Rukas exposed; beef related.

[EDouble]

i respect peoples positions on the shit regardless of what feel is what for myself, I just dont understand why the fuck people have to debate & get pissed to level o f namingoff rest of animalkingdom and whatson their plate

irrredisrespectfully of valid reasoning on issues such as these, it allcomes down to we all eat how we choose to eat. far as meat is concerned, certain meat has been ate since begining of time commonly others not, "new breddance of animals for food is a setindustry that wont go away for thatjust being impractical to the money to the people the rights of people humanes tangled shit with different companys farms peopleother animals zoo animals free animals. lot of factors

however, as I state here & now. since the side ofeating every meats cant beall regulated as mistreatment the only shit that can be regulated is the abuse that occurs

some people digestestate the meats, some dont some believe in therin that if they dont processing meat they will not be healthy often this is disagreeable & debatable

morals shouldnt just be trimmed within regulation for treatmentof animals as breedence for meals, but overall. morals alivenobody can feel good about death about millions of these animals that are marked startance from the birth canal. however its ways of life for millions just the same as vegatarianated millions & it all falls down its that food t hat is connected

when I think about shit about treat ment the animals the lives this that before meals thank the Lord that able to receive food, for felow creature food revamps from thats good & nutritional

another element is thers many comments on other topicsthatJust because its differentnow doesnt mean we re adust our selves lives whatever shit whether its good or bad. for mass people not to be forced to hunt find prepare meats not to say aint the same element of the vast wilderness indeed

 

[EDouble]

I think ran some thoughts together in my last article but i dont realize where to place the medians now if some one wants to lay the claim whats different, contact me

 

[tHuG $TyLe]

CONGRATULATIONS PUFFNSCRUFF! YOU ARE THE 10,000TH MEMBER TO USE THIS JOKE. PICK UP YOUR PRICE HERE:

Gold!

lmao.

 

[Stred]

great thread

i never realised how intelligent some of you are..

i like animals and dislike the idea of them being killed, but i still eat meat.. simply because it tastes good

Can you guys imagine if we killed humans based on their attractiveness?

life would be sweet

 

[ill-matic]

this debate goes in circles all the time.

 

[stefanwzyga]

i like animals and dislike the idea of them being killed, but i still eat meat.. simply because it tastes good

Same here.

If i had to kill an animal to get some meat i would defo be a veggie, as i could never kill anything. Luckily for me some other dude does the killing. IMO going on a one man veggie crusade aint gonna make a blind bit of difference. You'd be better off highjacking some pigs or goats and letting them go up the mountains! atleast you will have achieved something. Each to his own though. Im glad i dont have the daily hassle of what i can eat and whatnot.

 

[_carmi]

How am I denying the theory of evolution? I'm not at all.

Yes, humans evolved from apes.

Apes, in case you haven't noticed...................are vegetarian.

guess what? not all apes are vegetarians.

the chimpanzee for example are omnivorous and will occasionally hunt, kill, and eat meat (young monkeys, bush pigs, etc.)

As found in :
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1e.shtml

Accumulation of modern post-1960s research shows apes are not actually vegetarians. The main problem with the comparative anatomy argument, then--at least when used to support vegetarianism--is that scientists now know that apes are not vegetarians after all, as was once thought. The comparative anatomy argument actually argues for at least modest amounts of animal flesh in the diet, based on the now much-more-complete observations of chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives with whom we share somewhere around 98 to 98.6% of our genes.

 

[tourniquet]

I am just using this thread to say whats up to everyone !! I haven't posted in such a looooooooooooonggg timeee!!

 

[Duke]

Technically, I don't agree with intensive cattle farming and battery farming and such, but evolutionary speaking, cows, pigs, all the traditional farm animals are doing very well.

And I sure as hell don't feel bad about it. The circumstances some of these animals have to endure before they're slaughtered can be quite cruel, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to stop me from enjoying my meat. It's a dog eat dog world. Primitive man ate everything he or she would get his or her paws on.

I don't think it's appropriate to take the moral high road and think you're better than others because you happen not to eat meat (not saying all veggies do, of course not). Some folks just won't eat meat out of own personal principles and that's fine, but some people develop massive holier-than-thou attitudes.

