Economics determines efficiency, well mostly likely profit drive and system shocks to set up technologies and rules. For example, the rural poor of India have issues shipping their goods to market because the goods rot on the way to the store. So in this example the "trade" or "movement" phase is highly inefficient, the "mover" companies don't like this so they invest in infrastructure and encourage governments to do the other parts of infrastructure. This is what is happening now in India, albeit slowly.
Those economics only drive people to more efficiency, NOT towards more robustness to the system.
Making the system robust in the face of potential catastrophe, is a problem that governments and industries take on together. Because industry (by itself) is going to be concerned with short term profits, not whether the people in Africa all starve to death in 2026 after a famine.
And my thesis is that "efficiency", especially when population shoots up, and efficiency and (someday) consumption=limitsofworldproduction is a terrible situation, and a temporary one, unless you want starvation to be a primary driver of population control.
The issue with American diets is mostly economic, fat foods are cheap and good foods are expensive. Change that paradigm in part with food subsidies you see huge changes. The other factors are economics such as finance reform and culture that deals with perpetual poverty.
The reason I brought up obesity in the US, is just that this is a rather clear demonstration that as a nation, we have more than enough calories available to eat, which is NECESSARY for obesity to even be a problem of this magnitude.
People can scream all they want about how McDonald's, or cheap, fatty (or carb-heavy) foods, are to blame for obesity, but that's just bull☺☺☺☺. One additioanl fat calorie vs One additional protein calorie, will essentially add the same weight to your ass (once you've taken care of basic nutritional needs).
Eating small fries instead of big fries, or not drinking soda is not some Superhuman feat of willpower.
You eat too many calories, you gain weight. You cut back those extra calories, and you don't gain weight. Cut back more, and you lose weight. Yeah, Americans may have cheap, fattier foods available, but that does not mean they have to eat 5000 calories a day of cheap, fattier food. They could eat 2500 calories of that food, and put the extra pennies in the piggy bank.
I watched this special called "I eat 30,000 calories a day" which is apparently what some of these 500-900 pound people eat. In interviews, these people would sit their and gripe about McDonald's and fast food and what-not as the cause, but it's obvious they have to be fat mostly from home-cooking and eating too much of that (Because frankly, these useless ☺☺☺☺s can't possibly afford 30,000 calories of fast food a day, at a cost of $100+/day, when they don't have a damn job).
I reject the notion that people are fat because of the KIND of food they eat. They are fat because of the QUANTITY of food they eat.
People need to take responsibility for what they shove in their damn mouth. Just ridiculous.
I know this is not the point of your statements about economics driving obesity, but I think we really most not let people avoid personal responsibility for their own weight. Weight gain does not occur by magic. You gain weight by putting too many calories into your mouth your digestive system. If you are willing to exercise more, you can eat more and not gain weight. McDonald's (and other sources of cheap, high calorie food) may be guilty of many things, but they are not responsible for the obesity problem.
It's not like you go to a fast food place, buy a $6 large value meal (when you could by a smaller $4 one), stuff a giant burger in your mouth and a superlarge coke, and giant fries and say to yourself... "Gee, that was so tiny and I'm still hungry. I can't believe I'm gaining weight eating this stuff."
You say, "God, I'm stuffed... maybe I'll start exercising Tomorrow"
Dude, your argument was that meat tastes good but the reason it tastes good is that we evolved for it to taste good because otherwise we would not eat meat. That's bull☺☺☺☺. Unless you believe in intelligent design, evolution doesn't have an endpoint in mind. Evolution is just random stuff that happens.
Except it isn't, and you've displayed a misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Maybe you don't, because here's how it works. You have something, say a bacterium. Eventually, one develops a random mutation that helps it survive the cold, and it reproduces. A little later, winter comes and only the ones with the mutation to survive the cold survive. That gene then continues to get carried on. Because this process has been going on for so long, there's been plenty of time for mutations to develop, such has having taste, which helps tell us whats in food. In general, evolution adds on from something else, such as in the example I gave above. It's still bacterium, but it happens to have a gene that changes some small part of it which allows it to survive in the cold. And, since humans first came about in a region typically scarce of vegetation, it would only make sense that a mutation built off of taste in which meat tastes good would develop, especially since after the first tools were made, or harnessed, getting meat would become a little easier.
