MEAT. IT’S WHAT’S FOR MURDER.
Posted by thomaspainescorner on July 11, 2009
By Vi Ransel
7/11/09
It invariably comes down not to “their” eating other animals that have been killed for them, but our “killing” plants and eating them. In an effort to derail discussion and take the spotlight off the issue, meat-eaters refuse to deal seriously with the topic, remaining in denial, or refusing to interrupt the delicious comfort and convenience of the habit deliberately grown in them by the public relations, advertising and mass production mechanisms of corporate capitalism’s need to increase sales of meat products. Pavlov’s dogs would understand this.
The argument that humans are carnivores is outdated by scientific information. Raw meat, anyone? That carnivorous animals who have no choice in what they eat should be singled-out for their meat-eating is, what, disingenuous? That human animals should always come before any other animals is a supremacist premise. Animal Farm, perhaps? Try peddling that passivity in the face of annihilation is a virtue to Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis, the current recipients of Western Civilization’s obsessive/complusive drive for dominion. Nota bene: No one has suggested preventive nuclear attack on slaughterhouses, CAFOs and meat venders. No one has advocated shooting meat-purchasers in the face with shotguns. The most ludicrous suggestion of all is that the odor of burning flesh has an “instinctive” appeal to human animals. Would that be with marinade or BBQ sauce? The smell of charring flesh, unadorned with condiments, is off-putting, to say the least. Perhaps some white phosphorous would make it better.
While the “authors” of such “arguments” claim to want scientific fact to back up vegetarian/vegan statements, this is not the case. They simply seek to continue to do as they have always done without anyone’s comments, to be left in peace while the cultivation of “livestock” for the titillation of their tastebuds hastens the destruction of the planet and the onset of hundeds of thousands of cases of preventable, chronic disease. Like it or not, whether you care about animals’ – or plants’ – lives or not, this is self-destructive behavior. Is there a part of SELF-destructive that remains unclear? The science of climatology and the science of medicine have proven that meat-eating is eating us alive. Case closed. That the culture of meat-eating should be held sacrosanct, forbidden to be exposed for what it is, that discussing this subject seriously is held up to ridicule is again, self-destructive.
Dominion, once tasted, is most often forever. The messenger is metaphorically slaughtered. Whether the victims of dominion are human, or other animals is not the crux of the argument. The root of the problem is some animals feeling entitled to dominion over others to the point of discontinuing their existence, whether by WMD dispensed remotely on weddings and funeral parties or ripping them apart while conscious in slaughterhouses, whether by confinement in concentration camps or in CAFOs. The slaughter of human animals springs from the slaughter of their brothers, non-human animals, as the story of Cain and Abel and the subsequent murder of everything that moves illustrates. There is a breadcrumb trail that leads from the murder of animals to the murder of people. It’s like a gateway drug. Ask Bush#43, who delighted in blowing up frogs as a child and graduated to blowing up entire countries full of people.
How many times must this site state that the fight is for ALL sentient beings to be able to their lives as their own, not as prey, physical, economical or cultural? How many times must it be stated that this is a war in which there are many fronts, that each of us may choose his or her own battle, but that we are all, supposedly, on the same side here? What is it about the dominion of one over the other that fails to be perceived as counterfeit, bankrupt and immoral?
“Man’s character is his fate.” – Heraclitus
“First you must learn to smile as you kill.” – John Lennon, from “Working Class Hero”
The ABCs of Atrocity
sow the seeds of future perversity.
Animals are the means we use to teach
our children not only the basics of speech,
but to give them the tools they’re going to need
to begin elementary reading.
We ask “What does the cow say?”
“P is for pig” we tell them
while their animal friends scream in agony
as we mechanically and mercilessly slaughter them,
renaming their dismembered body parts
beef, pork, mutton and poultry
in order to distance the abattoir
from the innocence, the purity, of the nursery.
And as children learn that they are complicit
with their nuggets, wings, ribs and cheeseburgers,
they lock it down deep in denial,
repressing interfamilial murder.
Further, children learn god has given them
“dominion” over all other animals
and some of them practice what’s termed
“animal husbandry.” The 4-H is an example
of the indoctrination of impressionable children
into support of this hypocritical debacle.
It teaches children to care for an animal,
to feed her and groom her and name her,
grow up with her, win a blue ribbon,
and sell her to a restaurant in a stone cold betrayal.
In another perverse twist, we take kids into the woods
and arm them with deadly, high-powered weapons
and teach them to hunt down their animal friends,
who are essentially defenseless against them.
And since we no longer need them as food,
having made factory farms a mass murder industry,
their desecrated bodies are abandoned,
their stuffed heads prove their killers’ masculinity.
Thus what were once
bunnies, Bambi and myriad birds,
cows, sheep, chickens and pigs
who taught us our very first words
are changed into “game”, trophies and edible commodities,
which are undeniably tasty and outrageously profitable.
The point, however, is not sport,
not animal husbandry, nor even macho display,
but to inculcate in children that the value
of friends, love, loyalty and especially fair play
may be dispensed with in simple self-interest,
in particular with regard to “the other”,
thus turning them all into Cain, that they may
more easily make money off and murder their brothers.
It divorces the force of children’s emotions
from the consequences of having a conscience
in the service of their Financial Masters,
for whom they are willing to perpetrate violence
and from responsibility while feeling entitled to rape,
slaughter, plunder and excuse mass atrocities
with not an inkling of compassion or compunction
for either animals or the rest of humanity.
The Pecking Order
Pick
a distinguishing
characteristic
like ————–Black.
Almond eyes. Foreign
accent. Begin to attack.
Label them “other”,
not people at all.
Ignore them. Abhor
them. Push them to the wall.
The more
differences they
have, the lower their
worth. Heaven help
them if covered with
scales, feathers or fur.
Because the more
visible the difference, the
worse off they’ll be. That’s
segregation, designation
to “le caste poverty”.
It’s about having your
cake and eating everyone
else’s, too. The Perpetrators
of Poverty have their
eyes on you!
But you’re not worried
’cause your difference can’t
be seen from afar. Vell,
dollink, zey haff vays to
tell you apart. Remember
those armbands with six-
pointed stars and get up off
your ass before it gets that far!
“Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.”
- Dr. Albert Schweitzer
Because, indeed, it may one day be your own.
Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com
For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/
If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.
And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan
Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!
To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Bea Elliott said
All that you wrote is true… And that society indoctrinates children – to “not see” and “not care” betrays everything that culture also tries to bestow on them too… simultaneously. An odd, conflicting message when you can (and must) examine it as an adult. Depending on how complete the ruse was — it may take the rest of one’s lifetime for the undoing of it. I know.
loVegan said
Common people (common killers I should say) don’t think of their crimes because they don’t want to think. Maybe they eat too many dead animals to be still able to think or feel.
Yes, their children are taught that animals are meant to be used, abused, eaten etc: most become adult so called “normal”, that mass of corpse munchers (using Dave’s words)who exploit and kill every living beings, human and not human. But some of those children begin to think with their head and feel with their heart, they begin to see what the others can: those children become activists.
And change the world
Camille Marino said
I agree completely with everything and I think (and hope) that more and more people are realizing that the debate is over.
We’re wasting our breath negotiating with those who have a vested interest in perpetuating the holocaust. The selfish & apathetic are as complicit as the purveyors of death.
One would not exist without the other.
David Irving said
An excellent piece. Here are a few points bolstering a couple of Vi Ransel’s arguments.
It is possible not to eat meat which spares animals the fate of being treated inhumanely and being devoured. It is irrelevant to human interactions with nature that one animal devours another in order to live. If a starving animal comes upon a human being out in the wilds and manages to overpower and gobble that human up, poor human, yes, but an animal is just following the laws of its nature. Human beings have their own laws of nature to follow, and one of the foremost is that human beings have their own destiny in their hands when it comes to diet. They are not required to gobble up animals, especially not in the 21st century where the consumption of animals is creating a global food problem that is bulding towards food shortages in the developing world that will all too soon reach epidemic proportions.
Humans have free will. Animals do not. That means that humans have the capacity to control their diet based on concerns arising out of compassion. Humans are endowed with a higher intelligence than other species. But, is that a mark of superiority? Unfortunately, all too many human beings think so. They believe that they have the right to do with animals whatever they desire because their superior intelligence gives them that right. This is an extremely limited way to think, and it is proved by the fact that these people cannot even figure out the enormous implications of living by this credo. It means, at the very least, that if human beings are superior to animals because they have a higher intelligence, then it follows that one human being who has a higher intelligence than another human being is also superior to the other human being. If by virtue of this philosophy, human beings can then treat “inferior” animals however they like because their superiority gives them that right, it follows that the superior humans then have the right to treat any other human being who has a lower intelligence however they like. Are you less intelligent than me? “You are now my slave. Get behind me and do as I command.” Are you more intelligent than me? “Just point the way, sir, oh great exalted master. I’ll do whatever you say. ”
According to this kind of belief system, superior humans should even be able to eat less intelligent humans if they like and cut them up in animal experiments. Why not? That is what they do with “inferior” animals. And, as we all know, humans eating humans has been the norm in some primitive cultures and still is. Does this mean that all humans who think they are superior to animals are primitive? Of course it does because the thinking that arrives at this conclusion is narrow and primitive. Does it follow from this that those who are not primitive are superior to those who are? Of course it does not. Logic is logic. And that is what must be pursued to overcome this narrow-minded prejudice dividing life forms into superior and inferior segments. It has led to “superior” human beings subjugating “inferior” human beings for centuries. This is one of the pillars of our civilization.
From this scenario, at least we know who is responsible for all the wars and devastation throughout history. It is the ones who think they are superior to other species, so superior they can even eat them if they like, or experiment upon them in research laboratories, or otherwise exploit, abuse, disrespect, and treat them with disdain. These people are easy to identify because of their love for and defense of eating animals. Fortunately, other people are at work ready and willing to confront these “superior” human beings who live with a mindset that believes intelligence is a class marker for superiority. They are a new brand of people who see the similarities in all species. They understand that animals live with the fear of harm and the fear of death just as does the superior human race, as well as the need for love and caring. They know that any differences between species are only differences of degree. They see clearly that only human arrogance could be so colossally stupid as to proclaim their human fears and needs as being superior to the emotional and physical requirements of other living creatures.
It is arrogance to abuse and exploit a weaker species the way human beings do, and it is a betrayal of the capacity of human beings to reach for a higher destiny and a better world. Compassion is the means of transportation that gets us to a better place in our minds and in our lives and lays the foundation for a better society, not divisions based on perceptions of what is inferior and superior.
jalice said
after the flood god gave humans the ok to eat meat.
jesus taught it is not what goes into your mouth but what comes out that makes a man unclean. although i am a huge pet owner, raise chickens for eggs and spend more on my animals than myself, i do still have some meat in my diet. to hear that i am so reviled for this reason seems unreasonable and rather fanatic. i have been in the country for years and most folks here hunt humanely. i believe that in the days to come some of you may wish you could hunt!
i could not eat my pets, but i think that there is a balance in all things. in the kingdom of heaven, the wolf and the lamb shall lie down together and the lion shall eat straw- sounds to me like the world will all become veggies- so calm down you all and realize god is in charge and you are causing more trouble by being so vitriolic- just my opinion.
James Farnsworth said
A perfectly reasonable response.
Whereas it is reasonable to expect farm animals to be treated with respect (traditional farmers always had love and respect for their animals), it is unreasonable for people to terrorize others with their food psyops and psychological attacks. Subjecting children to this is absolutely unforgivable.
Also, I highly doubt that the people who are writing in these blogs with the rather transparently political, controlling, and downright abusive language towards people who eat a more traditional diet know much about farming or even just growing their own vegetables. But they sure have time to lather themselves up with all of this marxist-nouveau claptrap. It really does cut down on your cultivating and weeding time in the garden.
I am sure if people understood what is coming down the pike in terms of the Monsanto-directed food apocalypse they wouldn’t be wasting time with this type of talk. And time is truly running out…
wes parsons said
As someone who was grossed out at having to scrape the hair off a dead pig when I was maybe 8, and was a vegetarian for 40 years, you should find my opinion a little shocking.
Of course we are all animals or plants, yes yeast is a plant.
However, wolves don’t eat tomatoes.
Getting eaten by a lion is only natural.
Every species has a diet specific metabolism. Grain is not yet a human food, like it or not, there is little grain in nature.
However, we do have a carnivor metabolism designed by our coming down from the trees only to find no superstore nearby to buy our shreddies!
That is what is taught at leading medschools and nutrition departments today.
Consult the doctors Eades.
Yes I still am grossed to think what I am eating.
However, I lost 200 pounds, and 200 pounds is hard to argue with no matter how much self appointed morality you might have.
Nature rules, like it or not.
Perhaps the answer is in “man-made” meat.
Put your body only recognizes natural, why man made vitamins don’t work.
It isn’t just a matter of deciding.
You can decide to eat only rock.
But is it moral?
We will not likely have the science to be so holier than tho for another 10 thousand years.
Thus you have no moral choice, you are a carnivor.
Deal with it!
William J. McGovern said
The Bible that brought us the story of Cain and Able also brings us the quote from Isaiah at 65:25.
“The wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull, and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain, The LORD GOD has said.”
So this travesty will be reversed soon and all animals of the ones created with “instinct to guide them”, will be loved and cared for.
GT said
The primary thing I disagree with in the above article is the appeal to Gore’s climate-change extortion and/or human health issues, as the rationale for not killing animals for food.
There is no need to try and ‘beef up’ the case against slaughter of animals for food – the infringement of the rights of the animal is sufficient.
We should stop killing animals because it’s wrong… NOT because it will give us bowel cancer, or because industrial pig farms produce massive amounts of toxic waste.
ou don’t add to the case for stopping slaughter by making it all about (a) the planet/environment; or (b) about the consumer of meat.
In fact, you trivialise (further) the horror of the meat industry by moving the argument away from the moral case: vegetarianism is right on MORAL grounds – first, last and foremost. (Even if becoming vegetarian was life-shortening – although it isn’t).
Making it about the consumer’s health is typically American ‘me me me me me ‘-ism.
Cheerio
GT
Andy said
Have eaten meat all my life (not exclusively mind) and thus far i have not killed, nor wished to kill, any of my fellow human beings.
Was also a vegetarian for about a year or so.
I would not consider myself to be a carnivore, nor would i now class myself to be a vegetarian/vegan.
What am i ?
Omnivore.
Brigitte said
I remember in my won family seeing how my mother woudl introduce meat in my younger siblings’ diet when they reached aprox. 1 year of age. It was the custom back then, because all child rearing books and dieticians said eating meat was necessary to get one’s proteins and some other nutrients not found in vegs.
So my mom would cut a slice of ham in very tiny bits and spoon-feed them to the baby and watch with bated breath if s/he would accept it or not. We all wtched in silence, and there was a definite relief when the baby swallowed the ham without making any fuss. Wow!
There was steak at every meal except Fridays and Sundays. Since we were a big family it was NOT sirloin, but cheaper cuts and I hated it.
Zoologists and anthropologists can tell an animal’s diet from its teeth. Carnivores have dagger-like incisors to kill their prey. We humans don’t have the need to kill with our teeth.
Remember Prometheus was severely punished for stealing fire from the gods and bringing it to the human race. We are now experiencing the curse of Prometheus and understanding why the gods kept the fire so jealously away from us.
Rayford Cameron said
I see no hope of intelligent discourse with someone who thinks animals should have rights. I can only wonder what color the sky is in your world. If you cannot stomach the harvesting and consumption of meat products that is fine. If you wish to try to convince others to see things your way, I applaud your efforts. But if you try to interfere in my life and eating habits, you have gone way, way too far. And if you really believe (as I would guess from your comments) that we are threatened by global warming ( and of course animal husbandry plays a part in that) then I can comprehend your hatred of carnivores – after all, you are one of the sheep….
GT said
@Raymond Cameron… I have absolutely no doubt that I could find a quote using almost exactly the same words, from the mid-1700s (maybe before), talking about how absurd it is for anyone to think that negros or Indians had rights. The whole “3/5th of all other persons” idea. That’s a thing of the past, thankfully.
I believe – as any non-delusional individual must – that anything that shows sentience and self-awareness, has rights. EVEN IF they themselves don’t respect others’ rights (e.g., – my cat has the right to live undisturbed by aggressive violence, even though it will, if permitted, aggress against the rights of the local small wildlife). On the other hand, I fully accept that the local mice have the right to band together and hire a dog to kill my cat.
Animals undertake behaviour that has a forward-looking horizon (e.g., dogs bury bones: they do so knowing that they can come back and get it in the future… which indicates that they are conscious of the existence of THEIR future, and plan for it).
Other animals, despite severe technological constraints, make and use tools. (Their investment technology is limited to minimising future LOSSES – they have almost no scope for investment with a positive expected return… burying a bone saves it from others, and reduces the losses associated with leaving it out in the open).
They form xenophilic relationships (disparate species will work together for common defence from predation – and understand one another’s danger calls); they are capable of empathy.
Pigs, ducks, and crows have shown repeatedly that they are capable of solving problems – adult pigs have the same cognitive ability as the average 12 year old (i.e., about twice the intelligence of the average voter).
Appealing to the ’state of nature’ as the rationale for eating meat in a modern, industrialised society, is to impose the same caloric scarcity on modern man, as existed for pre-modern man.
Those of us who eat meat do so from CHOICE. There is no biological reason to eat meat, and several good indications that doing so in excess is actually harmful. More to the point ,by eating meat produced in an idnustrial agribusiness setting, you knowingly contribute to a massive travesty or cruelty, torture and pain.
Someone else mentioned ‘plant rights’… I am absolutely conscious of the fact that plants may well feel ‘pain’ – but it must also be noted that plants produce fruit precisely to encourage it to be eaten: it is designed to attract animals in order to spread the plant’s genetic material (its seeds). IF it could be categorically shown that a potato plant felt loss when its potatoes were harvested, I would stop eating potatoes: to do otherwise would be inconsistent.
Global warming is a scam; as a guy who openly advocates the slaughter of as many politicians as it takes to get them and their armed thug goons to back the fuck out of my life, I assert (with some vigour) that I’m not a sheep, either.
Cheerio,
GT
Robert said
Odd. You say that indians and blacks and animals have rights and then you say you’d slaughter humans who work in Washington. Politicians are humans. If they don’t have rights, then you have categories of humans you don’t think should have rights. Some of them are bound to be blacks or indians. Therefore, the impression of yourself that you are trying to give is not true.
j said
I love animals and do not have a vested interest in perpetuating the idea of eating meat. But I do eat meat and I would like to, genuinely, be enlightened by having someone answer these questions for me:
a) If other animals (specifically carnivors) kill other animals to survive, why are humans derided for doing it? (I, honestly, do not believe that we can choose while other animals cannot. If it’s instinctual for them, then it’s completely logical for it to be possibly instinctual for us as well).
b) If we can kill “humanely” (i.e. without pain), then doesn’t this, at the very least, rise humans above other carnivors in the methods by which we maintain our carnivorous diets).
c) If we are not carnivors, then why do humans continue to be born with canine teeth?
I do not wish to have emotional tirade thrown at me in response to these questions. I would just like to be enlightened. Please respond respectfully, rationally and unemotionally. Thanks
GT said
Hey there J,
(a) we are capable of furnishing ourselves with enough calories and other nutrients – in a low-cost way – WITHOUT eating meat, thanks to our development of agriculture. Plus, we have a developed sense of ‘rights’ and an ability to empathise which some (most) animals either do not share, or cannot afford to exercise.