And I'd like to kick the fallacy out of this world that we (as human kind) are able to grow enough vegetables to feed the entire world population. Apart from all the "obvious" problems relating to world hunger (poor government, infrastructures etc etc etc), often enough I hear some self-righteous vegetarian say "If the land that we now use to grow cattle feed would be used to grow (insert random greenery here) we'll be out of trouble, easy peasy!" The obvious example of 10 kg's of grass being necessary to create 1 kg of sheep and 10 kg's of sheep are necessary to make 1kg of wolf. Sounds simple, and the 1 to 10 ratio applies, but in practice it's not that easy unfortunately.

Now, despite what some people will have you believe (Jokerman, Mili), properly arable soil is quite scarce in the world. The soil that is actually good enough to grow vegetables and fruits for human consumption are already heavily taxed.
Some of you folks think you can just kick the cow off the meadow and start planting potatoes, but hold on Margaret, this shit isn't that simple. You can't simply "decide" that this was your last cassave harvest and next year you're going to grow all grain and bananas.

I mean, there's a pretty obvious reason why many pieces of soil are used to grow cattle feed in the first place. It's because those specific pieces of soil aren't actually rich enough to grow things that we humans can, more or less safely, eat. Arable soil is a massive asset and very important to the world. Now I will not deny that on a global level there's room for improvement, of course, but arguing that "stop growing food for cows and start growing soy beans for veggie burgers" is a completely unrealistic idea that shows reasoning ability of a middle school student.

And even if that problem was overcome, only the last few years experts are coming together on a good, nutritious balanced non-meat diet for humans. So even if, IF, we all convert to being moral veggie knights, we'd face the massive problems of

1: growing enough food for everyone.
2: having to grow even more foods since no one is eating meat any more


All in all, our Earth simply does not have the resources to provide 6 billion naked apes with a balanced vegetarian diet. And we don't (yet) have the technology to somehow solve that.

 

[Chronic]

And I sure as hell don't feel bad about it. The circumstances some of these animals have to endure before they're slaughtered can be quite cruel, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to stop me from enjoying my meat. It's a dog eat dog world. Primitive man ate everything he or she would get his or her paws on.

"Quite" cruel is very much an understatement. Basically what you're saying is: I don't care about anything except for the fact that meat tastes good. Why not just stop there? Why try and give reasons to support your decision, which isn't based on reason but pure selfish enjoyment? To me that's just trying to find excuses to suit your own needs. "I don't care about animal suffering because I get something out of it". You've made your point and most sane people will know not to argue with your ideals. It's like if some whore goes around fucking married men. Sure she can say "hey it's my right, it's the way of the world etc etc." but why not be truthful and end all discussion and say "I'm a selfish whore and I only care about getting mine".

The only reason why people choose to ignore morals when it comes to animals is because they can't talk back. Pretty much everyone is this thread is saying "it's the way of the world" and I would respect that somewhat if people actually lived by those rules but they don't. And practically no one would want to live by those rules. There would be no legal system, there would be no such thing as human rights. Now if you'd be happy to live under the circumstances where someone can walk into your house, rape your mother, kill your father, eat your pet, piss on your curtains and then set your house on fire without any legal repercussions, sure I'll accept your reasoning. But until people stop demanding that they have rights and completely irradicate all morals, it's complete and utter self-serving bullshit.

If you need to eat meat in order to live, it's fine. That is the way of the world. But that's not how it is at all. There's only a minority of people who eat meat in order to survive, the rest eats it because it tastes good period. Besides that, meat isn't just a part of our diet, it's the main part of our diet. And we don't eat it every now and then, we eat it every damn day.

If you truly think it's alright to eat animals then go for it but at least have the decency to eat it sparsely (no more than 3 times a week) and buy biological meat.
I honestly can't respect any person that thinks it's okay to subject animals to incredibly cruel treatment just so you can enjoy a certain food for 5 minutes per day. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over people like that dying. The only acceptable answer I can think of for a person to eat meat while he knows he's financially supporting the inhumane cruelty of animals is "a single vegetarian doesn't make the slightest of difference so why cut something out of my life when it doesn't change anything?". It's not an ideal way to live since it means bad things won't change but at least it's valid.