Things have an impact on genes. It's not that things automatically adapt, but if you have a chemical that keeps getting introduced into a body which wasn't previously introduced, and it interacts with your body, your body has to keep producing more or less of something, or it has to respond in some way to the chemical. What this does is encourages other genes and processes more, and the more times a gene is replicated, the more chances there are for that type of gene to mutate.
And, since humans first came about in a region typically scarce of vegetation, it would only make sense that a mutation built off of taste in which meat tastes good would develop, especially since after the first tools were made, or harnessed, getting meat would become a little easier.
1. That's not what you originally argued.
2. Or, alternatively, meat simply just tastes good.
Heck, gorillas are herbivorous, but they will eat bird eggs.
2. Or, alternatively, meat simply just tastes good.
Heck, gorillas are herbivorous, but they will eat bird eggs.
I originally said evolution has something to do with how we have the morals we have, then got sidetracked by someone into describing how we have the specific taste we do. Also, gorillas can't be herbivores if they can digest things that aren't from plants. If I remember correctly, their omnivores.
It's not like you go to a fast food place, buy a $6 large value meal (when you could by a smaller $4 one), stuff a giant burger in your mouth and a superlarge coke, and giant fries and say to yourself... "Gee, that was so tiny and I'm still hungry. I can't believe I'm gaining weight eating this stuff."
You say, "God, I'm stuffed... maybe I'll start exercising Tomorrow"
All foods may weigh the same going into your body, but some of them stay on your body as fat better than others, instead of passing through as waste or even nutrients strengthening other aspects of your system. Excess sugar and saturated fat are not necessarily more filling than foods with less of them, but they will fatten you far faster that other types of calories. Similarly merely reducing the quantity of a sugar/fat-heavy diet may mean you are missing out on other important nutrients; these nutrients might be in low ratio compared to the fat/sugar consumption, but you still need those X nutrients even if forced to eat that much more fat/sugar. Of course instead changing what you eat can remedy that issue.
Another issue is psychological addiction to certain levels and types of excess energy. Sugar is the biggest issue, with the body adjusting to a certain level of sugar and craving it constantly, even when that amount is in excess to result in constantly adding fats. There is a similar problem getting addicted to the rush of energy from complex carbohydrates, which is sudden in the case of simple "white" starches like white sesame buns and potatoes. When that rush wears off there is hunger again, and most people are more likely to eat when feeling that hunger. The same buns as whole wheat bread are more complex and take longer to digest, resulting in a slower and steady release of energy that inmost people results in less feeling of hunger. Leaving aside the additional nutrients in wheat bread, you get the same calories from wheat and white, but the wheat will make you feel less hungry in the long run, and thus the majority of people (not calorie counting or having self control) will eat less and have less weight.
You CAN lose weight just counting calories. But you can also lose it simply changing what you eat instead of counting calories, and you can derive other nutritional benefits beyond weight loss in the process. You can even combine the two approaches if you like.
Ever try eating vegetarian? It's a real pain in the ass, let alone pure vegen. It's far easier to eat something like specific lean meats like fish, but fish have mercury in them so it's still less of a burden keep your diet varied.
As long as you stick to salmon and small fish then you should be fine.
Generally the larger the fish is you eat, the more mercury it contains. This is because the larger fish eat the smaller ones and obtain their mercury content.
Sardines & herrings are low mercury. Swordfish and tuna (Albacore in particular) are high in mercury and thus should be avoided.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never made bets because of what I have to gain.
Simply having people die meaningless deaths over the outcome of a gamble... It's better that way.
That gets closer to the meaningless death that is the essence of gambling.
I'll get closer to it's depths.
That's where the real pleasure in gambling is.