(As an aside, I think that many animals WOULD exercise empathy if the economic system in which they operate permitted it. Compare a ‘hand reared’ lion who KNOWS that you’re a source of ongoing food rather than a one-shot meal: the lion undertakes an INVESTMENT decision when it thinks “Nah – I won’t eat him… he’ll bring me food tomorrow”. I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘instinct’: there is optimising behaviour, subject to constraints).
I also get very annoyed with people who claim that meat is required for human nutrition – it is ignorant garbage… the simple parrotting of talking points that the person repeats without knowing or caring if they’re true. In other words, it’s bullshit.
I’m pretty much vegetarian (I have occasional lapses maybe once a month), and at the age of 44 I weight 250lb at 6-foot-2, can bench my bodyweight for 12 even if I take a one-year break from the gym, and can do all the physical crap I want to. So nutrition is NOT an excuse.
(b) The act of killing is the abhorrent end of a chain of abuses – from caged poultry to factory piggeries, the animals we eat spend their entire life in a state of torment (and anyone who thinks that animals don’t experience the torment is really kidding themselves). If the German regime had killed Jews quickly and ‘painlessly’, would you think that the Holocaust was acceptable?
If I felt a desire to eat meat (and I still do eat it, from time to time even though I know it’s morally wrong to do so… I’m not a saint), I am not sure that I would want to kid myself that it was OK to kill an animal if it had had a happy life, as compared with killing one that had had an awful life.
Perhaps if someone released a range of poultry where they only killed chickens who were complete arseholes to other chickens… the “Dick Cheney of Chickendom” brand. I would buy that.
(c) if you think possession of canines indicates carnivorism, you’ve never seen a gorilla yawn. They have canines larger than those of any big cat, but they NEVER eat meat. Pandas likewise: they have large canines, but never eat anything other than plant material. Human canines are useless: if you want a human to be able to grasp and kill prey, you need to extend them (wathc a vampire movie… none of them have ’standard issue’ canines).
There is no need for the argument to become ad hominem: the only possible rationale for eating animals is if you believe that they are morally inferior to humans… and I don’t believe that for a second. I’ve heard of chimps committing acts of war for territory, but nothing that comes close to Hiroshima, Nagasaki (or Auschwitz, if you believe that story).
And if you think animals are dumber than humans, and that means we can exploit them, well… let’s just say that my cats are smart enough not to vote.
Cheers
GT
Feliks said
Among vegetarians, especially vegans, there is an incredible hypocrisy. Forget that animals also kill one another for meat. Forget that plants are also living things with feelings. That has been shown in many studies. Man is not a carnivore that is true. Man is an omnivarian, eating all edible things. Man was a hunter AND gatherer. Agriculture came much later in human development.
Several years ago, I read a letter by a Native American replying to someone who argued that vegetarians were “more” spiritually evolved. Well, Hitler was a vegetarian, as well as a few other prominent Nazis. He went on to say that Indians hunted Buffalo, deer, and other animals for survival. When they killed the animal, they said a prayer of thanks for the animal’s sacrifice. Then his counter-argument to the vegetarians was, and I agree “when you cut into a tomato, don’t think it doesn’t feel pain even if you can’t hear it scream”. American Indians were meat eaters but had a strong spiritual way of life. You can’t argue with that.
Now we can make a good argument against the way many meat processors treat the animals while raising them, the conditions they are kept in, etc. That is definitely animal cruelty. That is akin to putting a human in an overcrowded prison under the worst conditions just before executing him. Under those conditions, the animal suffers, and the meat would be tainted.
I still eat meat, limited to free range cattle and poultry, and fish and other seafood. Of course, I eat my vegetables too. I tried being a vegetarian, and contrary to what vegetarians claim as the healthier alternative, my health suffered. When I balanced out my diet and returned to being an omnivarian, I actually lost weight and my energy levels went up. My skin improved, and my muscle tone improved, my blood pressure returned to normal, and the arrhythmias I was experiencing in my heart stopped. Sorry, being a vegetarian didn’t work for me.
Now, being an animal lover, this at first made it difficult for me, but taking a cue from the American Indians, I always say a prayer of thanks before my meal. For Christians, this is known as saying Grace, and many cultures around the world practice it. Many people today, including vegetarians, don’t practice this. They just take their food and scarf it down.
I can always agree when an argument is made about the meat processing industry, and the cruel way they herd and confine animals before slaughter, but please do not try and tell me that being a meat eater is morally wrong. You would be the worst kind of hypocrite.
GT said
It is not clear to me that either position is advanced by your appeal to the ignorant behaviour of primitives (“saying a prayer” to ANYTHING is atavistic primitive rubbish).
Pre-industrialised man often owned other men – slaves. You calling for THAT too?
The fact that you mis-handled your foray into vegetarianism, is evidence that you undertook it without proper research. My change (with occasional lapses) has been a roaring success: I’m fitter, stronger, more energetic. I’m still very very lazy though.
Plant rights are a sensitive issue: if you eat the parts of a plant that the plant produces SOLELY to attract predators in order to spread seed widely, then I think you do something that is completely morally neutral.
I know of some vegans who will not eat fruit until it falls – that’s just nutty.
It is a question of minimising one’s ‘carnage footprint’ (to vary a theme common among the eco-bullshitters). IF there is no need to torture and kill animals, then it’s best not to: if you participate in the carnage as a consumer, you lose moral points because you indirectly support a system that causes untold harm to animals who do not deserve t be wronged.
It’s about the least-cost way to obtain the calories and nutrients required to run our meat-bags, which at the moment are the best thing we have for carrying our minds around in. If you believe in utility interdependence (as I do) then the suffering of others (even animals) COUNTS. And because I’m not Dick Cheney, it DETRACTS from my utility if inputs into my energy-stream suffer.
Once we get past the technological ‘knee’ of our development curve, we will be able to partially ‘virtulaise’ and then perhaps we could go solar.
You think I’m being silly… but two hundred years ago people thought that blacks were subhuman and that the only way to get a stream of text from one side of the planet to the other, was to write it down and send it on a ship.
Cheers
GT
Robert said
When you call people names, it reveals that you are ineffective. To be effective, you must address the topic, not people’s character or behavior.
Robert said
Humans are omnivores. It’s one of our best traits.
loVegan said
Humans are NOT omnivores, otherwise we should be dead!
At least I’m speaking of evoluted humans, not cavedwellers
Camille Marino said
LoVegan, nice distinction… “evolved humans”… as opposed to the selfish sociopaths worshipping at the foot of the holocaust.
jb said
Forget the message about eating meat or not, or it being right or not…
From what I see, the number of propaganda techniques utilized in this piece automatically invalidates any point(s) the author may have been trying to make. That propaganda techniques are being heavily utilized is a “red flag” which should cause any individual capable of critical thought to question the validity of any position being asserted by the author. If the position is legitimate, why use propaganda? I can understand some minor slips like “name-calling” and may recognize them as part of a “writing style” if they are limited. They are not. Propaganda techniques are prevalent throughout.
See for yourself – below are the propaganda techniques that I found being utilized. They are easy to spot if you are looking for them…
1.)Namecalling
2.)Assertion (with no references)
3.)Card Stacking/Selective Omission
4.)Glittering Generalities
5.)Simplification
6.)Transfer
ron said
I must agree,I choose not to eat meat,this is a personal choice,I feel better when i dont.However,nature is violent,it is survival of the fittest. if i found myself in a starving situation,I would without hesitation,kill and eat an animal.This i would do with respect and thankfulness,but as the apex preditor,me and mine would survive.
loVegan said
Why should we “forget the meassage about eating meat or not, or it being right or not” ?
We are debating on that issue
Camille Marino said
I have to agree with JB. And the techniques employed by your side suggest the debate is over.
1- Name calling. How many vegan — just raise your hands — have been called terrorists, cult members, jehovahs, evangelicals, etc. — for trying to enlighten the apathetic about the holocaust.
2- Assertion with no reference. Kinda like your post?
3- Card stacking/selective omission. Kinda like mandatory state-sponsored indoctrination centers; conventional media; religion?
4-Glittering Generalities. Please be more specific. The entire agribusiness propaganda campaign that the ignorant masses ingest as a mainstay is an aberration. I’ll be happy to cite the generalities in this social mechanism if I you give me a feel for where you’re going.
5- Simplification. The debate is over. Simple.
6- Transfer. Yes, I hope this illustrates how you’ve transferred the inadequacies of trying to defend the confinement, mutilation, rape and murder of innocent beings onto those who respect life.
loVegan said
Yes, the debate is over.
Poor Darwin, all his theories about evolution failed in this thread.
Well, my theories about the serious damages to people’s brain due to meat consumption have been confirmed though
jb said
Clearly, you missed my point entirely and from what you have written, believe strongly that “two wrongs make a right”. For example, in 1,2,3,4 and 6 you don’t actually address the fact that I found those propaganda techniques in the piece, you just bring up examples of parties you find adversarial utilizing those techniques…as if that somehow justifies their use by anyone.
My point was not WHO utilizes propaganda – the State, Agribusiness, Banksters, or Animal Rights Activists.
My point was when I see PROPAGANDA utilized heavily by any party, regardless of whether or not I thought I agreed or disagreed with their assertions, it takes away a huge amount of any credibility that may have existed.
Propaganda was heavily utilized in this piece. You claiming that other parties have also utilized propaganda does not change that fact nor make it any more palatable.
Perhaps you can address the fact that propaganda was utilized and then alleviate my concerns over it’s use – those concerns revolve around the normal concerns when one realizes they are being fed propaganda: Why are they trying to convince me with lies/deception? This is a general indication of an “agenda” that cannot be made manifest via legitimate means and that puts up “red flags” in the critical thought process.
jeff said
You obviously didn’t read about Cain and Able closely..Take a good look, Cain was not Adam’s son but rather the son of the serpent, aka Satan. Now being he killed Able, we are all descendants of Cain or Cainites so we come by all of the above killing naturally as it is ingrained in our DNA. The main reason animals are unhealthy is the toxicity of the mega farms. Elk and deer are excellent lowfat sources of protein if harvested from the wild. Raise your own beef in plenty of grass and no artificial feed and you will have healthy food. The only reason animals are unhealthy to consume is the poisons WE introduced into them.
Michael K. said
Dear Thomas Paine’s corner,
I raise animals for slaughter, and do my own butchering. I agree that killing them isn’t pretty or fun for kids. Maybe the reason that we have domestic animals is because they go out and eat what we call ‘weeds’ and come back with fat and meat. I can’t eat weeds, and I can’t plant beans there until the ‘weeds’ are gone. The pigs will remove the stumps. The chickens eat the insects so that my land around the house in not infested with any insects.
I agree wholeheartedly that the negation of quality of life in our animals is just self-destructive. We ‘are what we eat’, so we don’t want to be miserable. Look, animals of all types breed to the limits of their environment. If 60% of the animals in a flock don’t go away each year, there is nowhere for next years babies left to go, and not enough food. We are supposed to be good stewards and shepherds, and we can’t do this without going to local production.
Hence, let us consider the arguments you present as supporting an additional conclusion: If meat is done right it is not such a sin, but in fact is a blessing for people who live in tough climates with low soil fertility. The ruminants actually build fertility and transform soil bacterial and fungal culture, much like yogurt. They create the conditions for the growth of both grain and vegetables. Life on the farm may be more about the scale of one’s undertakings when compared to the surroundings, and the relative balance of the whole organism.
poetshound said
Thoughtful response. Thoughtfulness is not valued here much when it comes from a person who uses animals like you claim to. You will be dismissed outright.
Some thoughts for consideration (by you and especially others):
What you describe in your first paragraph is a symbiotic relationship between humans and animals. It is a choice to end that relationship in the deaths of the animals once their purpose is served for that season or task or whenever. What determines the outcome? You do. Why slaughter? For indulgence, not sustenance.
My only response to your second paragraph is that animals in typical food production scenarios do not have the luxury of natural limits to their life. They are overpopulated, overfed, and over-consumed. I am most interested in the quality of life for humans and our diet is just a shambling symptom of a greater malaise.
Your third paragraph illustrates the rub in all of this: We are living outside of our naturally sustainable means. Environmentally, geographically, and consumption-wise. If the earth does not naturally provide sustenance in an area, we still bull-headedly move in there and bring our herds with us to dominate and eviscerate the ecosystem. Self-destructive, you say? I say it goes far deeper than you imagine. Again, you offer great incentive to co-exist with animals, but the choice to finish them off and call them ‘meat’ is just an ill-conceived practice. If we are indeed concerned about the whole organism, we must include ourselves as a portion of the planetary organism we live within and consider the consequences of the choices our species has made for millennia.
Robert said
I don’t dismiss him or his observations. They are well thought out and carefully informative.
kalidas said
Leo Tolstoy, dispensing with the most despicable shield of all for condoning murder – the shield of religion – said it best…
“Thou shalt not kill’ does not apply to murder of one’s own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai.”
jeff said
wrong, it is actually tho shalt not murder. murder is killing another human in cold blood as Cain did. killing in self defense is not murder as Jesus himself said to sell you garments to buy a sword. just because you choose not to eat meat or fish or chicken etc is your choice, but where does anyone get off telling others how to live. obtw, my grandfather lived on a farm and ate bacon and eggs, beef, chickens etc, his entire life, lived to be 98 and golfed 18 holes 2 weeks before he died, and his wife lived to be 103.. so much for early death from meat disease. i call bs on the lot of you as they didn’t feed the gladiators beef before they went into the arena for nothing, it was to make them strong.
Nemesis said
Meat-eaters, who happily pay for this outrage, inevitably die early because of the effects of their filthy diet. As far as those who rear animals for slaughter, and those who undertake the slaughtering, I understand there is a higher-than-average suicide rate among them, apart from the high number of accidents, sometimes fatalities, which occur in the use of their equipment.
So perhaps there is a plus side to this after all….
Robert said
Not only are humans omnivores, but we are predators, and very good ones. There is no sin in it. In condemning it there is sin.
heidilore said
Very good post…enlightenment and intellectualism infused. Thank you.
hipriestess4u said
http://weeatwhatisdeadtokeepitalive.blogspot.com/
I write a blog on vegetable wellness, growing your own produce and the ill affects of eating meat.
Bruce said
MEAT. IT’S WHAT’S FOR MURDER.
You see what we have here is academic playing words games to trick you. First you must define what murder is. According to dictionary it is one human being killing another human being. This writer is playing a psychological game that is to trick your mind into thinking Meat is Murder. The psychiatrist, Miralu mentioned that “if you want to control the people, you control the language first.” Words are weapons. Think for a moment how the ARA (Animal Rights Activist) tries to change our language and meaning of words. Hunting is murder for example. Anyone with a free mind would look up the meaning of the word and find it clearly states one human being killing another human being. Clearly showing you can not murder an animal. But this is a war and right now the weapons are words.With the changing of words you change ideas.
“The argument that humans are carnivores is outdated by scientific information.” Again the writer is playing word games trying to prove his point on a false pretense. No one say we are carnivore but omnivores. You see is the writer trying to shove his Eastern Mystic religion of no animal use down your throat. He has fell for the Buddhist thinking and is now trying to convince you his enlightenment is the only course for a thinking human being. The same thinking and twisting of facts the Moonie cult uses.
“cultivation of “livestock” for the titillation of their tastebuds hastens the destruction of the planet and the onset of hundreds of thousands of cases of preventable, chronic disease.” Really so animals are destroying the planet really so you by into the lie that cow fart are giving out greenhouse gases. LOL you academic type are quite funny what next you are going to say the first Globull warming was caused from cavemen learning to make fire? I am sure if you look hard enough you can find the glacier originally recede about the same time man learn to make fire. Same thinking of course the 40 million buffalo that use to roam America soil never ever had to fart or belch and of course they never destroy the planet. This hilarious how removed from reality some people are.
Eating meat is normal human reality if you choose to follow your cult guru from India that is your choice but now you are playing words games trying to change the meaning of words to brainwash people into your cult.
Funny how gullible and easy to manipulate the academic world really is. Perhaps instead of wasting so much time preaching your cult thinking you find a way to help people like all the unemployment that is hurting people. But I forgot your cult teaches you to hate people and only worry about animals. Yes let follow your line stop eating meat and force millions of people out of work what a wonderful idea I am sure you have clothes to for them to wear housing and food for the millions you want to put of work right? Oh I forgot you don’t care about the millions of people and their suffering you are trying to cause. When you grow up try writing about making a new solar panel maybe if you put your energy and focus on real problem the world would be a better place. Please stop playing word games and psychological BS on the American people.
Bruce said
MEAT. IT’S WHAT’S FOR MURDER.
You see what we have here is academic playing words games to trick you. First you must define what murder is. According to dictionary it is one human being killing another human being. This writer is playing a psychological game to trick your mind into thinking Meat is Murder. The psychiatrist, Miralu mentioned that “if you want to control the people, you control the language first.” Words are weapons. Think for a moment how the ARA (Animal Rights Activist) tries to change our language and meaning of words. Hunting is murder for example. Anyone with a free mind would look up the meaning of the word and find it clearly states one human being killing another human being. Clearly showing you can not murder an animal. But this is a war and right now the weapons are words.With the changing of words you change ideas.
“The argument that humans are carnivores is outdated by scientific information.” Again the writer is playing word games trying to prove his point on a false pretense. No one said we are carnivore but omnivores. You see is the writer trying to shove his Eastern Mystic religion of no animal use down your throat. He has fell for the Buddhist thinking and is now trying to convince you his enlightenment is the only course for a thinking human being. The same thinking and twisting of facts the Moonie cult uses.
“cultivation of “livestock” for the titillation of their tastebuds hastens the destruction of the planet and the onset of hundreds of thousands of cases of preventable, chronic disease.” Really ? animals are destroying the planet really ? you buy into the lie that cow farts are giving out greenhouse gases. LOL you academic type are quite funny what next you are going to say the first Globull warming was caused from cavemen learning to make fire? I am sure if you look hard enough you can find the glacier originally recede about the same time man learn to make fire. Same thinking of course the 40 million buffalo that use to roam America soil never ever had to fart or belch and of course they never destroy the planet. This is hilarious how removed from reality some people are.
Eating meat is normal human reality if you choose to follow your cult guru from India that is your choice but now you are playing words games trying to change the meaning of words to brainwash people into your cult.
Funny how gullible and easy to manipulate the academic world really is. Perhaps instead of wasting so much time preaching your cult thinking you find a way to help people like all the unemployment that is hurting people. But I forgot your cult teaches you to hate people and only worry about animals. Yes let us follow your cult thinking, stop eating meat and force millions of people out of work what a wonderful idea. I am sure you have clothes to for them to wear, housing, and food for the millions you want to put of work right? Oh, I forgot you don’t care about the millions of people and their suffering you are trying to cause. When you grow up try writing about making a new solar panel maybe if you put your energy and focus on real problem the world would be a better place. Please stop playing word games and psychological BS on the American people.
pneumahagion9 said
A balanced diet is best for all. If the God of this world had not tricked the first humans into giving their power away to him, we would not need to eat the animals. The TRUE GOD never designed the world to eat each other; the god of this world did that. There is NO Climate Change; that is a product of the New World Order Agenda and has been in the works with mind control and programming since the 1970’s. The bottom line of the new world order agenda is mass eugenics for the planet. So be a vegetarian, you will die sooner than a healthy meat eater, who eats free range, organic meats, along with vegetables, fruits, and grains that are locally grown. Vegetarianism is part of the plan of Eugenics.
