unless we become autotrophs, consuming animals or plants, is not immoral.

So if morals are just made up and have no place in nature, you should see no difference in consuming human animals and nonhuman animals. You also said:

We choose to eat what we want, and as long as we to consume, no person is moral than another due to their diet.

That seems to confirm my previous point. You are saying whatever we consume has no effect on how morally right someone is. After all, it is "survival of the fittest," right?

Contradiction right there, like i said, this is society, and this is the only place morals have any bearing. And this extends to cannibalism via social contracts.

I did not say that, i said the act of metabolizing other organisms is natural and necessary to continue living.

The act of consuming vegetation is natural and necessary-nothing more is.

So the consuming of animals is not natural? Just because it wasn't naturaly made means it can't be consumed naturally? Jeez, contradictions, contradictions.

Really? What makes sentient beings so special? Tell me exactly what makes a cow more valuable than a tree? Please, do go on.

Sentience: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought. A tree is not capable of perception/thought/emotion, but animals are.

So the ability to have emotion makes a life more worthy than another? That point has no merit, it was merely an observation. This isn't a question of moral values. When you see trees being chopped down, and pumpkins being cut to ribbons, you won't shed a single tear. Because you have only empathy for things that can feel emotions? Life is life, and you sir, are a hypocrite.

At 9/2/10 05:50 PM, neeggerbeetch wrote: Here is a shocker to end this thread.

1. eating animals is NOT necessary to be healthy.(vegetarians can prove this)

irrelevant, i suggest you read my argument just above your post.

2. eating animals is an OPTION for anyone with access to a vegetarian meal, which is just about everybody in the U.S. and this means you eat an animal for the tasty pleasure of their dead meat.

And you eat the remains of a dead plant for the sake of a disillusioned moral and/or hypocrite pride that you are better than those who eat meat.

3. Death is cruel, no argument there. to eat an animal, it must what? go through DEATH.

So plants don't die?

4. Eating an animal means putting an animal trough death.(aka cruelty)

By that reasoning, you are cruel to plants.

5. eating an animal is a pleasurable option.(remember step 2.?)

And eating only plants for the sake of being "better" than those who do is not?

6. sadism is what? pleasurable cruelty.

You should really use a dictionary. Sadism is the act of taking pleasure in the death and/or suffering of another, eating what you want because you are hungry does not fit this definition.

Animals are food. Plants are also food. I like eating. I'm going to eat something, and meat tastes better.

There's nothing moral about it. It's god damn food, people.

y BUT THEY KILL COWS WHEN THERE OLD AND GUYS you might want too see this it realy showsof this thread (well the vids do)

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/47 0028

Dogs are smarter than those animals and are also more social. You're friend is fucking retarded.

At 9/2/10 08:25 PM, neeggerbeetch wrote: @Xgsniper
Are you stupid? I'm on your're side. I eat both meat and vegetables.

Not really, from what i saw in your argument, you were pro vegetarianism

everything you said about eating plants and meat are true.

the point of my argument was to show that you can be a sadist by eating an animal, and you can also be a sadist by eating a plant. By this I mean that us animal eaters are sadist by simply eating meat. I'll show you how because you missed it.

Too bad that little tid bit was NOT in your argument. I didn't miss anything.

"Sadism is the act of taking pleasure in the death and/or suffering of another"

taking pleasure? Yes you're taking pleasure in the death of an animal. the pleasure is that it tastes good and keeps your body healthy. just like a guy who sees murder and gets horny or sees a woman getting raped and gets horny. that death or suffering brought him that sexual pleasure. Again, eating what you want is pleasurable because you have the option to choose what makes you happy or in this case what tastes good, meat.
You're thinking too narrow, sadism is not only when you see some dumb kid killing an ant with a magnifying glass.

By that logic a child who does not even know the meaning of death a sadist because he ate chicken nuggets.

At 9/2/10 08:25 PM, neeggerbeetch wrote: Yes you're taking pleasure in the death of an animal. the pleasure is that it tastes good and keeps your body healthy. just like a guy who sees murder and gets horny or sees a woman getting raped and gets horny. that death or suffering brought him that sexual pleasure.

is there something wrong with sadism?

Your friend sounds like a hypocritical fuck.

Who the fuck reserves their ideologically-gained empathy to make a point?

Also, fuck cows, chickens and pigs. Dogs are better.

At 9/2/10 10:00 AM, 1Tyla1 wrote:

At 9/2/10 09:39 AM, sanjeev98 wrote: I don't eat chickens, pigs or cows (a strict no-no for everything that lives)

Plants are living creatures too.