-Akagi Shigeru, The Genius Who Descended Into the Darkness
All foods may weigh the same going into your body,
what does that even mean?
but some of them stay on your body as fat better than others, instead of passing through as waste or even nutrients strengthening other aspects of your system.
no. Extra calories don't get dumped as "waste". Unless you're sick, and have diarrhea, or have lactose intolerance or whatever, you will not find many usable calories in human ☺☺☺☺.
Whether you eat carb, protein, or fat, 1 excess calorie of each will find itself eventually turned into ATP, then help build a storage calorie.
Excess sugar and saturated fat are not necessarily more filling than foods with less of them, but they will fatten you far faster that other types of calories.
one "excess" calorie of any substance will put fat on you at the same rate as one calorie from any other source. Our digestive systems are very efficient (far more so than carnivores) so if you eat the calories, you will have to carry whatever you don't use. "Excess" calories you consume in any form get broken down and then stored, simple as that.
Similarly merely reducing the quantity of a sugar/fat-heavy diet may mean you are missing out on other important nutrients;
in this country, not a huge issue. Nutrient deficiency is far far down the list for most Americans (except maybe Calcium). Too much fat and cholesterol, and certain fats and too much sodium in hypertensives is way bigger issue.
You CAN lose weight just counting calories. But you can also lose it simply changing what you eat instead of counting calories,
For a person who is already overweight to manage their diet without being aware of calories is like saying the best approach for a person in debt to manage their finances is to "shop more bargains" but don't balance your checkbook or keep a budget. It's ludicrous.
Yes, you can change the types of things you eat in hopes that your own internal satiety meter combined with "healthier" food will result in healthy weight loss, but that is a profoundly flawed approach usually doomed to failure, given an overweight person's internal satiety meter is already a proven failure.
One of the reasons that so many people fail their diets or gain weight back after losing, is because they refuse to acknowledge the bottom line truth of why they got fat in the first place: more calories in than burned.
you have to limit your intake to less than what you burn.
and you can derive other nutritional benefits beyond weight loss in the process. You can even combine the two approaches if you like.
I am totally in favor of eating "healthier" food.
But it's vague and unscientific to not count the calories (in one way or another, you can count "portions", calories, equivalents, exchanges, whatever).
It's not hard to get all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, etc. that you need in most diets. Actually, after the number 1 nutritional problem in the USA (obesity, i.e. Too many calories), the number 2 problem is NOT nutritional deficiencies, it is EXCESS (excess cholesterol, excess fat, excess sodium).
Your heart is in the right place, but in your wishful thinking, you seem to want to remove accountability from the equation. Fat is about 9 calories/gram, protein and carbs are about 4.5, give or take. Eat slower (to trigger satiety), try to eat lower calorie/gram foods, even go on a gimmick diet (becaus it may help the you eat less), but still ultimately, less calories have to go in, or more have to get burned. Counting the calories is simply like balancing a checkbook ( though many people prefer to take their entire diet like it was a series of impulse purchases, without regard to budget or price).
no. Extra calories don't get dumped as "waste". Unless you're sick, and have diarrhea, or have lactose intolerance or whatever, you will not find many usable calories in human ☺☺☺☺.
Whether you eat carb, protein, or fat, 1 excess calorie of each will find itself eventually turned into ATP, then help build a storage calorie.
one "excess" calorie of any substance will put fat on you at the same rate as one calorie from any other source. Our digestive systems are very efficient (far more so than carnivores) so if you eat the calories, you will have to carry whatever you don't use. "Excess" calories you consume in any form get broken down and then stored, simple as that.
in this country, not a huge issue. Nutrient deficiency is far far down the list for most Americans (except maybe Calcium). Too much fat and cholesterol, and certain fats and too much sodium in hypertensives is way bigger issue.
For a person who is already overweight to manage their diet without being aware of calories is like saying the best approach for a person in debt to manage their finances is to "shop more bargains" but don't balance your checkbook or keep a budget. It's ludicrous.