This article is also part of the plan of brainwashing and mind control with the outcome being Eugenics.
Want to escape it all? Read Romans Chapter 10, verses 9 and 10 in the Christian Bible and do it!!!
Camille Marino said
Bruce,
I agree with you that words are powerful.
Consider for a moment that the commonly accecpted value of words were assigned by flesh-eating speciesists; therefore, I would agree with you that by controlling language, the state has managed to control the social order and status quo (cult, if you prefer).
It is time that we expand our vocabularies, as well as our hearts and minds, to encompass all beings.
The debate is over.
There is no justification for the confinement, mutilation, rape and murder of sentient beings. Even if religion, and state-sponsored education, and the government, and McDonald’s, and the average indoctrinated american wants to defend the holocaust, it is still wrong. The majority-rules cult is wrong; vegans are right.
poetshound said
Simplify: ‘Meat’ is a powerfully dissociative word. “Muscle tissue’ doesn’t make mouths water as much, I guess.
Dirk Diggler said
What about the poor plants? We should spare them too. You Left-wing whackos are fucking nuts. We should round all of you up and execute the lot of you. The world would be far better off for it. As for me, I’m going out right now for a nice, thick, juicy steak!
Robert said
The question is not whether there has ever been a debate. What matters is that such a debate is irrelevant. The means by which such matters are decided is not by debating but by biological evolution. Evolution recognizes and enables both sides. Thus evolution proves the validity of both. Nonetheless, the fact persists that all humans are capable of eating and digesting a wide variety of foods. Technically, ‘omni’ means ‘all.’ But in ordinary usage ‘omnivorous’ only means that one is capable of living off of both vegetables and meat. You can call yourself a vegan, if you want to. Verbal languages tend to allow such imprecision. But your stomach is still capable of digesting meat, and, therefore, as far as your physical body is concerned, you are nonetheless a carnivore. That is your true nature, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not. When your stomach is no longer capable of digesting meat, then you will be a vegan.
Camille Marino said
Yes, my body is capable of digesting flesh (and developing all of the consequent diseases associated with ingesting animal products). And my hands are capable of crushing a human baby’s throat.
I’m not sure I understand.
Are you suggesting that simply because I am able to do something that it is morally right to do it?
poetshound said
My body is capable of digesting bicycle parts, whether or not these things provide me with optimum sustenance is what is relevant.
Robert said
I am simply pointing out that your body is capable of living on meat, and that you possess the skills necessary to kill animals, whether or not you have developed them. Your idea of killing human babies, however, is a product of your mind. It proves that your mind is capable of producing such thoughts. Myself, I do not imagine about killing babies. As for morals, my comments are not necessarily associated with morals. In our society people tend to believe that morals support only “good” thoughts and deeds. Morals are an outcome of mind. There should be no question about what morals can be made to support. They can be made to support anything. Stalin thought that he was right; Hitler thought that he was right; you think that you are right; I think that I am right. That’s all morals is.
poetshound said
We are in a truly unique situation. We can choose to eat what we want. We can defy predispositions. We tend to wean our young off of mother’s milk (we can choose to use formula instead) rather than give them access to it for the rest of their lives. What is the real issue here?
I don’t call myself a vegan, I choose to eat only fruits and some greens and a few vegetables. I could forage my entire diet in the right environment. I am a human being eating the ideal diet for humans. I eat it because of what it provides me, not because it is free of moral guilt. My body excels beyond anything I have experienced before. You talk about evolution – you’re witnessing it right here, right now.
I’d like to posit that perhaps humans have been densensitising themselves to toxins for millennia rather than evolving under ideal conditions. Did you know that in a matter of a few months, if you deprive your cells of sugars to burn that they become little stills and produce alcohol to burn from starches? It’s an incredible function of survival, but it is highly toxic and our resilient bodies will fight to stave off the consequences of those toxins.
Such adaptation on the cellular level just gives you a glimpse into the potential for describing a whole gamut of unsavory dietary practices and conveniently calling them evolution. Did you know that folks in Scandinavian countries have a higher occurrence of celiac disease (intolerance to grain) than folks in Italy? The Italians have been eating a grain-based diet for more generations than the people in Scandinavia, desensitising themselves to the effects of grains on the human body. Again, testament to the wonderful design of the human body, but is it ideal? No. Why waste generations of energy desensitising to a toxin rather than evolving in other ways while eating a more ideal diet?
Eating meat and grain enables humans to live in unsustainable numbers in unsustainable environments. Period. Years and years of this practice has resulted in compounding consequences seemingly beyond our species’ scope to rectify. We will face these consequences eventually, and it really surprises me that such a sentient being is so blind to this perspective. It could be that we are what we eat, though, eh? A ‘dumb’ herd animal? Or eating what makes those animals ‘dumb’ – grain?
Robert said
When your stomach is no longer capable of digesting meat, then you will be a vegan.
poetshound said
I challenge you to prove that your body is actually deriving much sustenance form that meat you are eating.
Robert said
Your challenge is nonsensical. It is already known that meat provides very substantial sustenance.
joe navis said
everything you say is so true, it’s a darned shame it tastes so good. even, unfortunately, the products of the megafarms/megabutchers. while i try to stay away from mass produced meats slaughtering my own is fairly difficult in today’s society. with a little work one can find small producers who go green. i have gone meatless but find that i feel much healthier/stronger when i eat meat three or four times a month. i wish there was another way, but red beans and rice just tastes better with some good andouillee in it.
GT said
Hey there JoeNavis.
Try eating meat with no condiments – no salt, no marinade, no pepper, no sauces. It’s really not that tasty.
Compare a grilled porkchop (with no salt or seasoning whatsoever) to a fresh mango… no contest.
I LOVE pork chops with seasoning – some sage, salt, pepper, and olive oil, pan-fried rare and then finished in the oven. One of my ongoing weaknesses is bacon. LOVE the stuff – all the more deplorable because I have some good friends who are pigs.
But meat without salt? Feh. You have to char the shit out of it to get ANY taste.
Try the following: slice VERY firm tofu into 2mm thick ‘batonettes’, coat with salt, pepper and cayenne pepper, and fry in hot oil until they’re crisp.
Eat that with a really good home-made satay sauce (made from fresh peanuts with lime juice, soy sauce, cilantro, palm sugar, coconut milk, garlic and fresh chili).
That’s what I had for dinner with some steamed broccoli and potatoes (and LOADS of salt and margarine).
I’m REALLY lucky – my Lovely is a superb cook (and VERY finicky about things needing to taste nice). She has a repertoire of about 30 sensational BALANCED vegetarian meals; we eat plenty of whole eggs (I love me some fried eggs on toast). Sarah is an obsessive researcher, too, so our protein is absolutely perfectly structured (man am I screwed if she ditches me).
I’ve lost no strength (and I was always pretty strong… never got to benching double bodyweight, but 20 years ago had a 420lb one-rep max and can still bench 250 for 12 reps without breathing hard). I’m glad of the reduction in bloat and a 3″ decrease in waist measurement.
Cheers
GT
Robert said
Comparing meat to mango is not right. Mango is characterized by strong flavor. Compare meat to cauliflower instead. That’s more appropriate. Steamed cauliflower hasn’t got any flavor either, to speak of. But then, compare cauliflower to wild deer meat, and deer meat has a lot of flavor.
loVegan said
OMG, what a bunch of losers!! I am so disappointed! I truly believed that people who spend some of their time on a place like this weren’t so ignorant and childish!
You butchers and killers forgot to write:
-get a life
-instead of thinking about animals you should think of children in Africa
The rest (plants suffering, juicy steaks, supposed omnivores etc ) is written above. Twenty years as Vegan and the idiocies of meat eaters don’t change. Evolution is an unknown words
If it was needed, you show once again how superior we Vegans are
Bruce said
Carmille
Good we agree words are powerful then why are YOU twisting and spinning to change the meaning of the words.
I live in farming and ranching country the cows have a great life always being taken care plenty of food water medical treatment when it is needed. They have plenty of room to roam. You people with your narrow minded bigot response surprise me.
The only rape I ever heard of is the idiot Princeton professor who wrote the animal rights book said in the 90’s it was ok for people to sleep with animals as long as the animals are consenting. That is how crazy you people really are. Sorry they are animals BTW animals are made out of meat for humans to eat.
You can not change the meaning of words to fit your pervert view of the world. Murder is one human killing another human Period! You are right the debate is over. You can’t change the meaning of words. Grow up.
Lovegan you said you show once again how superior we Vegans are?
Yep that is normal Eastern mystic cult thinking. You are not superior to no one if you choose to be veg head good for you that is called freedom I choice to eat meat and that is my freedom trying excepting reality instead of coming across as a snob.
poetshound Said My body is capable of digesting bicycle parts, whether or not these things provide me with optimum sustenance is what is relevant.
Really bicycle part give your protein, vitamins and minerals like meat? Wow what planet are you from?
Camille Marino said
Bruce,
I’m not twisting or spinning anything. I’m simply presenting the other side of the equation; the side that is beyond the scope of the indoctrinated masses.
You refer to ME as a “bigot” in the same paragraph where you pat yourself on the back for not torturing your cows. I assume, that is, up until you murder them and eat their mutilated corpses.
You said you’ve never heard of rape? Let me help you out here… Every time you take a cow and forceably inseminate it, that’s RAPE.
Sorry, Bruce, our language has expanded to encompass all beings — including the ones you would rather we ignore so you could continue to trade in their blood and molest & ingest their crucified cadavers unimpeded.
GT said
@Camille Marino – the whole ‘artificial insemination’ thing (and the forced removal of male calves) is the reason we decided we could no longer reasonably eat dairy.
That was a short-term pity – I LOVE cheese of all types. We decided against trying to find ethically-produced cheese – seems it just doesn’t exist.
Cheers
GT
loVegan said
Bruce, I am superior because I use my brain to decide what is right or wrong! I don’t mind if everbody eat meat, I know that is wrong because I don’t want anyone to die in my name
My stomach CAN suffer meat but I DON’T WANT to become a graveyard!
I don’t mind if I’m considered different or strange or something, my choice is not connected with religion, I grew up as a meat eater like everybody else. But when I was a little girl I made a connection between my pet and my meal.
BTW, I donate my blood three times per year, I never got a flu in my life and I’m an athlete: to be healthy is a collateral effect of being Vegan, but my choice is only moral.
That’s why I know that I am superior
Ren Berghuis said
I am as usual not surprised at first the article (propaganda piece) and secondly at the responses.
I am of the opinion that human beings are NOT OF THIS WORLD.
All animals and plants live in a relationship with nature limiting their numbers.
The statement that animals live outside this is in error.
Us human idiots brought animals to parts of this world where they NOT naturally evolved and thereby destroyed the habitat where they were placed.
We also were placed
poetshound said
Well said.
Robert said
What planet are you from?
Bruce said
LoVegan,
Use your brain really that is funny didn’t Hitler say something about brainwashing people to think they are superior race? Your arrogance is funny coming from your decision to be weak minded person.
Arrogance is also a sign of unable to learn or appreciated the rights and respect to other people. I know in the vegan world people are often hated. Are you in the Ted Turner cult that believe 95% of people of the world should die off to save the planet. Is that your were your superior snobbish know it all brain is saying?
I guess accepting freedom of choice to choosee what people eat is irrelevant to you. Because you are following in Superior thinking of Hitler master race. Forgive me for not bowing to your arrogance while I smile because I live in a free country called America.
loVegan said
I adore you Bruce: you are saying the same words I have been listening for 20 years! Common people usually say I’m arrogant because they have no other arguments
And Hitler! God, what a lack of imagination! Quite normal in butchers…maybe it’s the blood
Now I’m gonna invade Poland…
Bruce said
poetshound
Comment:
I challenge you to prove that your body is actually deriving much sustenance form that meat you are eating.
Ok I challenge you to prove that bicycle part have the same food value as meat?
All animals and plants live in a relationship with nature limiting their numbers.
Really that is in error of the truth. Animal overpopulated when man does not use the resource. Mother nature steps in and correct the balance with diseases. If you feel man is the invader are you going to leave?
Victor said
Actually, man is an omnivore. There are many things wrong and disengenuous about this article. Many things hasten the destruction of our environment even more than meat. I for one wasn’t brainwash by 5th Avenue. I liked the taste of meat, poultry and fish when I was a young child before TV. I don’t eat as much animal flesh as I did as a young adult, but it’s a great source of compact protein.
Now I could eat more GMO food to destroy my immune system quicker, but, regretable as it is, I’d rather have animals process that thru their bodies first before it goes into mine. I’m not a Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Hindu, so I only produced two children to replace my wife and me. While I applaud your concept, your packaging needs to be much sharper and more circumspect.
Ren Berghuis said
A glitch occurred so will carry on.
We were placed here from somewhere and had to adapt or perish and choose to use anything and everything to perpetuate our kind.
I don’t know if any of you ever really spent time in the raw and in the natural world but if you did, you will realise that without tools or weapons and artificicial protection, you won’t last very long. The leaves and roots available without artificial conditioning of some kind are virtually indigestible.
I live in New Zealand and have looked into how the earliest people survived because the native bush is virtually food deficient. They never inhabited those parts away from the sea because that was the only place where raw digestible food was available.
So all those people telling us to go vegan can only do so because we are breeding plant varieties that can be eaten raw and don’t occur in nature. If everyone on this world turned vegan overnight, we’d starve to death. In the 2nd world war, I just about did so because there was no food other than grass and weeds.
Please stop this utter nonsense. If you want to go vegan and not able to survive in the wild, do so, you may be disease free but will be dead very soon.
I have killed animals and hated it but still ate them because there was nothing else!
Today I eat very little meat and more or less survive on starch.
If you go to the pacific islands, they eat very little meat because there is none naturally available. They eat fish mostly and starch but their life span is not very long compared to ours.
My view for what it is worth.
Ren
Robert said
When you say we were placed here from somewhere, do you mean to suggest that human beings did not originate of earth? If we originated on some other planet, how did we get there?
Bruce said
LoVegan,
You are great entertainment you choose to be vegs head good for you. I have no problem with your free choice but when people start twisting spinning and change the meaning of words I have a problem with them.
You are the one coming across as the superior race I only heard that from the Nazi. Perhaps if you would learn to respect yourself you would learn to respect other people. But instead you choose to come across as the superior snobbish vegan. I am sure other people will want to join you in your cult view of the world. How many vegan in America 10,000 LOL As one friend told me when his girlfriend convince him to be a veg head I was constantly hungry for meat. I would eat tons of junk food and after 6 months gave it up. He SAID the vast majority of the veg head lie about their diet and sneak off for a cheeseburger.
loVegan said
I never wrote of superior race Bruce, read again and if you can’t you can ask for help. I sope of single persons not race! You are a racist beside a butcher! For me the word race could be deleted from the dictionary, I never use it
You are so boring, maybe for ou it’s new but your words are the same used by everybody else (more or less 6 billion people)
Ren, do you kill animals with your hands? Obviously you don’t cook the corpses, otherwise it’s not natural but artificial.
Now I leave this intelligent company because in Europe it’s night and I have to sleep: tomorrow will be another day with meat eaters explaining to me what I’m losing in life not eating dead animals
Yes, boring..yawn
Ren Berghuis said
For your information, I have eaten meat raw and is to be preferred over cooked rubbish. I did mention I had been in the raw in mother nature!!! The most horrific experience of my life!!
Somehow raw meat is digested better than cooked providing of course that you have teeth left to be able to grind it up.
I ate a little raw liver yesterday and is delicious!!
Bye I leave you all now because whatever you decide, Be brave! go into the wild, throw your clothes away and walk 20 KM into nowhere.Then go and find something to eat! Anything will do! Your first port of call will be to dig for worms and insects! There may be a dandelion or two HAHAHAHAH !
Bruce said
LoVegan LOL you are the best entertainment around you try to twist and spin your pervert view of the world down other people throat! When they don’t fall inline to your snobbish elitist cult thinking of Europe you attack them. Do you have trouble reading understanding words and their meaning? Maybe someone should help you grow up and understand that dictionary defines the words otherwise you are just a child talking in gibberish.
Did I not say if you want to be veg head good for you? I guess that was too many for your superior racist bigot mind to handle or comprehend. Does your child gibberish language have the meaning of words ” good for you?” I see not!
I see your superior racist hate speech is spread to attack Ren for speaking the truth. Yes man is design to eat meat. Maybe if you would come across less as a Hitler youth and more as kind caring person people might want to be like you. Instead you come across as social outcast that creates the meaning of words to fit in your child like view of the world.
loVegan said
And again you speak about race and you try to think with my brain: you can’t, so stop eating up my time
BTW, I’m not a child nor a childish idiot…and I wote I’m in Europe but you obviously went to your conclusion. Poor Bruce. You made me laugh in the beginning, now I feel so much pity for you. I can imagine your life, your childhood, your loneliness, your attempt to feel you are someone…you can only be a butcher or a hunter: you won’t ever succeed in life without weapons. I guess you have to pay for sex oo, I only hope you are not a raper but I won’t be surprised.
Don’t waste time in responding I won’t read anymore. I wasted too much time with you and I prefer to spend time with my husband: vegans are true men, don’t need violence and don’t stink
Bea Elliott said
Man has been an opportunistic omnivore; hunting for grubs, worms and any other speicies of life necessary to sustain himself as necessary.
Although I think the human body is designed more as herbivore than omnivore: http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm
I don’t think the question is what “can” we eat… but what “should” we eat. And thus far, unless you are a bushman or an Inuit, there has been no amount of reasonable information that supports eating animals over plants. None. Not for physical health, nor for efficiency of resources, or for planetary wellbeing… let alone for the “trite” concept of man’s spiritual enlightenment. Zero. Nothing supports the idea that a meat based diet is preferred to a plant based one, other than cultural indoctrination and financial gain.
And dispite “modern” dictionaries whose words have been distorted to make meanings of other words… The “murder” of animals makes perfect sense in the literal translation of ancient theology… The first book of man’s “rules” and history names ALL living beings: “nephesh” – translated means a living being (with life in the blood). This includes every animal that breaths, swims, flys crawls and walks. When the lives of living beings are taken WITHOUT CAUSE (without necessity of survival or self defense) – then it is only for pleasure. Gastronomic pleasure or monetary pleasure and that is indeed “murder”.
And if we all could only hold one “child like view of the world”… if it could be for the love of justice… it would be a better place.
Bruce said
There you go again twisting and spinning the meaning of words. Are you the enlighten ones? In their own tiny little gibberish language? you are using words and trying to spin there meaning to impress upon me your fairy tale land.
I don’t own cows you are funny the ranchers here use bulls so I guess next you are going to say the bulls are raping the cows. LOL you are delusional do you have a therapist for your false sense of reality?
Sorry the debate is over you are changing the meaning of words to suit your child like fantasy world. I think you should be lock up. Have you ever cut up an animal for food? Animals are made out of meat a natural food that is required diet and protein. If you choose not to partake in real food that is your choose but to spin and attack using words that describe humans and not animal is far from enlightenment.
I would called it delusional thinking base on a cult trance from lack of meat in your diet
Bea Elliott said
Bruce: “Animals are made out of meat a natural food that is required diet and protein.” Please show me somewhere on the most sophisticated information resource we have, “the internet”… where it confirms that meat is “required protein”. Even the USDA Food pyramid indicates that “protein” may be gotten from beans OR meat.