Ain't that just obvious.
Even I though of that for some time, but I got the answer: They're plants. They can't move their whole plant-body, (although some parts can), they can't scream, they can't talk (although I'd love to get a talking plant) but they do do things that animals do, except in a different way: they don't shit, they transpire. They drink, but not using a glass. They eat, (but have you seen a plant eating? No. That's because it happens at a level we can't see.)

Somehow, I am not convinced that vegetarians don't eat living things.
But I think vegetarians mean "Non meat eaters". Meat as in animals. Plants aren't "meat" if you know what I mean. (I don't :P)

But what else would we eat, if plants and animals are living? Air? Maybe, in the future.

At 8/30/10 08:29 PM, tarahloveshentai wrote: So as most of you know, a new video has come out of a girl throwing puppies into a river. It's gained the attention of /b/ and NG so far.

One of my friends who's a PETA supporter and a vicious Vegetarian said today:

"You cry over a puppy, and wish the girl who killed it was dead.
But what about the cows, chickens, and pigs that are killed for you to eat?
Mmmmhm."

Can you find logic in the whole PETA scene?
Other weird ways of people finding sense in bad or cruel situations?

I don't cry over puppies. BUT, PETA is messed up... seriously.

I support People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants. :-P

:...killing an ant with a magnifying glass.

Phew. I wanted to do that, but I did not want to do it, but...etc (I was torn apart between my guilty conscience and fascination)

Then I decided to kill the ant (a red one, I have grudges against it for giving me a big rash on my skin) humanely (even though I didn't like it much) by squashing it.
Mind you, it wasn't easy. I had to do it multiple times, and after it was 1000% dead (I can't forgive myself if the ant was still alive) then I used the magnifying glass.

However, I'd like to do it to beetles and cockroaches (lol COCK-roaches) because they have a shell which is hard.

At 9/2/10 05:50 PM, neeggerbeetch wrote: Here is a shocker to end this thread.

It ain't exactly a shocker.

1. eating animals is NOT necessary to be healthy.(vegetarians can prove this)

Yeah!

3. Death is cruel, no argument there. to eat an animal, it must what? go through DEATH.

What about plants?

4. Eating an animal means putting an animal trough death.(aka cruelty)

You spelled "through" wrong. Trough does not make sense in this sentence.

You make a good point, to a certain extent. But you're a massive hypocrite if you're angered by a girl throwing puppies into a river and you have no sympathy whatsoever for the animals you consume on a daily basis.

At 9/1/10 11:17 AM, harryjarry wrote:

At 8/30/10 08:32 PM, Dubbi wrote: We kill farm animals for food; there's no reason to kill people puppies.

We have absolutely no need to consume any animal products at all. There's no reason to kill any animal.

we are only smart because we consume other animals and gain complex proteins and fats that you cant get from plants. without meat you wouldn't be able to type your arguement due to the fact that you'd be a mancow with no cognitive or problem solving skills

At 8/30/10 08:32 PM, Esshole wrote: Food - Okay.
Sick-os killing for pleasure or cruelty - Not okay.

As I've already stated, humans do not need any animal products to survive; we only continue to consume because "it tastes good." This is probably more accurate:

Food, sick-os - pleasure (at the cost of unnecessary cruelty). No form of animal use is okay.

and becuase vegetarians become bloated in appearance due to the fat that a salad is harder to turn into meat than meat is.

plus it's not abuse where i get it, free range alfalfa and grass fed cows. my chicken however is store bought but chickens are so retarded they don't care if they grow up in a small cage becuase they only care about eating and fucking

PETA needs to get over itself, sometimes.

PETA is a terrible organization that cares about making money and nothing else.

indeed

At 8/30/10 08:33 PM, Shrubs wrote: Animals serve little to no purpose other than food.

Really? What purpose do the great humans (that are also animals) serve?

no purpose, everything on this earth has no use other than supporting the predator that would eat it.

At 8/30/10 08:43 PM, SaltshakerClock wrote: There's a clear line between menacingly killing something for the sake of it and killing something for the survival of something, or someone, greater.

Humans do not need any animal products to survive, so there is no "killing something for the survival of something, or someone, greater." What makes us so much greater again?

concious and cognitive thought. we don't eat dogs, dolphins, and monkeys becuase they show intelligence

Obviously PETA is trying to eliminate that line.

There is no line as all animal use is unnecessary. We use animals because it's what we like. It's as simple as that.

you are stuck up your own self righteous veggie eating ass. you just feel guilty for eating another animal becuase you're a bleeding heart that see picture of cows jerking around on factory hooks and think "oh that poor thing is alive" it's not.

go get beef from a co-op if you wanna burger guilt free, those cows are treated like gods