Yes, you can change the types of things you eat in hopes that your own internal satiety meter combined with "healthier" food will result in healthy weight loss, but that is a profoundly flawed approach usually doomed to failure, given an overweight person's internal satiety meter is already a proven failure.
One of the reasons that so many people fail their diets or gain weight back after losing, is because they refuse to acknowledge the bottom line truth of why they got fat in the first place: more calories in than burned.
you have to limit your intake to less than what you burn.
I am totally in favor of eating "healthier" food.
But it's vague and unscientific to not count the calories (in one way or another, you can count "portions", calories, equivalents, exchanges, whatever).
It's not hard to get all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, etc. that you need in most diets. Actually, after the number 1 nutritional problem in the USA (obesity, i.e. Too many calories), the number 2 problem is NOT nutritional deficiencies, it is EXCESS (excess cholesterol, excess fat, excess sodium).
Your heart is in the right place, but in your wishful thinking, you seem to want to remove accountability from the equation. Fat is about 9 calories/gram, protein and carbs are about 4.5, give or take. Eat slower (to trigger satiety), try to eat lower calorie/gram foods, even go on a gimmick diet (becaus it may help the you eat less), but still ultimately, less calories have to go in, or more have to get burned. Counting the calories is simply like balancing a checkbook ( though many people prefer to take their entire diet like it was a series of impulse purchases, without regard to budget or price).
You seem quite knowledgeable, so don't take it to mean that I doubt you when I say this, I am just curious and want to learn: What are your sources?
You seem quite knowledgeable, so don't take it to mean that I doubt you when I say this, I am just curious and want to learn: What are your sources?
I manage dozens of kids on gastrostomy tubes (and a few on IV nutrition) in my medical practice, using a wide variety of tube feedings from elemental (that is predigested or made as precursors), to high fat, to low fat, to everything in between. You play around with tube feed formula choice a lot when there are other factors affecting your decision (e.g. digestion problems, trying to improve GI motility, fat intolerance, trying to minimize total volume, trying to achieve ketoacidosis., calorie restriction, etc.).
However the bottom line is for any given weight gain or stability you want, the total calories is completely interchangeable. If their weight is stable on 1500 calories a day of fatty formula, their weight will be stable on 1500 calories a day of less fatty formula (People's anecdotal reports and misconceptions about "fatty food makes me fat" are meaningless to me when they are never accurately counting the amounts and calories they're actually consuming). I have nurses measuring and putting food in a tube, and have dieticians counting calories accurately. I work with hospital dieticians on a weekly basis and they all say the same thing. For weight purposes, calories are calories (but from a psychologic standpoint, sensation of satiety, and perception of portion sizes is very relevant to real world intake of those calories, and perceived intake are generally distorted and delusionally self-serving).
So if a person is gaining weight, they're eating TOO MUCH or NOT EXERCISING ENOUGH, regardless of whether they deny it or blame McDonald's.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Let me know which specific information that you wish to find a source for, and I'll try to track down a source for you.
The reasons for obesity are complex from a pschological & behavioral standpoint, thus leading to a multitude of different frameworks for weight loss, meant to modify intake and exercise by creating a "mental framework" that lends itself to less intake (yes, strictly following a weight watcher's diet will lead to the same weight loss as South beach, if you take in the same number of calories... but it might be much harder for some to stick to weight watchers). South beach gives you the illusion of not being restricted on some levels, which works better for some people actually sticking to it.
The reasons for obesity are complex from a pschological & behavioral standpoint, BUT they're simple from a calories standpoint. From a calories standpoint, you gain weight when you consume more calories than you burn. It can be fat calories and it can be carb calories, and it can be protein calories.
There are minimum requirements of protein and minimum requirements of some fats to not get sick, but beyond that, the mix of calorie sources is not very relevant to weight gain or loss.
Look at the Chart of illnesses, under 'Deficiencies' column and it's the most revealing of what is necessary.
This is basic nutrition 101:
(1) Your CALORIE sources are fats, carbs and proteins. Note that there is no disease caused by deficiency or absence of carbs. But there are small minimum requirements for protein and some types of fat.