And are you really this totally unaware of animal agriculture not to know that it is man… human beings that artificially inseminate female animals? Forceibly enter their vaginal cavity and forcibly impregnate them — with bull semen. Regardless of the species, the (sexual) violation is the same: Rape.
If a human male has his testicles removed that’s castration… Called exactly that when done to nonhuman animals too. So why would the term “rape” be any different for wo(man) or for animals? And who would be attempting to “twist” meanings and words now?
And again… please define “real” food… “Real” meaning what? And in what process? “Real food” is complete — “from the beginning”. And from the beginning, plants are edible becoming more so as they grow and mature. No one waits until the plant is “dead” or “dying” for it to yield “real” food.
Animal flesh however is not “food” until it is dead… Specifically “killed”. Before this point it is not “food”… not “real”, “fake” or any variation of “food”… It is a living being. A “nephesh”. Just as you are and I am… and every other “thing” that is not made from plants or rocks. It’s just biology, not that difficult to grasp…
Camille Marino said
Ah, poor speciesist Bruce. Believes everything he’s ever been told and never looks beyond his own existence.
Bruce, do your bulls spontaneously reproduce or do they have mothers? Someone is being raped somewhere along the line to provide you with sentient commodities.
Nonhumans are entitled to live unmolested by you. Their flesh is not food. Why not harvest human flesh if you can’t live without meat.
Just one final thought… and I am so trying to be gentle… words and language are fluid concepts… even if you choose to remain static, communication evolves to reflect social change.
And, whether you like it or not, words will no longer exclude every other species on the planet. Must suck to be a murdering rapist speciesist and actually be called on it. huh, Bruce?
GT said
@Camille Marino…
I agree with every word you wrote above, but here’s the test as to whether or not you’re consistent:
Do you think that I have the right to live unmolested by government? OR do you think that “you plus 50% of the voting population” have the right to rape my paypacket?
If you’re an anarchist, you’re consistent. If not, you’re prepared to impose tyranny on me but not on my friend Mangus (a six year old Belted Galloway bull that has been my friend since he was a calf).
Just sayin’. (And I hope you ARE an anarchist).
Cheerio
GT
Camille Marino said
Hey GT,
I want to answer you with my emphasis on being honest rather than consistent.
I’m not sure what label applies to me.
I wholly reject the system of government we have in place for several reasons: an oppressive imperialist agenda; a capitalist domestic machine that demands exploited classes to function; a population indoctrinated into a society that lives and dies to perpetuate the state; a legal system designed to maintain the interests of the state; essentially, a system designed to suppress the individual (contrary to popular belief). And the taxation thing too. None of these things are representative of my world view.
However, I don’t know if I can legitimately refer to myself as an anarchist; I’d like to — but I’m not sure it would be genuine. The reason is this… I do not have a clearly-defined vision of exactly what anarchy would look like. Maybe you can help me out here.
I absolutely believe that individuals (human and nonhuman) do not exist to perpetuate the interests of a soulless establishment agenda.
hipriestess4u said
the bible says thou shalt not kill. Then man rationalized why he must kill at every turn. Therefore
the raising of animals to kill them fills the lust for blood in men. I can show at least 12 videos on you
tube of the massacre of pigs, sheep and cows. The men involved are enjoying every minute that they spend
cutting the throats or hang the animals upside down, or whatever they do to them to kill them. The fact is
that this behavior is still condoned in this society. It doesn’t take much for the imagination to go from
animal slaughter to human slaughter. Prositituion is the oldest profession, butchers are second.
The consciousness allows murder in by condoning it, rationalizing it, and justifying it for whatever illegal
reason. This is why so many people are now succumbing to alzheimer’s because they eat flesh.
Make no mistake the government has known since the 60’s, when cattle mutilations first started happening, that eating too much meat causes the brain to rot. They call it alzheimer’s but it really is an offshoot
or a milder form of mad cows disease. 70 percent of this generation will show the affects of eating meat,
by heart disease or diabetes or mad cows disease, everyone gets their pound of flesh and they pay dearly
for it.
Bruce said
hipriestess4u The Bible clearly states the animals you can eat and calls for blood sacrifice of animals to God. Then the New testament Jesus comes and clearly states it is not what a man put in his stomach that makes him unclean but what is in his heart. Clearly the Bible is supporting the eating of meat. You are trying like everyone else to twist things to meet your agenda. If you want to be a Veg head good for you but don’t wrap it up in lies and deceit it demeans all of you.
Bruce said
Poor old delusional Camille you are great entertainment. I had no idea people could be so delusional without be committed.
Do you have trouble reading and understanding English I clearly stated I do not own any cows or bulls. OMG so the bulls are raping the cows LOL Are you trying for the dumbest veg head statement of the day???? Is this a contest?
Must suck to be in a tiny, tiny, tiny percent of delusional people trying to pervert the world to their bigot racist hate of humans. Have a nice life. Please seek professional help for you are in need of it or did you come from another planet too that eats metal parts. LOL
Camille Marino said
Bruce,
What the fuck is up with you, dude?
I went back and read every one of your inanities. You said “I live in farming and ranching country the cows have a great life always being taken care plenty of food water medical treatment when it is needed.”
Well, bully for you!
Then you said: “I don’t own cows you are funny the ranchers here use bulls…”
So, forgive, me… I thought you were the actual murderer. Apparently I misread your posts and you are not the rapist either. You simply pay others to rape and murder for you. That just makes you a bully. No prize there, pal.
And with respect to your happy-meat mentality, you choose to eat the mutilated corpses of murdered animals. You’re selfish. There is no such thing as “humane slaughter”. It is simply an illusion that allows you to justify you morbid propensity to eat the dead.
Now, with respect to your biblical justifications for you abhorrent behavior, which of the 48,000 translations are you using — just arbitrary verses our of King James? Have you ever read the Gnostic texts? Probably not. Those are the ones they censor from the sycophants because it would kill the illusion of some diety. Jesus was a dude. Period.
However, there is compelling evidence that he was actually of the Essene sect — a VEGAN! http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop–ToDo/Religion/GoodFriday-VeganJesus.htm
GT said
Why appeal to a story from some primitive shithole in occupied Judea? That shithole has been the cause of misery since the Romans left.
There is no need to appeal to any primitive mythology to buttress anti-cruelty arguments. Cruelty is wrong.
(That said, I like the sentiment of “Him that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”. Naked sword-wielding terrorists… COOL.)
Cheerio
GT
Bruce said
You must have trouble reading and understanding English too. I clearly said the ranchers around me use bulls then your airhead friend said bulls are raping the cows. Do you agree with this insane statement.
I am wilderness survival instructor in the wild the only way you can survive is off meat because you need B-12 to survive. The only b-12 in the wild is meat. I am not playing your stupid little games of prove this prove that whatever. Animals are made out of meat to eat. If you choose not to good for you but stop spreading the lies the changing the meaning of words to fit your view of the world.
There is no such thing as a non-human animal that is fairy tale land thinking. There is animal and there is humans if you tiny group of social misfit choose to become children, make up your own meaning of words keep it in your little cult. But if you spread this on the internet trying to pervert the meaning of words You are doing a disservice to your cause.
Lies and deceit are not the way to gain friends and influence people. So stay in your childish fairy tale land and stop spreading lies.
Bea Elliott said
Bruce… No, no, no, no. Ranchers do not “use” bulls — You are in a fairytale. Female’s of all species are artificially inseminated. Bulls cannot “artificially” do anything. Please google bull semen and pig sement… You’ll see it’s the foundation of all “livestock”.
Dear sir… You’re a wilderness survivor? And you’re worried about “B12″? What do you go on outtings for 15-20 years? Cause that’s how much a reserve the human body has of B12. And you’d also know that all the vegetation you can survive on in the forest would include a high quantity of “B12″ for all the insects, varmits, and other animals that spread their organic waste throughout… Nice try — No. You won’t “die” from lack of B12 in any decade soon.
“No such thing as a nonhuman animal” — How so? We are all animals, some are mammals, some are fish, some are primates, some are birds… and some are “human”. Of course “nonhuman” animals exist! Pa-leeze!
And “spreading” things on the internet? Hello! We’re spreading it around the planet — dude.
I’m not after “friends”, nor do I wish to “influence” people into any “cult”. I’m after sound-minded, critical thinkers that can reason on their own and reach conclusions that are sound in their own faculty of judgements. It is the meat-cult-ure that requires blind obedience and ignorant denial of facts. Wake up man! The fairytale IS the meat… The health of the meat, the safety of the meat, the sustainability of the meat, the “tradition” of the meat, the “sacrifice” of the meat… the “humaneness” of the meat — and of course, my favorite: the “necessity” of the meat. If you believe any of it — without proper investigation and credible information —- then it is you that have cast yourself into the fantasy: The fairytale of why we eat animals.
I assure you… once you open your eyes you will see that it’s all rubbish!
Bea Elliott said
An obvious mis-spell “google bull semen and pig semen”….
jalice said
wow this is great! lots of provocative commentary.
again it such a waste to lambast each other. how about just saying everyone has a right to live as they will.
if it is wrong to butcher animals, the bible does not support that view. if it is wrong to eat meat science does not fully support that view. like i tell my boyfriend, for every opinion there is an opposite and equal one. the important thing is that animals need better treatment, people need to get along and the Kingdom of our Lord will make all things right. mankind is too lost to really make sense out of these things and the fall of this world is likely to come. so love is what will save you, not what you eat!
i like the native approach that honors and blesses the animals for their sustaining gifts. if the entire world can be re-ordered we can make different choices until then bless it all and pray for us all to find the Way.
Avril said
Imagine..you are starving , not eaten for days , You come across a healthy looking cow in a field.. what do you do next ?
Most people answer that they would kill the cow and eat her .. not an easy task especially as you are weak from hunger ..
Myself I would eat what the cow eats : )
Go vegan !
Robert said
If you find a cow, you’re probably near a farm. You don’t have to eat grass. Just go knock on the farmer’s door. Ask for a glass of milk. If you’re so hungry you can’t wait, take hold of the cow’s teat and drink it there. You don’t have to kill the whole cow, just to get enough food to stay alive. And you sure don’t have to eat grass.
William said
Here are a few little-known facts:
* The annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian men is SLIGHTLY MORE than that of non-vegetarian men (.93% vs .89%); the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than that of non-vegetarian women (.86% vs .54%) (Am J Clin Nutr 1982 36:873)
* The International Atherosclerosis Project found that vegetarians had just as much atherosclerosis as meat eaters. (Lab Invest 1968 18:498)
* The fatty acids found in artery clogs are mostly UNSATURATED (74%) of which 41% are POLYUNSATURATED [or the kind found in vegetable oils]. (Lancet 1994 344:1195)
* Saturated fatty acids in the blood are not an appropriate marker of dietary fat intake but are rather a marker of carbohydrate intake. Mary Enig, PhD
* “You do NOT need to eat large amounts of fruits and vegetables to get your daily supply of vitamins. While we do get some vitamins from fruits and vegetables, we can get most of them from animal foods. Even more importantly, there are many vitamins and cofactors that we ONLY get from animal foods. This means that if you don’t eat any animal foods you will probably develop a deficiency in some vitamin. . . and except for chromium, animal foods supply more of each mineral. . .The truth is, vitamins and minerals are abundantly available in animal foods, and generally animal foods supply more of them per individual serving than does any single serving of a fruit, vegetable, or grain.” From Life Without Bread: How a Low Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life by Christian B. Alan, PhD and Wolfgang Lutz, M.D.
* “You do not have to eat carbohydrates to have them available for energy. Your body can make carbohydrates as needed, if the protein supply is adequate. Reducing your daily intake of carbs to 72 grams or less . . . will result in more energy at your disposal, as long as you eat plenty of fat and protein. [Further] many organs prefer fat for energy. . .We have all been led to believe that low-fat diets are heart-healthy. But did you know that your heart primarily uses fat for energy? That’s right. Carbs contributes very little to the energy necessary to keep your heart beating, and the preferred fat is saturated fat.” From Life Without Bread: How a Low Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life by Christian B. Alan, PhD and Wolfgang Lutz, M.D., p 56
* “Evidence that carbohydrates contributed to poor health can be found from fossils obtained both before and after Paleolithic times. During the last forty thousand years, skeletal remains have provided important clues. At the beginning of this preagricultural period, the anthropologist Lawrence Angel found that adult males averaged 5 feet 11 inches in height and adult females about 5 feet 6 inches. Twenty thousand years later, after agriculture and carbohydrate consumption were abundant, the males averaged 5 feet, six inches and the females averaged 5 feet. . . Tooth loss at death shows a similar trend. In 30,000 B.C. adults died with 2.2 teeth missing; in 6,500 B.C. they averaged 3.5 missing; during Roman times there were 6.6 teeth missing. These trends suggest that health was compromised by the introduction of large amounts of carbs into the diet, and that the negative effects were experienced from the beginning. . . ” From Life Without Bread: How a Low Carbohydrate Diet Can Save Your Life by Christian B. Alan, PhD and Wolfgang Lutz, M.D., p 190
* “. . .The truth is, more people are dying of heart disease by eating a low-fat diet, with or without exercising . . .You can see initial good results with a low fat diet. When you exercise and eat a low-fat, high carbohydate diet, excess carbohydrates will be turned into cholesterol and fats that are then used by the body as energy. During this stage, your cholesterol profile will significantly improve. But a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet burns muscle mass, especially if you are exercising. This causes your metabolism to slow down, which in turn lowers your requirement for energy. Now any excess carbohydrates you eat will be converted into cholesterol and not used. Over time, your cholesterol will rise.” from The Schwarzbein Principle by Diane Scwarzbein, M.D. pp90-91
* “Archeological studies have shown that Cro-Magnon man ate bear, lion, hyenas, wild horse, and the wooly rhinoceros. In America the Paleolithic Homo sapiens ate the wolf, beaver, and the American camel. . . In China, Peking Man was found to have lunched on camel, deer, elephant and ostrich. . . [In fact] there is no society in the world that is entirely vegetarian. The Hindus of India come closest. Dr. Leon Abrams [in a 1967 article in Natural History Magazine] reports on India, “. . . the greater percentage of the population, who subsist almost entirely on vegetable foods, suffer from kwashiorkor, other forms of malnutrition, and have the shortest life span in the world.” from The Milk of Human Kindness Is Not Pasteurized by Wm. Campbell Douglass, M.D. p 211
* “The Director of theNational Museum in Iceland says that it is definitely established that during 600 years, 1200 to 1800 in Iceland, there were no dental cavities. The foods they ate were milk and milk products, mutton, beef and fish. They ate no carbohydrate. The only exception to this was a little moss soup in summer, but this was a rare “fun food” of little nutritional importance. . .Two Indian tribes reveal the same thing. The prehistoric Indians of California were Vegetarians, unlike most folks of that period, and they had tooth decay. In contrast, the Sioux Indians lived on buffalo meat and were devoid of cavities. The Pueblos worshipped the Corn God, but he was not grateful. They have the most wretched teeth of all the American Indian tribes… They lived on corn, squash and beans. The Laplanders, who ate mostly reindeer meat during the 18th century, rarely had cavities. Modern Laplanders have a decay rate of 85% of their teeth.” from The Milk of Human Kindness Is Not Pasteurized by Wm. Campbell Douglass, M.D. p 215
poetshound said
Read “The 80-10-10 Diet” by Doug Graham.
We all like to assume reports are facts, but considering sources and biases, everyone can argue justifications until the cows come home (heh.)
It’s all food for thought. I like to think that dietary changes go hand-in-hand with evolution. We are a dense creature, yet aspire to lightness of being.
Eat what you like, just remember that we are all paying the consequences of each other’s choices.
Chris Watcher said
I’m just looking over all these comments and I agree, Wiliam is stating reports from articles, there are many articles, and I think none are reliable because they all take opinions from the looks of it. How do we know the ones whop reported them aren’t just saying what they were paid to? How do we know they didn’t take all data into account? Both for and against sometimes use these article.
Robert said
Thank you very much, William, for this information. I would never have known where to look to find it. Thanks.
poetshound said
I can’t let this one go.
I want to argue the virtue of a type of diet that is and has always been naturally available to humans: Raw fruits and greens and vegetables.
Raw diets are unique in fundamentally crucial ways. First and foremost is the water content. There are many beneficial consequences to having continual hydration, but number one is the delivery of nutrients. Every molecule of a vitamin or mineral or sugar riding on the backs of quenching and cleansing water molecules. In this way, every cell is optimally supported in every metabolic function.
Secondly, I would like to state that if you can’t eat it raw, don’t eat it; it wasn’t meant for human consumption. This isn’t only supportive of a vegan diet, but other forms of raw-food diets as well. I simply can not support that if we were meant to expend as much energy as we do to deliver non-ideal foods into our bodies, why aren’t other creatures in Nature doing the same? In fact, they do the opposite (especially the ‘carnivores’ and ‘omnivores’ with whom we supposedly share the top of the food chain.) The expenditure of energy for all creatures in Nature is minimised as much as possible in the pursuit of sustenance. Except with humans, because we have a choice, apparently. Examine the consequences. Just look around. Nowhere else in Nature will you find the wretched excess of consumption and resulting health, genetic, and environmental decline. Perhaps other creatures are not capable of denying wisdom and humans are considerably unwise.
*As for the monikers ‘carnivore’ and ‘omnivore’, ‘herbivore’ and ‘granarian’, I believe all creatures eat their ideal diets and confining them to categories is a function of human analysis and therefore severely limits the Truth of the matter, which involves many unseen and disregarded aspects. For example, large cats. Considered carnivores, they are actually blood drinkers primarily. They do consume some flesh, grass, so how should they be classified? A close examination of metabolic function is necessary to understand exactly why such creatures consume as they do. Also the question, “What nutrient is stored in which manner in that form of ‘food’?”
To continue on this argument – human eyes, lips, teeth, tongue, nose, hands, esophagus, stomach, intestines, and colon are optimally tuned to eat fruit and perhaps tender leafy greens and certain vegetables. The bright colors of fruit call to us initially and stimulate our brains in various ways. We are already in an excited state by the time we can smell the ripeness (or lack thereof) of the food and this results in further stimulation that prepares the whole body to do one thing: Digest. Salivation begins somewhere in here, even before we have opened our mouths. Metabolism kicks up a notch, probably at the behest of the bright, cheery colors. All of this points to a highly-evolved and naturally refined system that efficiently consumes for sustenance. Once our highly sensitive hands unerringly, deftly pluck the fruit without crushing it, we put it to, or in, our mouths. If the fruit is large, our lips adhere to the surface and minimise the loss of juice (high water content), something our lips are optimally designed to do by sucking. Our tongue and teeth then separate a bite, crush and chew the easily masticated material and swallow a pulpy mess. Our esophagus is tender and the mush we then send through it is gentle enough so that a signal to chew more thoroughly is probably not necessary. Once in the stomach, acids easily dissolve the mush into a more ideal state for extraction of nutrients and even more water. On through the intestines where more extraction and very important functions of cleansing occur (facilitated by remaining water) rapidly, within a short transit period. This means that in spite of the length of our intestinal track, matter passes quickly through it if it is ideally suited to do so. Our intestines are optimally designed to keep us digesting for a short time, because it takes much of our bodies’ focus of energy to go through the act of digestion. Everything in Nature is about homeostasis and optimisation. To digest all day or for a week is patently unnatural. For such an evolved being, on the whole, we seem to defy explanation in this regard. Imagine biologists studying us objectively (improbable due to their humanity) and seeing our penchant for taking every available natural food and processing it in perhaps several ways before we even put it to our water-starved lips. They would report on a species floundering in its environment, at once foreign and unwilling to adapt as a result the natural consequences of existence, and at the same time unwilling to do what is necessary to live optimally for its biological design.