By the way I agree with the holier-than-thou attitude. But there's a difference between a person feeling holier-than-thou because they don't do drugs and someone feeling "better" than someone else because they don't aid in the cruel ritual slaughtering of living creatures. There's also a difference between thinking you're better than someone because YOU are special and thinking you're better than someone because THEY're retarded. For example I look down on rapists because rape is bad. But I don't think I'm "good" because I've never raped someone, I'd consider myself normal. I'm only 'better' because they're worse.

EDIT: A question to the people that eat meat because it's "the way of the world". Would you still eat meat if it tasted like shit? If you answer 'no' to that question you shouldn't probably re-consider your argument.

EDIT 2: Dukeje, lijkt misschien of ik pissig ben, maar ik hou van je

 

[Cooper]

There's also a difference between thinking you're better than someone because YOU are special and thinking you're better than someone because THEY're retarded.

No there's not. They are only retarded from your stand point. My judging them and their morals you assume yourself to be better.

 

[Chronic]

No there's not. They are only retarded from your stand point. My judging them and their morals you assume yourself to be better.

(When I said that I wasn't referring to vegetarians, I was refering to things in general. I definitely don't think all "meat-eaters" are retarded)

So a rapist is only a bad person from a subjective stand-point?

I'll put it like this:

I'm at level 0, I'm neutral, not good, not bad.
Another person is also at level 0. This person rapes someone, he is now on level -1. I'm better by default, I'm better because of that person's actions, not my own. I don't think "God I'm so much better" while flexing in the mirror, I just think "wow what a piece of shit, I'm glad I'm not like that".

 

[Chronic]

Same here.

If i had to kill an animal to get some meat i would defo be a veggie, as i could never kill anything. Luckily for me some other dude does the killing. IMO going on a one man veggie crusade aint gonna make a blind bit of difference. You'd be better off highjacking some pigs or goats and letting them go up the mountains! atleast you will have achieved something. Each to his own though. Im glad i dont have the daily hassle of what i can eat and whatnot.

There we go by the way. At least this guy is being honest and I can respect his decision not to quit eating meat because "a one man veggie crusade aint gonna make a blind bit of difference".

And like he said, how many of you would still eat meat if you had to slaughter the animals yourself, instead of conveniently hiding behind the fact that you don't have to?

My problem with pretty much every argument in this thread is that they're either invalid or people only apply morals when it suits them. No one on this forum lives by the "ways of the world" and you'll all damn glad (including me) that we don't. Otherwise Corky wouldn't have been an actor on "Life Goes On", instead we would've seen him fleeing on "Cops" as the "last surviving person with down syndrome", since killing the disabled is the way of the life. Ever wonder why some disabled people can bring up (unwanted) feelings of violence/repulsion?

 

[Cooper]

There we go by the way. At least this guy is being honest and I can respect his decision not to quit eating meat because "a one man veggie crusade aint gonna make a blind bit of difference".

And like he said, how many of you would still eat meat if you had to slaughter the animals yourself, instead of conveniently hiding behind the fact that you don't have to?

I would, assuming I was capable of doing it quickly, and without causing unnecessary suffering

 

[Chronic]

I would, assuming I was capable of doing it quickly, and without causing unnecessary suffering

Do you eat biological meat? If not how would you defend your point of eating animals that have been subjected to unnecessary suffering?

By the way, I'm aware that plenty of people would continue to eat meat, perhaps the majority of people, but the number would definitely decrease.

 

[S O F I]

(When I said that I wasn't referring to vegetarians, I was refering to things in general. I definitely don't think all "meat-eaters" are retarded)

So a rapist is only a bad person from a subjective stand-point?

I'll put it like this:

I'm at level 0, I'm neutral, not good, not bad.
Another person is also at level 0. This person rapes someone, he is now on level -1. I'm better by default, I'm better because of that person's actions, not my own. I don't think "God I'm so much better" while flexing in the mirror, I just think "wow what a piece of shit, I'm glad I'm not like that".

No, a rapist is only bad RELATIVE to a non-rapist. I see subjectivity as relativity's cousin.

One example: The rapist is only bad RELATIVE to you. The rapist can be a saint RELATIVE to a cannibal who eats children.

Also, I applaud you (no sarcasm, i'm serious), that you can say that you view all people equally and don't consider one person better than another based on character, morals, etc. That's the ideal stance on life that a person should have. I'm curious to see how you developed that.