(2) NON-CALORIE "nutrients" include Vitamins & minerals, and are essential for normal functioning of the body.
Vitamins & minerals:
Vitamins: Our country overloads cereal and a lot of other processed food with some vitamins because it's cheap and easy to do so without altering the food taste (and processing & cooking foods takes out a lot of the vitamins).
Minerals: Mineral deficiencies and excesses are unlikely in most reasonable American diets (except for Calcium, which can often be very lacking in vegetarian diets, and even mixed diets)
Vitamins and Calcium supplements are cheap and easily found in the US if you restrict your diet in other ways. Currently big controversy on whether we're all vitamin D deficient, and whether that leads to health problems. Lots of docs pushing mega-doses of Vitamin D.
Vitamins A, D, E and K can be dangerous in excessive quantities because they're fat soluble. The other vitamins are water soluble, and mostly safe in quantities a reasonable person would physically tolerate, because you pee the excess out and dangerous quantities will make you... uncomfortable.
The only reason I brought up the obesity problem in the first place though, was to point out that we're already wasting a lot of freaking food in this country, and we're far from shortage.
And just ftr, (A) there are risks for nutrition problems (mostly deficiencies) with vegetarian diets.. but (B) there are risks of other nutritional problems (mostly health risks born of excess) with heavy meat diets.
I believe there is a truth to be discovered on our planet. One that is shamefully, and willingly hidden by near all. One of the great queries of our race has begun with, "if an alien civilization came to Earth, what would they think of us." It has been the benchmark of political decisions, moral decisions, technological decisions. The world's governments have actual teams dedicated to the responsibility of determining what brief communications we would most readily want to dispatch to the visiting race. First being, we are not run under one single governing body. Purpose being, if the race were to observe a horrific event somewhere on the Earth, it is not indicative of our species as a whole. There are other such comments in place, all in act to alleviate us from blame. Allowing an allocation of guilt, so it does not fall all upon us at once. We say, oh god, what if they were around during slavery and witnessed that atrocity, or the Holocaust, god forbid. Surely they would dispose of such a crude, infantile, hostile, barbaric and primitive race. We rightfully turn our nose at our outlandish past.
I put forth for you the following example. If this alien civilization were to come, and our goal, to hide all of our misgivings and vulgar misdeeds, to represent the perfect, model world and society. I press upon you, as a people in the presence of a superior race, we would with much haste, urgently cease, cloak, and hide the act we perform daily; taking millions of innocent lives, more primitive than our own, as the superior race, betraying their choiceless trust in us, and lead them helplessly to slaughter in order to fulfill our basest opulence of taste. We would hide this shamefully like a child who was just caught ripping the head off a doll. It is my belief, we would have no intelligible recourse should they choose to enact the same tactic on us. It would be pure hypocrisy, as any being advanced enough to arrive at our solar system, is far more advanced on an evolutionary scale than we are from whom we slaughter. We would hide these killings because we know, it is ingrained in our being that to kill another is wrong. It is why, if the majority of people were forced to kill their own animal in order to eat meat, there would be far fewer people eating meat. It is why early native american hunters were deemed brave. They were. It is an ardent task to overcome the emotional and spiritual law that feeds us the empathetic pain of killing a living creature. However, in their time, it was near mandated through necessity. A kill provided then for them, a week or more's worth of sustenance. These are animals they lived with, interacted with, coexisted, sharing the same plains and days. It was survival, and as such, with each kill the native americans blessed the beast prior to it's kill. Glorified the animal during the feast. And praised the soul afterwards. Never forgetting for a moment, the pure raw sacrifice the animal unwillingly gave for the well being of the greater species. Parents would force the children to watch the hunt, so they too could appreciate what was given so that they could take. Within a blink, this has been sanitized to a slab of pink innocuous wet tissue, wrapped in styrofoam and plastic, and slapped with a frilly Sara Lee foods sticker. I have never been an activist, merely an astute, and perceptive observer. And here I observe an incredulous act of the killing of cognitive beings carried out by the millions, literally every, single, day. I will get to why we allow this later.