Thirdly, consider all functions of the body as complete, inseparable, perfectly-running systems. Blood is pervasive. It serves the metabolic functioning of our cells perfectly. It is the manifestation of life force. It delivers oxygen to the little power plants in our cells, but it also delivers the fuel – sugar. It will unerringly deliver whatever else is floating around in it: Toxins, for example. In order to perform at optimum, blood must have a certain viscosity, an ideal chemistry. What that is is debatable, but I can say with certainty that fats in the blood are delicately balanced and tipping that scale will lead to definite consequences. Also, the alkalinity of the blood will have certain effects on functioning. Excess of fats seem to gum up the works and lead to deficiencies in the delivery of fuel to the cells. The sugar stays in the blood, which sends specific signals within the efficient organism to compensate (always finding balance is an exhausting proposition for efficient systems chronically given inefficient fuels or poisonous toxins which gum up the works. Consider diabetes.) This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it doesn’t take much to imagine the long-term effects to habitually exhausting your body with consuming and flushing the by-products of anything other than the simplest, raw, high water-content foods.
Fourth, salt is a highly-addictive stimulant that should be cut from our diets immediately if not sooner. To crave it is to endure the worst kind of withdrawal symptoms. Look behind many of your food cravings and you will either find a sweet craving or a salt craving. Sweet is the cells crying for fuel, salt is drug addiction. It literally destroys the blood chemistry and depletes cells of what they need most: Water. Our bodies have a mechanism for dealing with excessive salt and it is this: We immobilise and store it in a briny layer under our skin. Makes us look fat, when we are just salty. Give up the salt and you will begin to expel it rapidly, running to the toilet several times an hour as your body flushes the excess briny water.
Now is a good time to submit that our bodies are constantly healing and balancing and compensating for many things, but they have their limits and begin to succumb to chronic toxic loads according to the individual’s biological factors. Everyone is different and therefore it is ridiculous to apply any one tolerance level to a human organism. Universally, however, the moment that we let up on the consumption of toxins, it appears that our bodies begin to flush immediately. Stuff comes to the surface. Stored poison steeping for who knows how long is allowed release with certain and sometimes frightening effects: Symptoms. These things that tell us that our systems are working correctly make us feel miserable and we put more unnecessary toxins in to alleviate the suffering. Symptoms are the body dealing with toxins. They are the natural consequence to toxicity. They are reassuringly intense in their insistence that our bodies will to be healthy. Yet, just think how you ‘treat’ your symptoms when they are the treatment for the ailment. More un-wisdom from the highly-evolved creature. Interesting to note that in spite of continual abuse, some folks live into their nineties, one-hundreds. Now consider what their life-expectancy might be if they weren’t chronically toxic and their bodies weren’t exhausted from dealing with that condition. Just something to ponder.
Everything that I am positing here, by the way, is verifiable. Just do some research and you find the facts and theories.
Fifth, if the goal is efficiently-delivered optimum nutrition, then it can not be argued that meat is remotely necessary. It is not the most efficient form of sugars and amino acids for human consumption. That is found in fruit and greens. Also, the ‘necessary’ levels of these nutrients is skewed by the simple fact that, like all inefficient systems, the answer is throw more materials at it. Kind of like overcompensating for the fact that we are lazy eaters. Efficient creatures eat for sustenance, not entertainment. What an abomination when one considers that nutrition is not widely available, there is almost a finite amount. It should be considered a natural resource and protected. Therefore, nutrients in the form of meat defy reason for the evolved creature that we are supposed to be. We do not, as we are mistakenly led to believe, need proteins. We do not need complex carbohydrates. Our bodies do things with these forms of matter, yes, but they must break them down into the usable forms that our body craves: Sugars and amino acids. These forms exist already in ready-to-eat packages, just pluck them and chew. It’s obvious that sugars are in fruit. It’s proven that amino acids are free-form in greens. You want to build muscle, eat greens (chew a LOT). Our bodies carry a reserve of amino acids all the time and recycle them through the organism as needed – the maintenance levels are low, perhaps less than ten percent by calorie intake. If you want to disagree – look at buffalo. One of the bulkiest, muscle-bound land creatures in North America. They eat greens. Grass. You think they supplement their diets with whey protein shakes? Isolated soy? No, they eat grass. I’m not suggesting that grass is optimal for human consumption, but the point is that muscle-building amino acids are in a ready form in green groceries and that is all we need if we can find a form of green that is easily digestible. There are many.
Sixth, I have already stipulated that we are ideally suited for a few food items: Fruit, tender greens, and some vegetables. Everything else is frivolous and/or toxic. Grains are bird food. Legumes are bacteria food. They require processing that is clearly not a natural stipulation, otherwise cooking pots would grow on trees and we would have utensils where our hands are. For every organism, there is a food. Nature abhors a vacuum. Why do we insist on living outside our means and eating other organisms’ food? The only result is chronic ill-health and over-population. Great.
Omnivorousness is a fluke and is a result of a larger brain. Humans share a propensity with other omnivorous creatures for adaptation through bending (not breaking) the tendencies of all creatures in this planet. Our brains are massive and that affords us the greatest leeway when it comes to bending those rules. However, living out on those extremes of sustenance has its extreme forms of consequences. You live them every day. Another fluke of our large brain is to understand these consequences and choose to accept wisdom. To deny the extremely sophisticated systems existing all around us is to deny our own sophistication within us. Our own ability. To rationalise a separation between these systems is just as ludicrous. It stunts evolution, attempts to hold us in stasis. Stasis ends in rot, because Nature will have none of it. Humans must continue to evolve, regardless of how they dieted in the past. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons have yet to be conclusively classified as ancestors of us, anyway. Even if they are, our closest living relatives eat primarily fruit and other forms of vegetation, but they, too, demonstrate a dissonance in their lack of ideal conditions and desire for adaptation – thus eating strange and wonderful tidbits that would gag a bigger-brained creature such as ourselves.
In conclusion, I’d like to point out that sustainability is the whole of the law in Nature, always has been, but we humans regard the idea as if we discovered it. It’s like it didn’t exist until we recognised it. We have been cursed with an ego that causes us great suffering as a result of the illusion of disconnection it creates. We are a tiny part of a perfect system. It is not all about us. It is about life. We are in a unique position to be aware of this and cooperate with the vastness within and without us, but we focus on bizarre natural and unnatural distractions that keep us justifying our ego-driven positions. Our position in the grand scheme may have been unalterably shifted to the point of our extinction, but that’s the way it is in life. We have had a go of it, and will continue to right up until the end, if there is one. What we have done with our time as a species and the opportunities for the growth of our spirit will be of the most value to us in whatever form we take beyond this life. And if there is no beyond, we will have failed as an organism if we do not surrender to the reality that we are whole and also part of a whole. What a strange curse to be able to choose folly time and time again. The consequences for this species and this planet have been and are immeasurable. Eating raw plant-based foods can and will liberate one’s awareness, but the cure is to embrace this awareness and within it, be.
Robert said
What makes William’s post so valuable is that he doesn’t expect us to believe him; he gives the sources of his information. You want to lay on us the task of verification. It’s your job to provide it. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe you. Anyone can make statements. Backing them up, however, requires more skill. It would also make your post persuasive.
poetshound said
You are absolutely right, Robert. And the same can be said for all of the ‘facts’ presented above. Someone like me posited something, biases intact, agendas intact about nutrition. Finding nutritionists who agree is more difficult than herding cats – verification is impossible. They then used industry-standard methods to ‘prove’, and credentials to qualify, their findings. The funny thing is, most data is anecdotal. It just happens to be compiled into a study. All of the facts in William’s post are from a website run by ‘paleo-diet’ enthusiasts, The Weston A. Price Foundation. They have their agenda just like I do, and every fact is a conclusion reached by a human, just like me, based on their limited experience, just like me, to further an agenda, perhaps like me. I just happen to be my own case-study. I continually do my own homework, I just wanted to give some perspective based on my own research and experiences. I merely suggest that recent information is out there and I hope everyone feels empowered to simply care about their diets rather than mindlessly consume their way through life. I don’t expect anyone to believe me – I am obviously just a person, but so is every PhD. I am sorry I can’t back up my life experiences with corroboration that spans a lifetime of raw vegan health over a sufficient number of case-studies to say that it is a ‘fact’. Perhaps I will write a book so that people can quote me. I’ll dedicate it to a Robert on TPC who lit a passionate need to persuade under my feet.
Cheers!
Robert said
Numerous of your statements are incorrect. Verification is possible. You said so yourself. The standards they used were not industry methods, but were methods employed in science, which is quite a different matter altogether. Moreover, industry interests are not necessarily supported by the findings cited. Every fact may be a conclusion reached by a human, but not all humans have the same agenda. Your agenda is vegan. Their agenda may be truth. Truth can be an agenda. And truth does tend to support one thing, namely, whatever is true. A vegan agenda supports only what is in support of veganism. Discounting the merits and value of honest research is simply not effective, to someone who is familiar with the methods employed in science and who can see through the assertions of those whose opinions rely for their veracity on insinuations and surreptitious implications. You appeal to the notion that truth is subjective and that educated men are not capable of discovering what is true. In fact, truth is objective, and knowledgeable men can indeed prove what it is.
Symmetry said
What’s the use of arguing/insisting over “which side the handle of the cup is”?
Why can’t/don’t you combine your talents/gifts??
poetshound said
I’m positing that you can not call anything honest research. All information is ultimately anecdotal. My agenda is not vegan, actually, my agenda is truth. What does that mean in the context of this discussion? If I found my own truth in a corned-beef sandwich, I’d write about it. The truth is that I have experienced tissue regeneration, rapid healing of chronic repetitive-stress injuries (from woodworking), bottomless energy reserves, zero recovery time from strenuous physical exercise (long-distance cyclist), stabilisation of my body temperature, stabilisation of my appetite, my mood, weight, and an absence of stress like I haven’t felt since I was a child. Did I experience lab techs with clipboards and electrodes attached to me during my recovery process? I am afraid not… Would that lend credibility to my experience? No. The biggest side effect from my experience of eating raw fruit and vegetables and greens is that I think of my self as a whole. One can not examine my endocrine system alone, without considering my circulatory system. One can not study my vitamin metabolisation without considering my digestion and my activity level. One can not call me hydrated without considering my potassium/sodium balance and how it relates to cellular absorption. One can not rate my nutrition intake without considering how much rest I ‘digest’ every day. To wit, the ‘conventional’ standards of the religion of medicine and nutrition are so far removed from reality in light of what ordinary people need to thrive, how can they possibly be considered relevant to Health anymore? Time to evolve, I say. And that must include the fringe of revolutionary dieting, because those folks are pointing the way.
The Oblivious Prattler said
I do eat meat and believe it is not a sin to do so, but I respect those who have chosen a vegetarian lifestyle. It is a choice, not a necessity.
What I find tragic is the people here cannot have a debate without insulting one another. If you believe strongly that your view is correct, that’s fine and admirable, but if you cannot respect your opponent’s position, you undermine your own view. You cannot have a debate without an opposing side, so you might as well listen to what they have to say.
Bruce said
Camille and all the others obvious to me I found the social misfits of the world. Let see what I have learned.
1. You all live in your little tiny misfit world.
2. You are trying to change the meaning of words to fit your childish reality. Scared to grow up. You people are no difference then a child with imaginary friend talking in a strange language because you are perverting English to meet your fairy tale land.
3. I have killed and butchered animals but then I have study wilderness survival and actually survive in the wilds. I clearly pointed out the reality that you must have meat to survive in the wild. That is fact you can pervert the language to live in fairy tale all you want it will not change the facts.
4. When one of you try to pervert and change the meaning of the Bible I point out the lies and deceit behind it. Then later attacks for using the Bible. You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.
5. You are normally women social outcast that want to stay in a child like state believing you have found some enlightenment. Funny it is nothing new you are just following a religion that most of you don’t even understand.
6. I clearly stated many times if you want to live in your tiny little childish world GOOD FOR YOU. But it appears you will not accept the fact that I am Free man to choose my own life. That is what the Nazi did and with the superior holier then thou attitude coming from most of you it is clear you are in cult.
7. As cult members you refuse to admit you are in cult. That takes a free and open mind to see you are being manipulate.
8. Pervert the language change the meaning of words to fit your childish gibberish I have work to do and will not bother you little children any more on this article.
Have a nice life in your fairy tale land.
Robert said
You should read my posts too. Your descriptions don’t apply to me. It would be good if you would make that clear.
Chris Watcher said
Yes they do.
joe navis said
i have read thru all these posts and i must say i am really disappointed in just about all of them. name calling and elitism seem to abound here. when i first came here i thought it would make my favorites menu. maybe y’all are all very very young, and maybe my katrina experience has just made me intolerant of such foolishness. the person who lived thru ww2 knows as well that there are truly important issues to worry about and such vitriol and personal attacks should be kept out of these types of debates. y’all have a good life.
Robert said
Disappointment doesn’t really go very far, in motivating others to improve their actions.
Chris Watcher said
Thus what were once
bunnies, Bambi…
Bambi, reminds me of the feature length cartoon about the deers. Further on in that film they all had to run, but one is shot. Nothing was shown of what happened to the mother. Only the elder deer says to Bambi we have to go.
questioned it…until now when it turns out they edited that cartoon, they deliberately removed the dead mother because they said it would have offended hunters.
Is that taking the piss or what? Thats a hint at what type of people are behind things like Hollywood and both film and cartoon studios.
More like it would have shown why people despise hunting because it is truly vile and cowardly. Now one could say I’m just getting emotional. I’d say I’m just being human, what humans are supposed to feel when they sense something is wrong, when something is not right. Part of human nature unlike the fraudulent belief that:
“man is born a hunter” “Man is born sadist”
Man was taught to be a hunter, not born. As for sadism, that in this day and age looks so, when the mind is not guided by responsible parenting, when the parents too are tainted by modernization.
So far this article has the most comments (no, haven’t bothered to read them all either). Why bother? Its all arguments probably both for and against carnivore/omnivore beliefs, oh and the angry in between who are easily offended. Why get offended at those who are hypocritical and dumb? (Yep I’m just asking for attention).
This like other articles is the usual cry for change.
Robert said
Of course it’s sad that humans have to kill to eat. But look at your table. The only thing on it that never lived is salt. Everything else had to be killed. Plants are alive. They live. And they are even more defenseless than deer. There are about ten deer that roam my place. They come and go. I like having them here. They are well behaved, for wild animals, and they are very graceful and, though dirty, they are pretty, Right now there are two little ones. There used to be three. One was extremely little. Their mothers are very nice to them, treating them with tenderness and care. But they don’t over do it. They expect the little ones to do for themselves right away. In mid-July there was a strong thunder storm, and, because of the thunder, the littlest one ran and hit its head against a tree and broke its neck and died. A vulture came and sat in a tree close to it, waiting for its mother to leave. She stayed beside it for a whole day. Finally I figured out that it was there, chased the vulture away, and disposed of the dead fawn. But was I right to deprive the vultures of a meal? If not, why not? Because they are alive also, and they eat dead things. That’s what they do in life. There are a lot of deer hunters in the county where I live. People who don’t eat deer are the ones who don’t want the deer in their yards. The deer eat just about anything that grows, and they poop everywhere, which is all right, because there are also dung beetles, and it becomes fertilizer in a few days and doesn’t accumulate. My neighbor wants to put up a high anti-deer fence to keep them out. He doesn’t eat them or hunt them. I don’t eat them either, but only because the local grocery store sells beef, which comes from killed cows. Or chicken meat; I could eat dead chickens, since I’ve tried getting along on just vegetables and fruit, only to find it wasn’t enough, because of what it does to one’s mind. So I let the deer roam my place unhindered, because I understand that if things really got bad, I would have something to eat. You could say this is unnatural. But it’s not less natural than refusing to eat meat.
Bea Elliott said
“I’ve tried getting along on just vegetables and fruit, only to find it wasn’t enough, because of what it does to one’s mind.”
That sentence alone should disqualify any credibility you have for any of your opinions. Are you serious? Please elaborate: “what it does to one’s mind”?
Robert said
Why should I reply, if, as you state, my credibility is disqualified? But of course I know that you’re being manipulative. You would like for me to simply agree with you on the bases of the fact that if I don’t you’ll ignore me. Well, go ahead and ignore me. But then you ask me to elaborate. That is what you should have asked to begin with. Instead, you preferred to trash my opinion. Why should it make any difference to me whether you believe me or not? After all, I’ve already given you a lot of information, only to be trashed and ignored. If you want people to interact with you in a functional way, you need to omit making statements which tend to repulse them. The idea that all of my opinions are rendered unbelievable just because I said something you don’t like is not actually a realistic concept. Truth is, there is no one who does not have at least a few sound opinions, no matter who they are, and no matter whether they say what you want them to say. As far as what a vegan diet does to one’s mind, I could say that you are perhaps an example. But, really, that would be a bad attitude on my part, wouldn’t it? Therefore, instead, I choose to answer your question, because I prefer rational behavior. Here’s my answer: Like it or not, when you eat meat, your mind is sharper than when you don’t. I am not to blame for this fact. I am merely telling you of it. Without meat, the human brain doesn’t get all the various sorts of nutrients it needs. Sure, it can still function, and the person doesn’t die, if he eats only fruits and vegetables. But the nutrients found in meats provide additional materials which the brain and body need to function at their best. There are plenty of people who don’t eat meat and who still function well enough. But a little meat would improve the way their mind works. You’re the vegan, I’m the meat eater; yet you became emotional and irrational, while I have simply answered your question. A diet with meat in it makes it easier for the brain to solve problems and that means more effective behavior, and not flying off the handle quite so easily.
Chris Watcher said
Because your credibility is in question.
Heheheh! I thought someone would reply to this article again. I thought I’d reply because I’m bored.
“Of course it’s sad that humans have to kill to eat. But look at your table. The only thing on it that never lived is salt.
Nope, humans don’t “have to kill to eat”, and some salts can come from something tha was alive. Such as some salts derived from animals or may have come from factories and processes that handle fish “products, and all that background.
“Everything else had to be killed. Plants are alive. They live. And they are even more defenseless than deer.”
This plug for omnivorism is by far old now, do you know how many times I’ve argued this with someone I work with? Defenseless means in human terms means someoene who cannot defend themself, animals can defend themselves in the wild as can humans (but in a different way). Plants are said to defend themselves in a different way to either, something about how they taste and how not all animals like their taste. Of course you could say “I don’t like some fruits or veg” but then again some don’t like all animal products (although still some of them).
And then the fact plants don’t run away, the only thing wrong with how some folks eat fruit and veg is just wasting the whole thing such as the seeds (again thanks to modernization, education the farming industry stealing lands from natives and so on.)
“A vulture came and sat in a tree close to it, waiting for its mother to leave. She stayed beside it for a whole day. Finally I figured out that it was there, chased the vulture away, and disposed of the dead fawn. But was I right to deprive the vultures of a meal? If not, why not? Because they are alive also, and they eat dead things.”
I cannot help but think you made this up but lets put you to shame again.