With where I've lived and the people I met and the things I've seen, I can NEVER say I view everything equally and believe in it. Unless I'm rollin on E, of course.

 

[Chronic]

No, a rapist is only bad RELATIVE to a non-rapist. I see subjectivity as relativity's cousin.

One example: The rapist is only bad RELATIVE to you. The rapist can be a saint RELATIVE to a cannibal who eats children.

That's definitely true but I think we've grown far enough as people to define some things as at least morally wrong. I'd include murder and rape in there but not things like homosexuality or pre-marital sex.

Also, I applaud you (no sarcasm, i'm serious), that you can say that you view all people equally and don't consider one person better than another based on character, morals, etc. That's the ideal stance on life that a person should have. I'm curious to see how you developed that.

With where I've lived and the people I met and the things I've seen, I can NEVER say I view everything equally and believe in it. Unless I'm rollin on E, of course.

Well that's not completely true. I think humans (and every living creature) are born equal and that someone's character and morals doesn't affect their "right" to be equal but their actions definitely do. When you cause harm to your surroundings you forfeit that equality as you put yourself above others. I have no problem with religious people thinking homosexuality is wrong or even hating homosexuals as long as they don't go around carrying signs that say "God hates fags".

I also try to be understanding of the human psyche. I'm a very critical person but I don't truly judge people because I know things are usually a lot more complicated than they seem. For example I know this girl through 2 friends of mine and this girl gets one boyfriend after the other. We'll call her a slut (since it doesn't matter, it's just smack talk among friends) but I've told them that she probably isn't a slut, she just needs to be in a relationship in order to feel good or something like that.
Or for example South American people that cut down the rainforest. I think cutting down the rainforest is absolutely disgusting but for those people it's usually a choice between cutting down a fucking tree or feeding their family. I don't blame them at all.

I think I'm a good person at this point in my life but undoubtedly certain events in my life caused me to think in a certain way, allowing me to choose the 'good' path. Some people don't get that luxury and it's always hard to change your state of mine. I believe at least part of being a good person is growing up in a suited environment and that's definitely not the case for everyone.

 

[S O F I]

That's definitely true but I think we've grown far enough as people to define some things as at least morally wrong. I'd include murder and rape in there but not things like homosexuality or pre-marital sex.



Well that's not completely true. I think humans (and every living creature) are born equal and that someone's character and morals doesn't affect their "right" to be equal but their actions definitely do. When you cause harm to your surroundings you forfeit that equality as you put yourself above others. I have no problem with religious people thinking homosexuality is wrong or even hating homosexuals as long as they don't go around carrying signs that say "God hates fags".

I also try to be understanding of the human psyche. I'm a very critical person but I don't truly judge people because I know things are usually a lot more complicated than they seem. For example I know this girl through 2 friends of mine and this girl gets one boyfriend after the other. We'll call her a slut (since it doesn't matter, it's just smack talk among friends) but I've told them that she probably isn't a slut, she just needs to be in a relationship in order to feel good or something like that.
Or for example South American people that cut down the rainforest. I think cutting down the rainforest is absolutely disgusting but for those people it's usually a choice between cutting down a fucking tree or feeding their family. I don't blame them at all.

I think I'm a good person at this point in my life but undoubtedly certain events in my life caused me to think in a certain way, allowing me to choose the 'good' path. Some people don't get that luxury and it's always hard to change your state of mine. I believe at least part of being a good person is growing up in a suited environment and that's definitely not the case for everyone.

I think I didn't phrase my question right. If I remember correctly, you said you didn't judge a person's importance based on their character, morals, I'd include actions in there too.

Therefore, you don't value any one person more than the other. See, I can't do that. I do believe that some people are inherently better than others, but I wouldn't go Hitler on them.

For you, you don't see it that way, if I understand correctly.

 

[Flipmo]

what's goat tasting like?

it's baaaaaah'd...

 

[Cooper]

Do you eat biological meat? If not how would you defend your point of eating animals that have been subjected to unnecessary suffering?

By the way, I'm aware that plenty of people would continue to eat meat, perhaps the majority of people, but the number would definitely decrease.

Biological meat? Is that a mistranslation?