Vultures circle dead or dying animals, they, so far as I know, don’t develop diseases from consuming the dead of other animals. But humans do, humans are prone to disease, and of course aren’t designed to consume animals. You make the typical mistake like they all do trying to compare two different things.
And then there is the claims you know “how the world works thing”, this time on deers and the hunter association.
You know neither, proved neither, and just give suggestions. You expect noone to challenge you on these things, only to argue emptily on denial and getting comfort from this or some sort of enjoyment.
“I’ve tried getting along on just vegetables and fruit, only to find it wasn’t enough, because of what it does to one’s mind. So I let the deer roam my place unhindered, because I understand that if things really got bad, I would have something to eat. You could say this is unnatural. But it’s not less natural than refusing to eat meat.”
Do you really expect anyone to believe that here on a pro vegan discussion board? Are you really that desperate? You’ve more chance kidding about these things among hunter associates or other drunkards or naives.
Ok some possibly aren’t full vegans, some still eat labeled products, but I don’t.
I’ll let you go now arguing emptily (probably copying other members words to then manipulate to suit your own). You’re all like open books.
Robert said
Name a food that you eat that was not killed.
Robert said
To Chris Watcher:
You sure don’t sound like a professional. What is your degree in?
Chris Watcher said
“Name a food that you eat that was not killed.”
First of all by killing do you mean knife to the throat of an animal that is designed to respond to pain, electrocuted in water, or the other bloody ways? Because that is nowhere near the same as some who say, plucks the plant leaves or fruit.
“You sure don’t sound like a professional. What is your degree in?”
1. I am not the one trying to be clever here.
2. I never said I had a degree in anything.
3. Chances are you will counter this by saying some bollocks like:
“HA! So you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about!”
Me counters you saying: Why don’t you get off your arse and look up this issue on both sides? I am not the one who came here trying to convince empathic vegans to reconvert to sadism.
“To Chris Watcher:”
Just “reply” under my comment, I do have notifications set to receive comments. Just don’t expect me to answer as and when anyone wishes. I’ll answer as and when I see fit.
Bea Elliott said
To Chris Watcher: “First of all by killing do you mean knife to the throat of an animal that is designed to respond to pain, electrocuted in water, or the other bloody ways?”
Thanks for catching my back… that’s exactly what I meant to say!
Also the part about empathetic vegans –
Well said!
Bea Elliott said
Here are my “killed” foods: Fortunately, not a one was “sentient” and THAT makes all the difference in the world.
Robert said
My statement was about killing, and your response was that people don’t have to kill to eat. Now, by saying that what matters is whether a living thing is sentient, you are changing the subject.
Bea Elliott said
Very well… EVERYTHING I eat was “killed” – SO WHAT?
My only wish is that those who see no difference in what a plant feels and what an animal feels – should discover the difference on their own hide.
Robert said
Sorry, Bea. I have something more important to do. Best wishes.
jeff said
You guys should see the size of the hole in the exit wound of Bambi after getting hit with a 338 Winchester magnum 200 grain Nosler Partition with 2000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. It is totally awesome as Bambi is dead before he hits the ground and you could stuff a large water mellon in the exit wound. Remember my 338 is way more humane than a pack of dogs/coyotes/wolves ripping Bambi apart, or getting clipped by YOUR SUV and crawling off with a broken back to die a slow agonizing death while bleating for momma. When are you idiots going to realize no one and nothing is coming off this rock alive so maybe stfu already and let people live their few fleeting moments without judgment?
Chris Watcher said
I don’t know if the runner has blocked you or not but…
1. I doubt your description is accurate, even if it were though not all guns are exactly pristine, rounds can be faulty, gun freaks can get confused between rounds and guns (trying to act clever when they know sod all). I might look up this gun description and if I do and find you have fibbed, its just another one to add to the brainwashed hunter arsociation lies.
An unrecognized sound like say a colt python, is alien to wild animals, then again certain parts of the world now have to put up with idiots trying to show off with such guns if not louder ones like a sniper rifle, machine gun, or going a bit over the top, an anti aircraft gun of some sort.
2. Animals in the wild don’t have to come up with such man crap because unlike man, animals can do a far better job of quick killing than man ever could. Oh yeah, man sometimes misses.
3. Only an idiot would say crap like:
“When are you idiots going to realize no one and nothing is coming off this rock alive so maybe stfu already and let people live their few fleeting moments without judgment?”
Since when did anyone on this site suggest living eternally? What a dick!
jeff said
Yeah Chris, I am the dick? That is pot kettle black if I ever saw it. About the eternal living, I didn’t say that as you are suggesting something other than what I am trying to convey, purposely trying to muddy the waters because you don’t have the nads to argue the fact that nature is very cruel as death in the animal world is not always as swift as you would like to ignorantly believe. Try getting ate by a python if you want a slow death. Or how about a good chewing and drowning in the jaws of an alligator?
So 2. “Animals in the wild don’t have to come up with such man crap because unlike man, animals can do a far better job of quick killing than man ever could. Oh yeah, man sometimes misses.” Forgive me if i have a nagging feeling I am arguing with a 12 year old, are you? If you are indeed an adult, please get a clue.
Chris Watcher said
“Yeah Chris, I am the dick?”
Yes you are because you are here arguing with those you know are talking bollocks. Yes you are implying “eternal living” from the way you worded it. Again dick.
Nature is said to be cruel, but so far man cannot prove to justify the existence of a slaughter house, hunter beliefs or even experimentation because all those exist on belief alone and on man straying away from natures path.
“Try getting ate by a python if you want a slow death”
You make the mistake through similarity now. Man is obviously going to suffer far more than say a smaller animal in the wild that a python does eat. Just imagine how long it would take for a man to suffocate compared to a small animal. Man suffers the longest.
“Or how about a good chewing and drowning in the jaws of an alligator?”
I wonder how many folks have seen those nature documentaries, the caribou or deer goes along the lake or some stream then BAM! The crocodile or alligator (depends which area they both live in) strikes, turning the prey until it falls. You know what I mean? Not nice but the way they do it is nothing compared to how the silly sods trying to show off with one get their arm twisted off by one. Saw those videos too.
Nature isn’t exactly “nice” but it still knows better. You still don’t have a clue, I think you are the twelve year old here. You remind me of someone, he played a similar game, tried to be clever, got found out. Turns out he wanted to know what I’d say then turn that any way he could at a later date. Poor sad get.
Any more?
Chris Watcher said
Edit:
Yes you are because you are here arguing with those [that know] you know are talking bollocks. Yes you are implying “eternal living” from the way you worded it. Again dick.
Bea Elliott said
Sorry Jeff, no one gets off (this rock) without judgement either. Judgements are what we have that allow us to make good decisions in the world.
Wolves have no choice – to make a good world or not… Comparing your blood lust to a wolf, reveals the primordial crud between your toes. The brute with his killing machine… against all that are weaker than him! …(wow)
Jeff, I know your type. On the one hand you claim god-like power over everything you can take – Deciding on life and death for others who must suffer to your mighty will. You are the master over all that you can steal. You are a self proclaimed deity!
Only you and your forceful, butchering views are allowed. Others mustn’t ruin your little party of cruelty and destruction by making “judgements” on you. You want others to absolve (or ignore) your acts because we should all “live and let”. You want a silent world, so you can rape and butcher… “in peace”. And we’re the “meanies” if we don’t let you “play violent” without disgust. (boo-hoo)
It’s true wolves kill deer. It’s true that living beings are sometimes slammed by SUVs. But neither is by a deliberately, harmful act. Not the wolf who has no choice; or the accident, that sometimes happens.
But by your logic, since 5 year olds sometimes drown in pools… we should drown more 5 year olds. Because… well – “it happens”. Just because tragedies occur, doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to cause the harm. Nor is it satisfactory to be apethetic when “judging” harm.
This is how we evolved… from the club wielding – cave dwelling thug we once had to be. Through better judgements and good choices.
I judge this a correct course for humanity. And I speak up in favor of reason, respect and compassion – every chance I get. Stealing lives… Killing is wrong! And unless you’re your own judging “gOd” – Every being on this “rock” should leave in their own due time…
So you see… you really have no problem being “judgemental” yourself. You just make judgements against those who are weaker than you! Playing “god” with your weapons and killing toys. Death for your frivolous amusement – yet you do not wish to be “judged”… Are you serious???
My voice may not resonate as loud as your Remington… but my aim on reality is certainly “on target”.
This issue is not going away — Killing for pleasure is NOT an excusable act. And civilized people do not stay quiet while monsters try to present it as such.
Being judgemental against evil is our moral obligation to our humanity.
jeff said
Wow you people are hilarious. So Bea, first you say we are not getting off this rock without judgment so obviously you believe in a supreme being, aka god but at the same time also believe we evolved which is not consistent with the teachings of god. and since you have godlike beliefs, did not GOD kill animals to clothe Adam and Eve? did not this same god demand animal sacrifice which then was burnt, so on one hand you call me evil but the god in which you seem to believe in demanded exactly what you abhor? Cant follow two masters, so please make up your mind and either throw out belief in god and go totally atheist as that is what evolution belief demands. And here is a news flash for you, the cave men were not hunters but gatherers as they were the prey and being the predators were much larger and hungrier than today’s predators, human sacrifice was to leave one human for the animals while the rest made a run for the next stand of trees. The hyena of the past was larger than todays lions and roamed in huge packs so we “humans” were at the lower rung on the food chain and if you were to do a little research you would know this, so again I say I am tired of arguing with the ignorant. Don’t come to a gunfight without bullets.
Now for Mr. Dick. How you assumed i was talking eternal life from “not getting off this rock alive” is beyond me. You have to make this assumption to further your argument and this flashes back to the beginning of this complete thread where you elitist vegans twist meanings and put words in other peoples posts and assume hidden meanings in which to argue because without deception you have no argument, as we that eat meat could care less about your lifestyle, but you cant stand the idea of not furthering your agenda and force us to live like you. When anyone says “my way is better” is an elitist aka DICKweed, DICKhead, DICKface, DICK. So take your pick..dick
Bruce said
Jeff,
This has been going for weeks. These people are brainwashed children following a Vegan cult. They believe they are superior to the rest of mankind and should have the right to order the rest of us around. Sounds like Nazi’s to me.
As human suffering increase due to the bad economy they waste countless hours on their cult thinking spreading hate to mankind. Can’t help Americans out, that are living in tent city can’t help out the food pantry that are running desperately low on food. NO the cult must try and change the meaning of words so their imaginary child hood best friend can tell them meat is murder. What a pathetic bunch of loser.
So Jeff you can’t win you are talking to a cult that has drank the kool aid and just like the Jim Jones cult they will never admit they are wrong right to the end. This has nothing to do with facts and reality but perverting the meaning of words attacking people shoving their Superior Nazi thinking down everyone else throat. Now I understand how Hitler came into power gullible easy to fool people.
jeff said
Of course I won. Look how stupid I make these fools look to anyone else that might wander by as that is all I wanted to do, job finished and now I am out.
Chris Watcher said
Now for Mr Dick Jeff
“And here is a news flash for you, the cave men were not hunters but gatherers as they were the prey and being the predators were much larger and hungrier than today’s predators, human sacrifice was to leave one human for the animals while the rest made a run for the next stand of trees. The hyena of the past was larger than todays lions and roamed in huge packs so we “humans” were at the lower rung on the food chain and if you were to do a little research you would know this, so again I say I am tired of arguing with the ignorant. Don’t come to a gunfight without bullets.”
So you admit humans were never hunters to begin with which now makes you officially a hypocrite (because of your earlier comments). Making a joke on that Bambi thing.
Actually I can safely say you Jeff have not done any research, the only “research” you have done is take favored article suggesting humans are carni/omnivores. The usual crap you idiots claim we get off the net is misleading. Again you lot are hypocrites. None of you lot could truthfully defend your claims.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m sure even others have done the same, noone bothers to do a thorough investigation, just taking sides and opinions.
Where did you get your information from hmm?
“How you assumed i was talking eternal life from “not getting off this rock alive” is beyond me.”
Again you’d need only look at your mistakes. Now you can’t explain it, you are defeated and will ignore or deny it:
““When are you idiots going to realize no one and nothing is coming off this rock alive so maybe stfu already and let people live their few fleeting moments without judgment?” Jeff.
Again this tries to inprint the assumption that vegans want a death free world and all la de da. Grow up.
“You have to make this assumption to further your argument and this flashes back to the beginning of this complete thread where you elitist vegans twist meanings and put words in other peoples posts and assume hidden meanings in which to argue because without deception you have no argument,”
Oooh elitist vegans! Heheheh. I usually get called a militant vegan. And for assumptions and twisting meanings thats what pro carni/omnivorists and pro vivisectionists do you dick. None of you have a leg to stand on, not against the educated who cut to the chase focusing on irrefutable facts.
“as we that eat meat could care less about your lifestyle, but you cant stand the idea of not furthering your agenda and force us to live like you. When anyone says “my way is better” is an elitist aka DICKweed, DICKhead, DICKface, DICK. So take your pick..dick”
Now you have put yourself in it because you admit you don’t care, are here to argue on an opinion and won’t take anyone seriously. Again just another dick.
“Of course I won. Look how stupid I make these fools look to anyone else that might wander by as that is all I wanted to do, job finished and now I am out.”
Heheheh wait till the opposition is busy, then get out before whoever is reading returns.
Bruce has just proven my point. Doing exactly like pro carni/omni, vivisectionists do. Taking what others have said and rewording it to their own version. Copy cats indeed.
SE said
The year is 1797, & the campaign by a small group of Quakers to abolish slavery is underway, led by William Wilberforce.There is much opposition. [substitute 'slavery ' for any number of other exploitative practicies & issues( child labour, suffrage,flat earth, antisepsis) &imagine similar 'discussions']
William Wiberforce:Slavery is barbaric,cruel,inhumane & unnecessary.It’s time it was abolished.
Jeff Hunter-Luddite, Defender of the Indefensible:You’re talking out your a***, Will.Your screwball cult,with their new-fangled notions, is trying to brainwash the public & convert them to your lifestlye.You’re off your heads. Why, it’s common knowledge that them primitive tribes, them blacks are not intelligent & belong with the lower animals, they exist to serve us superior folks, the masters.We have a right to own them. What would happen if you had your way? The economy would collapse, that’s what.There’d be mass unemployment – from the slave ship owners to the shackle makers. Who’d work the plantations,build our great cities, & serve the white folks? It’s as plain as the nose on your face- there’s no argument- I win.
Wilberforce:You’re so right Mr Jeff. Why didn’t I think of that.Those pesky do-gooder abolitionists, trying to brainwash right- thinking folk into believing all men are equal. What was I thinking? A world where men are free & equal & entitled to proper pay & work conditions? dang those misguided fools;we’d also be guilty of trying to co-erce the majority into our way of thinking.
I’ll get back to them right away. The status quo stays.
And the rest is history….
Jeff, my dear, you sound very angry, threatened & full of bulls***(the result of all those corpses you eat?). Is that why you ‘hit & run?’ If you don’t want to give up the burgers just yet, simply say so- no need to lash out like a cornered animal.Admitted, it can be scary having to give up the habits of a lifetime, make a little effort, change our ways, leave our comfort zone- especially when it’s encouraged & sanctioned by society & governments & corporations.They did a pretty good job on us -well, you- didn’t they?
People will fight to the death to defend their raison d’etre, their livelihood, their perceived ‘right’ to do something, no matter how abhorrent.You fit right in with the herd in that respect.But don’t worry, the world’s hardly going to go vegan overnight, so you’ll be able to carry on corpse munching for quite a while yet.
You refer to veganism as a ‘lifestyle’, as if it’s some whim of the rich & famous, to be changed according to fashion when it suits. With your ‘them & us’, ‘win & lose’ mentality you fail to see the woods for the trees. It’s a vision, a social movement for a better, kinder world- not a preference for the taste of tofu or an aesthetic hang up with plether.
You are arguing for death, destruction,cruelty,environmental pollution,ill health & poverty.Veganism may not have all the answers, but it sure beats the alternative.
Robert said
In such groups it is not unusual that the validity of one’s belief is thought to be shown in the strength with which all opposition is resisted. This characteristically occurs even when the opposition is reasonable, valid, and true. The refusal to accept what is true is considered the ultimate devotion to a previously accepted ideal. One reason this happens is because people typically accept ideas as being true if they like, admire, love, or respect the person who first told them about it. The emotional feeling they have, which is what forms their behavior, is that if they reject the thought, that means they must also reject the person who taught it to them. That is not true of course, but it is difficult for them to get through nonetheless. A similar phenomenon can be seen among Christian believers, who will adamantly hold to their belief even in the most ridiculous circumstances.
Bea Elliott said
“So Bea, first you say we are not getting off this rock without judgment so obviously you believe in a supreme being, aka god”. NO. You are absolutely wrong – It’s not “obvious” that I believe in a “supreme being”. I never inferred that “judgement” would come from any “God”. Everyone is judged by ourselves and by each other.
“but the god in which you seem to believe in” – wrong again.
I said it was YOU who are a “self proclaimed god”… by your judgements to decide who lives and doesn’t. I didn’t say anything about a gOd – except the one that exists in your own head… based on your “right” to take lives of others. You’re the one who believes in a “god” and your it!
And honestly… it matters squat what we did or didn’t do millions of years ago – The facts are in: TODAY – we do NOT NEED to kill to survive. So unless you are an Inuit or a bushman, if you kill or consume animals – you do so only for pleasure. And it is a pleasure born of your “cult” – the meat cult-ure.
You see – I was a meat eater for more decades than you’ve been alive. I know the “brainwashing” and the way society avoids seeing the truth about what is needlessly done to animals. No koolaid… just earnest introspection and knowledge. And the courage to tear down the imprisoning walls of my indoctrination.
It came 50 years too late – I was just blindly following my family and peers, Never questioning, never asking — “why do we kill/eat animals?” This sonny boy… is brainwashing. Cults require that you do something without thought or question… I have decades of experience and thousands of meals consumed without “thought” or consideration. I know all about “brainwashing” and attempts to keep others “brainwashed” so the illusion stays whole for everyone else. It is a classic tale: The Emperor’s Clothes.
But I do understand that it is much safer to follow the group… and do what mommy and daddy do. Very few have the courage to speak against the rules and social mores that the meat cult-ure shapes. But I am happy to see that this is even changing too. The archaic animal killing philosphy is going the way of the dodo bird — They are primative and passe’. Good riddance!
Oh… and a final note – you have no idea what my belief in a deity is or is not; But I can tell you this: No one will betray their faith if they choose not to kill (or eat) animals. We each are our own “god” concerning this matter. I choose to be a compassionate “god”.
Bea Elliott said
Oh and Jeff… I just can’t help myself – because when I see ignorance I just gotta try to fix it… Your comment about god killing animals to cloth Adam/Eve ==== HUH??? Perhaps early man did indeed use animal skins for protection, but the absurd idea that “god killed animals” for any reason such as providing garments is ludicrous:
“Adam and Eve were often shown wearing fig or other leaves, following the Biblical description.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_leaf
When you view art and period statues – don’t you ever notice all the FIG LEAVES????
And for your info – regarding religion and gods… You are only going by the god (that you DON’T believe in). I love it when supposed atheists and objective thinkers bring in the teachings of some “higher being”… There are many interpretations of many bibles – many do not “call for the sacrifice of animals”. In fact many Eastern religions specifically shun the practice. So it all comes down to whose god is the “right” god…
Again, with the free will I have – with no “religion” that says I must do so: I choose to be my own compassionate “god”.
Chris Watcher said
“This has been going for weeks. These people are brainwashed children following a Vegan cult. They believe they are superior to the rest of mankind and should have the right to order the rest of us around. Sounds like Nazi’s to me.” Bruce.
Now this reminds me of discussion boards, human rights, and animal rights folk arguing over crap. The occassional “hitler was a vegetarian” and other things.
Ordering people around? Thats what carni/omnivorists are doing here, and in other places. Trying to inflict their beliefs, their religious beliefs onto others. By religious I mean something fictional, something based on a belief that:
“Man is a carnivore”
The vegans do some research pointing out otherwise so then these dicks say:
“Man is an omnivore”
What happened there? They just suddenly changed their beliefs? To suit the situation of course.
“Man is born a hunter”
Vegan replies: Man was never born a hunter, he was taught, does not have the natural means etc.
“Man was a hunter gatherer”
Again changing their beliefs. This is a similar pattern to the pro vivisectionists. The anti vivis state their research (although like the above not all of it). Then the pro vivis alter their stories.
They are all hypocrites going off what others say. Its just like the religions, Allah, Messiah, GOD, Jesus, or whatever else they use as a label for their beliefs.
But wait, isn’t that what vegans do in some way? The word vegan is a label. Before then it was “vegetarian”.
But unlike carni/omnivorism, veganism, the latest label for some, is like a progressive stage towards what I can think of as a return to what humans were, blocked only by a denial, beliefs, and wanting to maintain the filthy habits, acquired means, addictions, and comforts others have been brought up to and continue to follow as long as they don’t realize or associate with non human animals and that they do suffer way more than what they would suffer in the wild. Oh and that terrible thing called sadism which everyone can develop if left unchecked, if the parenting is not followed through.
“Man has always been a sadist”
Where, when, how?”
“Its everywhere, religious nutters, piercing their faces, suicidal, psyching themselves up to go fight the opposite side etc.”
It is said the old pagan tribes did these rituals or dances that bring out the bad thoughts, to face them and keep the individual’s conscience clear. But nowadays that is no more thanks to the way we are.
What does an individual do when they are raised, taught, and read up say whats on the net? They paint a picture of it in their heads and they follow it adding more along the way. The more they read and believe, the harder it is to shrug off.
But what if some of that info is wrong? What if some of it is misleading? The individual is given or finds something to read, it grabs their attention because it says some of what they believe in, so then they don’t question it, don’t consider any misinformation and then pass it on to the next individual.
This is a habit both carni/omni pro vivis, and anti vivis, ARs and vegans may have. If it sounds like their opinion, they follow it. Same with leaders of each of these groups.
They will just agree with them.
They won’t question them.
They will follow them.
They won’t try and make the effort themselves. That could be because they just don’t have time or they think they aren’t as clever as the leader.
“As human suffering increase due to the bad economy they waste countless hours on their cult thinking spreading hate to mankind. Can’t help Americans out, that are living in tent city can’t help out the food pantry that are running desperately low on food. NO the cult must try and change the meaning of words so their imaginary child hood best friend can tell them meat is murder. What a pathetic bunch of loser.”
Whats to say this commenter didn’t just take whats on the net and twist it to his own version? Well he did. Also the attatching of another label “cult”.
Many have been changing the meaning of words, the bible for one, religion as a whole, dictionaries, history logs, people in general. I trust none of it.
Oh and “Bruce” forgets his spelling: loser[s]
jeff said
Why in the old Testament did people feel the need to sacrifice animals to God? Was this only done before Jesus came?<>Was this only done before Jesus came?<<
Yes, animal sacrifices were only properly offered to God before the death of Jesus on the cross. Once His blood was shed, it was offered before God, opening the way to heaven for all who believe (Heb. 9:11-12; 10:19-20).
The animal sacrifices of the law of Moses were a foreshadowing of the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world (see Heb. 9:13-14; 10:1). If animal sacrificed had perfected the worshipper, no more would have been needed nor offered. Yet, there was continual shedding of animal blood under the law of Moses (Heb. 10:2-3, 11).
jeff said
Romans, Chapter 14
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
jeff said
enough said?
jeff said
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: ” ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God’ “.
So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
jeff said
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
jeff said
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
jeff said
Now children, are there any questions?
Chris Watcher said
jeff said
lol that is funny! remember mans religion is not what God intended as Jesus called the men of the cloth of his day the Sons of the Devil.
SE said
Just one, Jeff,dearie. How did you escape from the high security facility?
jeff said
toothpick and a nail file
SE said
I didn’t realise things like toothpicks & nail files – potential weapons- were allowed in asylums.
Bea Elliott said
Oh Jeff… Don’t you realize by now that we make “god” say whatever justifies our actions? WE ARE GOD.
Ancient scripture is just words written by men. It’s a “history” book based on what was expedient at the time.
Do you know how government manipulates economics today? For example – A recent dairy glut caused cows to be too expensive to feed… The commodity of milk was declining in value (because there was too much “produced”). The dairy industry then goes to the government for a buy-out… and for special “allowances” to send more than their usual “quota” to the slaughterhouse. This is how the government regulates prices.
The government buys foods to feed the army, schools and other institutions. And it keeps farmers afloat.
NOW – consider this: Instead of “government” once we had KINGS and High Priests. Owners of sheep and goats – These shepherds also had a “glut”… other people were not buying their animals… or the meat from them. SO – what the king does is tell the priests to invent a “commandment”. A special order from “god” to eat/kill a certain animal as a religious rite. The king is happy because he continues to get his taxes, the priests are happy – they still have “power” and “word of god”. Shepherds are happy cuz they sold their animals – and citizens… well, they really didn’t want the sheep or goats to begin with – but geeze, no one says no to the almighty now do they?
All these sacrificed animals are a matter of economics intertwined with corrupt and false religious dictates.
I see that you are making every effort to ground your thinking in “logic” or in some kind of concrete value system. Best advice — use your own mind. What makes sense to you? An all powerful being “commanding” animals to be killed… for what reason??? OR – An ancient government attempting to control and grant favors for monetary compensation? The truth is right before your eyes in our current system today… THINK!
jeff said
hmm if we are god how did we create all things? we cant even create life all we can do is copy it. Einstein believed in a creator and i bet you are not as smart as he is as he even formulated the chance of all the earth and universe and all things in it as happening by chance is impossible. nope bea . you and i are not god/creator.. hell i cant even keep my car running without help and if i were god i wouldn’t even need one.
Bea Elliott said
Jeff… you are you really taking me literally? We are “god-like” in that even the belief or disbelief in a god requires “god-like” independent, free-willed thought.
I didn’t know I had to explain point by point but – as an abstract, in a social context, we make up the “rules” and “traditions” and “commandments” that suit our purposes. And it is based on each region’s economic circumstance.
If you believe in a higer deity that’s fine – Fine also if you don’t. The point is, you can’t use what your (non provable) god said against my (non provable) god. Especially when the “god” requires victims.
Common sense explains how specific animals were “commanded” to be used — they were the ones that were within that province. A king and his priests would “forbid” the “unclean” animals from another province… thus protecting their own power and authority. This happened throughout history. When war conquered other’s (along with their livestock) — priests would then have reason for yet another “commandment” from god that this specific “food” animal was now on the “good list”.
Believe in whatever entity you desire – But please refrain from justifying the needless killing of innocent beings based on what an (unprovable) being said or didn’t say. It’s all interpretations of different men who had financial risk and reward.
I live by one major rule: No killing. (period). Isn’t it amazing that the very first critical law that every religion accepts as “word” – is the one with the most disclaimers? We may war and kill each other – for “god”. We may war and kill animals – for “god”. Bibles justify war for real estate and resources. I personally don’t believe in the footnotes and exceptions. For me, that one rule IS THE RULE. No killing. (period).
jeff said
So do you sweep the ground in front of you as not to step on a bug? There are some cultures that do, are you one of these people? I do like the way you present yourself without slander and you have my respect on this matter. Now, I am of the mind that only humans are “beings” as I don’t see it as a dog being or a cat being as some see putting animals on equal terms with humans raises the status of said animals, but I see it as lowering we humans to animal status.
Bea Elliott said
No, I don’t sweep the ground – however, I would never “deliberately” step on an insect — for what purpose???
As far as “beings” go – Ancient Hebrew (from which most western ideology stems) called all living beings – that is those “things” which were no vegetables and not minerals… LIVING “things”… living “beings” – “Nephesh”. The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated “living soul” but more properly understood as “living creature,” is the same word used for all breathing creatures. So… if you weren’t a carrot, and you weren’t a rock you were Nephesh; a living soul.
Once the profitablility of animal agriculture came to be, kings and priests devised a way to manipulate the meaning of this word to accomodate for a new “market”. They could sell animals (as described earlier)… for sacrifice and so forth. They made this acceptable to citizens by altering the meaning of the original word Nephesh to mean only human animals. That these animals (man) were the “chosen” ones by “god”, and all others became commodities and “worthless” in comparision. The law and rule of kings and priests took away the “guilt” for killing and using animals. But many still believe the original meaning of the word to mean “all living beings” – which of course would include nonhumans.
I really don’t want to get into a religious debate here… although meat-eating always seems to end up here – with “god said I could”. The best solution around that is to think for yourself… and to understand that you will not betray your faith if you choose not to kill animals. There is no conventional religion that “mandates” animal sacrifice… or meat eating.
The respect that we once had for nonhuman animals and the earth were all traded for gold and (figuritively) 20 pieces of silver… sound familiar?
jeff said
hmm so you wont eat a fish either?
jeff said
oh.. i kill all spiders as the wolf, recluse and black widow make people sick here every year.
SE said
What an altruist!
So, we’ve established,that you can kill deer, & spiders, and escape from an institution for the insane using a toothpick & nail file, but the burning question Jeff, is – are you capable of giving up eating meat?
Robert Burt said
The Bible is not the basis of all Western ideology. It is the basis for a lot of theology in the West, but, even then, it is not Western. It’s Middle Eastern. Cristian belief is a Middle Eastern theology. The Middle East is where it originated. The Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans, and others in the West developed the ideologies on which most Western societies are based.
Bea Elliott said
Hi Jeff… in the case of brown recluse, fleas, ticks, mosquitos, etc. in my view – if they must be killed it is a matter of self defense. I also would have no issue with someone who defended themselves against an attacking bear or lion or another human. For me, the “line in the sand” is provocation that threatens life or well being.
Which leads me to your question about eating fishes. I have to ask you “why”? Why would I eat fishes? They are of no danger to me – I can certainly live without harming them. So why would I? The only possible reason I could give to eat a fish is that he might taste good. But that is hardly reason enough to justify taking his life. It would be an excessive frivolity and an unkind act.
I am by far not a perfect person, but I try to respect life and consume thoughtfully.
jeff said
I have already given up beef as too many toxins are now added to them. I salmon fish when they run up the rivers here and will never give up fish as my body craves it and it tastes wonderful. I love all seafood and will eat it until the things are extinct. The deer here in the wheat fields have a very exceptional flavor and as long as I am able I will blow holes in Bambi but rest assured I am an ethical hunter and strive to make clean kills. My hobby is coyote hunting and I am trying to get enough hides to make a coat as they are real warm and it gets real cold here and if you have ever tried to call and hunt a coyote you will soon realize how big of a disadvantage we mere humans have against creatures such as this. I am sure you will never understand, but the hunt is a very thrilling and satisfying adventure, even if you never shoot anything. Reading your posts makes me see how people see the other side and I am not one to judge right or wrong, but I live in the country and accept the benefits it offers and hunting is part of this lifestyle. I also have a large garden where I feed myself, wife and kids and other families here. Because I kill animals I don’t see myself as a bad man as I see the animals put here for us.
SE said
“the hunt is a very thrilling and satisfying adventure, even if you never shoot anything. ”
We could maybe have a little respect for hunters if it were a level playing field- no weapons- hunt & kill them with your bare hands,then rip them apart with your teeth and eat the raw carcasses.
The only other sort who get a thrill from hunting down & killing prey are mass murderers, & some even like the taste of human flesh (Hannibal Lecter).The only difference is that your thrills are sanctioned, theirs are not.
The wonderful thing about humans is that we are adaptable & can change.Look back in history & there’s so many things society found acceptable,& which’good men’ did, but which we find repugnant today- freak shows, witch hunts, torture, cock fighting,bull baiting.As Leonardo da Vinci said, men will one day look upon the murder of animals, as we now look upon the murder of men.
Robert Burt said
Bea, I, for one, would be extremely surprised if you were as non-aggressive as you claim. There are a lot of people who pretend to be nice, who are not. It’s more the rule than the exception. My expectation would be that you’re probably passive-aggressive, which means that you probably express your aggression disguised as niceness. One characteristic of passive-aggressive behavioral habits is that passivity is the primary course of action, until it no longer is effective, then aggression becomes excessive and more obviously behind it. Being excessively passive is really a form of repression, the pushing down of natural instincts and other natural desires so that they appear not to exist. But what characteristically happens is that some circumstances do occur which the passive position will not suffice to manage effectively, and, when this happens, aggression is resorted to. The problem with this syndrome is that on account of the infrequent use of aggression, the passive-aggressive person fails to develop skills in deploying aggression satisfactorily, and this leads to circumstances in which the behavior of passivity must be abandoned in order for that individual to satisfy needs and wants which are fundamental and very real. The outcome is that either the individual will sooner or later come to realize that aggression is a life necessity and develop the skills properly in the long run, or avoid all possible forms of circumstances in which the need to act with aggression is appropriate and necessary. Such a person fails to develop properly as an adult, remaining instead in an only partially developed state where denial of any problem is given both as an explanation for the origin of the behavior, and an excuse to continue it. We’ll see. I’ve addressed this to you, so it’s not likely you’ll miss seeing it. If you choose not to reply, that would be consistent with passive-aggressive behavior, in that you could be trying to punish me for saying these things. And if you reply, that will be the more interesting response, because then you would have to actually do so in a way that I am not able to explain how your response is passive-aggressive, and I don’t think you know how to do that. So you’re likely to elect the action of ignoring what I’ve written here, since that is less of a risk for you. In either case, you should be made aware that there are indeed ways to reply to what I’ve written here, that are not passive-aggressive. I will be very surprised if you are able to think of any.
Bea Elliott said
“Because I kill animals I don’t see myself as a bad man as I see the animals put here for us.”
Of course Jeff, you are free to view yourself however you wish. And I too, may call myself a “faithful wife”, even if I sleep around – or a “good mother” even if I let my children go hungry. We all may attach whatever labels on ourselves that make us comfortable…
But the idea that “animals were put here for us” falls in line with the thinking that women were put here for men, blacks were put here for whites, Mexicans were put here for cheap labor, kids were put here for pedophiles, and so on.
The crux of the matter still rests with the idea that we are all “gods” and can create (believe) whatever fantasy that is convenient for us. As for me, I’m a stickler for logic and reality. Have a nice life for all that you can rationalize as truth (for you).
jeff said
but of course you think i am a bad man.. do you believe the earth has a carrying capacity of 1.5 billion max?
jeff said
women were put here for men, and vice versa..
Bea Elliott said
I think the earth can carry an infinite number of people if their goal is compassion and empathy for the Other. However, I think the world is too small for 2 people who are on opposite ends regarding empathy and respect for “the Other”.
Jeff… it’s been wonderful talking with you – we’ve discussed everything from the bible to future sustainability. You and I must agree to disagree and move on. I do however feel sorry for your ignorance and sad for all those who will be harmed by it. Good day, good life, good bye.
Bea Elliott said
Robert… I don’t “pretend” to be anything. If I attempt to be respectful, even though frustrated, it is an effort towards furthering communication… which is my main goal.
However, I’m also occassionally sarcastic and aggressive with language and tend to discuss many issues my peers don’t wish to know. They sometimes call me crude or insensitive for this. I’m outspoken and hardly “repressed”. But I do conduct myself with civility, in the hopes that my message will be heard and understood.
But of course, at a certain point my tolerance for ignorance and stupidity does reach a limit. If you consider this a “flaw”, so be it.
And although I’m flattered by your attempt to psychoanalyze me, and help me develop “properly” as an adult… At 55 I’m rather comfortable in the skin I’m in – and quite frankly don’t care much how anyone judges me… And if this is arrogant that’s fine too.
A final note… are you really advising me how to become a completely formed “whole person”? Really?… Glancing back at your comments – I see you aren’t even weaned yet and still drink cows milk! Look who’s calling the kettle developmentally challenged!
So now, just run along sonny… before you FORCE me to be rude.
SE said
I think jeff is really a closet vegan, just dying to come out, & he’s chosen this site purposely to ‘test the water’, pick up some argument tips, that sort of thing, whilst pretending to shock & insult. Either that or he’s on loan from the asylum to provide a source of amusement in cyberspace. good work , jeff.
Robert Burt said
Bea, you did just what I said you would do. You responded in a way that superficially seemed nice but which was essentially passive, and then you tried to characterize my observations as offensive and for this you changed your approach to aggression. For a moment, while reading your reply, I thought you might be replying in a way that was neither passive nor aggressive. But your remarks became aggression quickly, and, in keeping with this, as you closed, you climaxed by making jabs and insinuations, which are not civil but are hostile. When you try to belittle someone, that is aggressive too. You say that you want to further communication, but several of your methods function better as communication stoppers. Specifically, the implication that those who disagree with you are ignorant and stupid has the effect of creating friction and furthering hostility and disagreement. It doesn’t foster communication. You refer to your own frustration as the reason, when you cannot be civil, and that is both denial and confirms what I was saying, namely, that when circumstances challenge your abilities you resort to aggression. That is proof of a deficiency in skill. Moreover, when you try to blame me for your behavior, by saying that unless I go away my actions will force you to be rude, you are again showing that your skills are limited to niceness (in the form of passivity) or outright aggression. And no one is responsible for your statements but yourself, even when you are rude. Responses of a type different from those which you have made would be more suitable and would work better, both to further communication and to facilitate social interaction, which is necessary for adequate communication. The smiley face signature phenomenon is often used by persons who have doubts about how their statements will be perceived, and it typically indicates that they themselves understand the actually rather unpleasant nature of their own comments and want to cover them up, which is a form of denial. But using the smiley face icon they are generally attempting to make the statements appear more friendly than they actually are. If a person’s verbal skills are sufficient to the task at hand, there is no need to use symbols to fill them out or dress them up. Sarcasm stifles communication, it doesn’t further it. So when you claim that your main goal is to further communication, it isn’t convincing. You shouldn’t feel flattered that I would scrutinize your remarks, for I have nothing good to say about you. One fact, which perhaps you don’t know, is that the human body is capable of digesting milk throughout its entire lifetime. Now, this is not something that defines immaturity. It has to do only with whether the individual has allowed a lapse of more than approximately one month to occur in his drinking milk. If he has, then the body will cease being able to digest it. Otherwise, the fully mature human body is very capable of digesting milk, and it can be highly beneficial, even stave off starvation, if necessary. This is a consequence of the way the human body has evolved. I should think that the human species would know more than you do, about what constitutes maturity.
Robert Burt said
To SE: Teeth are tools. So if you let him use teeth, you are letting him use tools, and then you have no reason on which to base not letting him use knives and guns also, for they are tools too. In order to eliminate the use of any sort of tools, you must require that he tear the animal apart by using his thoughts alone, for hands are tools also and you can’t let him use those either. It’s like painting. Someone asked a famous painter whether he thought it was fair for a painter to use a magnifying glass to see better so he could make his lines smoother. He replied that no, of course it wasn’t fair, but then, painting is not about fairness, it is about making lines smoother, and a magnifying glass can help you do that. In fact, he said, he didn’t think it was fair even for a painter to use a brush, that he believed that to be fair, the painter should just imagine the painting, then reach out and grab the imagination and throw it onto the canvas, and that was the only way that painting could be fair. Eating is not about fairness, it is about continuing to live, and if some beautiful, delicious glob of tenderloin on the hoof is walking in front of you, and you want to eat it, any means that is effective can be justified, not to say that we would all approve, or even to say that we would all do so, even in my case, but then, not all of us would survive, either, if we didn’t.
SE said
Well,you’ve effectively stopped communication with Bea – and it doesn’t take a psycho analyst to see why.
Assuming that jeff lives in the US -don’t they have stores over there, & grow fruit & veg?
I used to live in the country in the UK, and I now live in the desert here in the ME, but I have always been able to get the store, bypass the meat & dairy counters(unavailable here in the past anyway) & shop for vegan commodities. The Bedu,on the other hand, or at least the ones who live in the deep interior, subsist on dates, & a little milk & meat from their animals, being nomadic & unable to grow vegetables.
Millions of people the world over do not eat meat, either for cultural or religious reasons, or because there’s none available.
Meat isn’t necessary for brain function- unless you think Einstein & Da Vinci, Plato et al were underachievers.Any ‘lightheadedness’ which may be experienced initially, is probably a withdrawal symptom.
After years of no meat, the body adapts & eventually finds it indigestible, the smell of cooking flesh sickening.Humans are capable of overcoming their baser instincts & can re-educate their taste buds. Many of us no longer have to eat just for survival’s sake – a whole industry exists – restaurants, cookery books, gourmet food, dieting – around eating- it’s an art form.
If we all went around killing wild animals for food,it’d upset whole ecosystems…too late, it already has.
Why remain neanderthal?
Robert Burt said
Actually, Leonardo did have mental problems. He had a problem finishing difficult projects, and this was known among his peers during his lifetime. Many of his works are unfinished. Hitler, too, was a vegetarian, and he notably failed in numerous of his missions. Perhaps one reason some of the others you mention did not fail was because the missions they chose were not of a kind that could not be achieved within the vegan envelope of abilities. Einstein, particularly, was not really all that exceptional, necessarily, if you scrutinize more critically his overall works and achievements. Plato was a writer, and a very good writer, but writing is not known for imposing exceptional demands on individuals, other than a willingness and an ability to work mentally long and hard. But as far as the ideas he wrote, can we be sure they would not have been better, if he had eaten meat? Or that he would not have chosen to do something else besides write? This could imply that meat provides nourishment for additional efforts. Can you prove otherwise? My post of 8:21 A.M. on August 13, was meant for you. I put it in the wrong place.
Bea Elliott said
Robert… hooray for you! You absolutely have me pegged! Three cheers for your observations and summations. Indeed I’m hostile, rude and ill equipped for conversation. Furthermore, right you are that my tone and words close communication. Only one thing you got wrong… the smiley face – put there deliberately, not because of uncertainty but rather to blow you off. May I?
Robert Burt said
That depends on how long your lips are.
Robert Burt said
SE: I guess you’re talking to me. Well, it’s better to be able to accomplish something, than to be unable to accomplish anything. But really, if Bea decides to stop talking, that is her choice; I am not responsible for her actions, she is. And besides, I haven’t got anything against people who don’t eat meat; but some of them have a lot against people who do. Doesn’t it strike you as an indication of something, that, on this board, the people who get angry are not the ones who eat meat but are those who try to impose onto other people their own morals and values? And isn’t there something to be said for being able to speak directly and truly, without trying to manipulate with insinuations, name calling, character aspersions, and the like? You know, I can be persuaded very easily not to eat meat, if someone will show me a good reason. So far, no one has done so. And I don’t mean merely that animals get killed for their meat and that it’s cruel. If we’re going to base our reasons for not eating meat on the fact that it hurt animals, we need first to address the subject of the various sorts cruelty which humans inflict upon humans, because it would mean that meat eating is not the underlying issue, but that cruelty is really the issue, and human cruelty to humans is of much greater importance, and should be of a higher priority than human cruelty to animals due to our diet. But if cruelty is going to be addressed, it needs to be addressed as a subject in itself, not in connection with any specific application of it, exclusively. Anyway, a lot of these vegans have not behaved very well themselves, so, no, I don’t feel bad about Bea giving up. That was her choice. I was not to blame for it. I am not preventing her return. She simply doesn’t possess the necessary determination. And it also is the problem of most of the other vegans on this board, evidently, for they have not spoken up and carried through either. But then, all they had enough energy and commitment to do in the first place was probably just jab a few remarks and then leave. They think that is all they have to do to win their cause. But that will never succeed in getting anything accomplished.
SE said
Most ARAs & vegans are too busy trying to make changes in the real world to waste precious time arguing with the types who post here- time wasters with nothing better to do, just trying to score points & goad others into reacting.
Man’s inhumanity to man, & to animals are intertwined – if we had to wait till the former was resolved, the animals would have to wait forever.
If you can’t be persuaded to give up meat for the myriad of reasons put forward on this site – cruelty, killing sentient beings, factory farming & its effects on human health, psyche, & the environment, etc, etc , then either you’re just not ready to be enlightened or you refuse to be on principle. Most vegans didn’t need persuasion & arguments & reasons – veganism is just an obvious practical solution in an attempt to make the world kinder & more peaceful. Lots of people would like to be vegan , & first become vegetarian-they may find it hard at first, but they’re vegan in principle, so it gets easier. But there are always individuals who dig their heels in & have to be shown proof why veganism is going to be of any benefit to them. Or they feel threatened, because of guilt feelings or because they see their way of life threatened. We see the same attitude from smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, and so on. And the opposition are always seen as ‘do-gooders’, trying to impose their own values & morals. But they never look at it the other way round- the tobacco companies, the drug pushers, the meat & dairy industries foisting their values & ‘morals’.
I could maybe understand it if the reasons for going vegan were negative, but they’re all positive.
Robert Burt said
Chris Watcher was the one who came on this forum saying that he was bored. He’s the one who has nothing to do.
Chris Watcher said
“Chris Watcher was the one who came on this forum saying that he was bored. He’s the one who has nothing to do.”
Oh so now I’m not allowed to even comment or reply. Meanie!
Robert Burt said
To Chris Watcher: You can reply as much as you want, as far as I’m concerned. You just can’t as effectively say that others are “wasters of time,” any more than you are.
Robert Burt said
SE: Did Einstein become a vegan before he was famous, or after he was famous?
Chris Watcher said
“Eating is not about fairness, it is about continuing to live, and if some beautiful, delicious glob of tenderloin on the hoof is walking in front of you, and you want to eat it, any means that is effective can be justified, not to say that we would all approve, or even to say that we would all do so, even in my case, but then, not all of us would survive, either, if we didn’t.”
How many times has this one been said now? I wouldn’t say survive either. More like a struggle to survive, not many do. The comment on July 15 2009 8:11am beats all these claims.
“Actually, Leonardo did have mental problems.”
Some say this, yet from all those exploring human cadavers he learned a bit about how the body functioned. Many artists are said to have mental troubles and yes they are even meat consumers. Some really are screwy I bet.
“Hitler, too, was a vegetarian, and he notably failed in numerous of his missions.”
Oh for goodness sake does anyone have proof of this?
“Einstein, particularly, was not really all that exceptional, necessarily, if you scrutinize more critically his overall works and achievements.”
Yeah, and is that why they did a statue of him? http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/museums/einstein-statue,1027984.html
Then again I suppose there are also some arseholes made into stone and or metal. But which is Einstein? Maybe an examination of his work is necessary? And, has Robert looked at such works? I doubt it.
“Plato was a writer, and a very good writer, but writing is not known for imposing exceptional demands on individuals, other than a willingness and an ability to work mentally long and hard. But as far as the ideas he wrote, can we be sure they would not have been better, if he had eaten meat? Or that he would not have chosen to do something else besides write? This could imply that meat provides nourishment for additional efforts. Can you prove otherwise? My post of 8:21 A.M. on August 13, was meant for you. I put it in the wrong place.”
This reminds me of the comment:
“Teeth are tools. So if you let him use teeth, you are letting him use tools, and then you have no reason on which to base not letting him use knives and guns also, for they are tools too.”
“Teeth are tools” alright. Teeth are wood chippers to the beaver, grass cutters to the rabbit (and the other herbivores), but teeth ain’t tools that shoot bullets…unless you’ve watched that film called “The Mask”.
And the human’s teeth don’t even come close to the edges of a swiss army knife, or any sharp knife. More like a butter knife, some of them look jagged, but blunt. Hell even authors have described in their novels that when a psycho bites his victim he has jaw ache afterwards:
Stephen King’s “Rosie Madder” had something written/typed like this:
He couldn’t remember what he had done to the man earlier. All he could think of now was the ache in his jaw, he cleared the bits of skin from his teeth.
(The victim was someone I think looking for a woman who had escaped from his psychotic wife beating cop husband. He unfortunately came to his demise when the psycho knocked on his door and barged in later literally biting him for answers and killing him. Body was hidden behind the boiler I think.)
Stephen King is known to a few followers, I’ve read some of his books, he seems to add at least one schizophrenic character in many of his novels. One of, I think was, his short stories about him in some way getting pulled into his own writings. Funny man. I could also mention “The Shinning” (both versions). Always a nut job in those stories. Then there is the one called Insomnia, I honestly got lost with that one but managed to get the jist of it, barely. Another short story was one about this camera and a boy, and yes, a deluded fool.
He was also in a few films he did books on. Some of them pro hunt crap. He, like a few made a bit off fiction, then there are others I just know steal others works (Stephen King also did a story about that called Secret Garden Secret window. About a writer feeling guilty of plagiarism or copying, turns out he is a nut job schizophrenic multi personality).
The novels done lately like that “The Da Vinci code” and that other one by the same author are what I think blatant rip offs at other ideas made by others, and I’m surprised them human rights lot don’t get offended because the author is essentially stealing their ideas. Oh and them human rights are all pro meat eaters and aren’t really dedicated people as they claim to be on Facebook. Some are just loonies pushing their own agenda distracting newer vegans and yes, the poor naive folks who fall for them. Many steal other’s works and the internet stinks of it!
And if any of them start look at those groups. I need only point out their groups, verses groups, verses debates verses egoistic argumentative idiots.
I only know one or two vegan authors and one was a poet. He didn’t man crap about things or made a killing off fictional writings. He also knows a bit about the human body. But as always the people prefer the fiction than the facts, keeps them comforted because they can’t be arsed with problems or that they are contributing to them. And then thats also helped by pro meat heads refusing to allow books by vegans to be published to far or even locally.
I could go on about the jerkoffs in this joke of the modernized world but then someone is going to steal my writings/typings.
Robert Burt said
It’s a very simple question. It has a very simple answer. “Was Einstein a vegan before he became famous, or did he become one after he became famous.” Your goings on only reveal your inability to respond adequately to the point.
Chris Watcher said
“It’s a very simple question. It has a very simple answer. “Was Einstein a vegan before he became famous, or did he become one after he became famous.” Your goings on only reveal your inability to respond adequately to the point.”
If its so simple then someone would have answered, so no it. Try again.
Chris Watcher said
Edit: [so not it isn't]
Robert Burt said
Yes it is a very simple question. And the fact that no one has answered it doesn’t prove it’s not simple.
Chris Watcher said
Simple question yet no one can answer it yes or no because nobody know do they? So there is no simple answer to obtain. You need to know his background to answer.
SE said
Einstein was also a lifelong promoter of peace, who said, “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” On a similar note he stated, “Our task must be to [widen] our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” And on the day he became a vegetarian, Einstein wrote in his diary, “So I am living without fats, without meat, without fish, but am feeling quite well this way. It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore.”
Robert Burt said
Einstein’s work resulted in the most terrible weapon of mass destruction ever used, the Atom Bomb.
SE said
Robert Burt said
August 13, 2009 at 8:32 am
Actually, Leonardo did have mental problems- etc…
So nobody’s perfect. I think the rest of us would be pretty happy with just a fraction of these guys’ brain power. The examples were to illustrate that meat isn’t necessary for decent brain function.
Robert Burt said
Your point is not proved. And no, you can’t speak for everyone. You certainly don’t speak for me. I would not be satisfied with just a fraction of anyone’s “brain power,” as you put it. I want a whole brain, nothing less.
Chris Watcher said
Actually that, put in your “limited view”, works both ways.
Robert Burt said
To Chris Watcher: Can you be specific about what you mean, when you write, “Actually that, put in your “limited view,” works both ways,” please? I’m sure you know what you mean. But it doesn’t come across in the way you have stated it.
Chris Watcher said
The way you respond in your replies implies you only question blindly without having done any research hence “limited views”. At least I’m honest too.
Robert Burt said
You don’t answer my question. You belittle it, then simply ignore it. Then you impose other questions of your own. But I asked my question first. When you answer it, then perhaps you and I can converse. Until then, you’ll just have to go on displaying your inability or unwillingness to focus on points raised. There is no doubt that the most intelligent on this forum will understand this fact quite well.
Chris Watcher said
Wrong on all counts, everyone on this forum sees you are ignoring the replies through diversion.
“Was Einstein a vegan before he became famous, or did he become one after he became famous.”
I never knew the man, so there. I could say he was or was not but that would be lying because I am not answering truthfully or honestly.
Chris Watcher said
“Einstein’s work resulted in the most terrible weapon of mass destruction ever used, the Atom Bomb.”
Describe how you came to this conclusion Robert.
Robert Burt said
His work consisted of not only theories but also of political effects. He used his influence to persuade the President of the United States that such a weapon should be built.
Chris Watcher said
Thats it? Thats all you can come up with? No details, no background just a suggestion.
Robert Burt said
It’s not a suggestion. It’s a well documented, well known fact, to which you’re incapable of responding in a way that can be described as honest. Instead, you belittle it, then ignore it. Some readers will fall for your ploy for a while, but only the least intelligent will continue to do so. Of course, perhaps those are the ones you trying to get on your side. That’s the way some politicians work. They don’t care for the truth, only for how many people they can dupe.
Chris Watcher said
“It’s not a suggestion. It’s a well documented, well known fact, to which you’re incapable of responding in a way that can be described as honest.”
Ok then why don’t you describe these documented facts?
“Instead, you belittle it, then ignore it. Some readers will fall for your ploy for a while, but only the least intelligent will continue to do so. Of course, perhaps those are the ones you trying to get on your side.”
1. You ignore the questions by asking more to begin with. Hypocrite.
2. I take no one’s side and side with no one.
3. I’ve heard your comments before as with the others. Repeater.
Robert Burt said
To Chris Watcher: Your method is to ignore points made. And you know many ways of doing so. To anyone who understands such tactics it is not difficult to see through them. I would encourage other readers, if there are any, to keep in mind that your purpose is to defeat certain other people’s points by any means that you can, whether fair or unfair, whether related to the point or not, whether by attacking the person making the point, whether by denying truth, and that what all this means is that even you realize that you cannot defeat such points on the basis of appealing to the truth of the matter, because, if you could, that would be what you would try first, because it is the most effective method. Lawyers have a saying: “If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, attack the character of the opposition. If the opposition’s character is above reproach, bang on the table.” You’ve done all of these. To anybody with any experience it is very obvious.
Enjoy! said
Keep digging the triffle until “two of you” can get to the earth’s nucleus.
Robert Burt said
You men and women need to develop better skills. If you don’t, you will never win over anybody intelligent to your side.
Chris Watcher said
“To Chris Watcher: Your method is to ignore points made. And you know many ways of doing so. To anyone who understands such tactics it is not difficult to see through them.”
Actually, my method was to counter both you and Jeff. Through question and honesty of truthful response. Unlike you and Jeff that used more questions and manipulations.
“I would encourage other readers, if there are any, to keep in mind that your purpose is to defeat certain other people’s points by any means that you can, whether fair or unfair, whether related to the point or not, whether by attacking the person making the point, whether by denying truth, and that what all this means is that even you realize that you cannot defeat such points on the basis of appealing to the truth of the matter, because, if you could, that would be what you would try first, because it is the most effective method.”
This implies you expect anyone reading that comment to believe you and forget the older ones, to retaliate even, or to drown out comments. Happens on many groups, employed by dishonest people. Until you answer those questions already set before you, you have no credibility. Don’t reflect responses, only makes you worse for it.
“Lawyers have a saying: “If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, attack the character of the opposition. If the opposition’s character is above reproach, bang on the table.” You’ve done all ofthese. To anybody with any experience it is very obvious.”
Heres a better one:
Whenever someone on a discussion board tries to act like he knows what he’s talking about, ask him what he knows. If he does not answer, he is a fraud.
“To Chris Watcher: You can reply as much as you want, as far as I’m concerned. You just can’t as effectively say that others are “wasters of time,” any more than you are.”
I never implied anyone was a “time waster”. Now you are suggesting lies. Thats another one against you. But what about you hmm? What have you done earlier today? Your replies to me for example tell me all you do all day is argue with people online because its all you can ever do.
“You men and women need to develop better skills. If you don’t, you will never win over anybody intelligent to your side.”
Well I think they are intelligent enough to know not to bother with the likes of you. Hell the “fact” anyone ever responds to you (and them others) is because they are either emotionally compelled to or, in my case, to get back at such sad sods who think they are clever at what they say when all they really are, are frauds taking what other people have said. A sort of stealing their work.
SE said
Hallelujah, Chris!
Let’s leave this guy in his cell to talk to himself.
He’s not really interested in anything except proving he’s ‘right’, and his own verbal bromide.
Here endeth my trip to the Underworld.
Robert Burt said
Your arguments would be more effective if you could leave personalities out of it and focus on issues. Also, you might examine your own strategies more closely and work to improve them. That might help you win more people to your cause.
jeff said
SE, no I am not giving up fishing and hunting b/c I am a closet vegan. I do love my home grown veggies, but sea food as stated earlier is my favorite cuisine and venison or elk steak is excellent if prepared properly. I also don’t feel guilty for animals killed as this is natural selection and again it is the end result of all things living on this planet anyway. If I had four legs, eyesight, hearing, the sense of smell, claws with incisors like the big cats, then yes I could give up weapons to hunt with, but even with weapons we are at a disadvantage. I have hunted cagey old bucks that know I am hunting them and I can smell, hear and track them but they never let me see them. Elk? they can vanish like ghosts. It is uncanny. Until you actually tried to hunt an animal that is conditioned to hunting season, then you cannot judge us that do, as it is way harder than you can imagine. These critters get smart fast and a lot of them play with you like a cat with a mouse and they can climb shear cliffs in seconds that you are unable to follow without gear and a day. No, you are way wrong when you say we have the advantage.
Robert, good job as I also believe if these folks went 21 days without anything to eat, they would tear you apart for a steak sizzling on the bar b que.
Robert Burt said
Thank you, Jeff. But no, they wouldn’t tear me apart, because I’d see the problem coming and deal with it in a timely fashion, as you probably would also. I do find it interesting though, that it’s the vegans who are unwilling or unable to hold their ground even in the face of mild contradictions to their belief. Maybe it’s just a lack of practice. Or perhaps it’s the vegetables.