We laud and pat our backs by the moment as to how far we've evolved as a species. Quick to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the world's species, for we have built buildings, we have procured the sciences, we have risen temples, and we have in no uncertain terms been the first known species to literally change our earth. Why are brutal beatings condemned in the courts and punishable by imprisonment? Because, with our evolution, we have shunned our primeval ways. We have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. Why is a man imprisoned for taking carnal pleasure from a woman without her consent? Because, with our evolution, we have shunned our primeval ways. We have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. Why is a man imprisoned for the theft of another man's home or property? Because, with our evolution, we have shunned our primeval ways. We have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. So then why, I ask you, when asked of the majority of men and women on this planet, why do we let the innocent lives or millions of majestic, cognizant, sentient beings be forcefully brought to slaughter every single moment of every single day by our own hands, the predicated response is always "It's human nature. It is our instinct." And just like that, with the utterance of a flippant sentence, the masses of the world conveniently force themselves to forget, that we have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. We have that insight. We are the only species on this planet who has the clear and unwavering choice as to whether or not they kill an animal in order to survive.
We have also placed ourselves in a position, where we can not only survive, but thrive healthily and even gluttonously if we choose, without killing an animal. We have buildings, built, devoted and dedicated to placing any food your mind can imagine, on a plate in front of you. Legions devoting their lives supplying us with delicacies that wouldn't harm a treefly in the making. Billions spent formulating in perfect proportion, ingredients to even mimic the desired taste of meat so as to provide the nicorette patch for those who simply can't handle the withdrawal. And to this we brutishly, and with pompous indignance respond, "that doesn't taste exaaactly like meat, and because of this slight deviation, we are so proud, and so noble, and so selfish and so spoiled, that we choose instead to have you murder a few million sentient beings, because this bacon doesn't taste exaaaactly like the bacon that comes from having a pig's head cut off involuntarily. It doesn't quite have the twang of death I'm accustomed to." So says every diet pepsi drinker during their first week of conversion from regular to diet. So says every smoker during their first week transitioning from regulars to lights. The only time we are willing to make these small and ultimately simple transitions, is when it is in the benefit for our own health. Let's recognize the selfishness here in the knowledge that this transition is not only in the benefit for another's health, but to avoid another's murder. Avoid a revolving genocide. The one and only shining moment of a genocide is that it will eventually end. However, we have created this carousel, where we are continuously slaughtering populations greater than the entire world's human population combined, yet we do not let it end, and instead force breed the flourishment of millions of lives for the sole purpose and goal of slaughtering them all again. How else can you define the word 'evil'?
Some might say we were blessed, others, bestowed with this distinct ability to choose. However, it is irrevocably, and futilely shamed and wasted, if we only selectively use this moral clairvoyance. The most difficult moral shifts and decisions, should and have always been, our proudest. This may well be our pinnacle shift as a species. The rite to deny ourselves base pleasures at the expensive of another creature's life. I believe the day we allow ourselves to recognize this, and enact forcefully the means to shift it, we will truly be a great species. The law is the strength of our society which has the nobility to stand where others lay. The law is the footing that states, we are above this brutal, primitive mentality, and there will be consequences for those who bade otherwise and are too weak of mind to realize their archaic ways are humanely unjust. There is a reason that a rape, a murder, a theft is seen only at a relative modicum. It is because there is a consequence. A consequence enforced by law. However, even this celestial law, representing our utmost nobility, has found it's achilles. This law is now also too weak of mind to overcome this most instinctive and primitive desire ingrained into our genetics, which is to kill and eat meat. If our nobility falls to the narcotic impulse to slaughter millions for our own gratification, how are we supposed to then put up an effrontery when we too share the same desire. We are teetering on nobility. And our law is on our side of the fulcrum with no one to balance out the other, we sink, overloaded, to the mud.
Do we need a Lincoln? Do we need a renaissance of morality in the form of an official governance? For let's face it, even if a vegetarian were in the oval office, if he tried to employ his insight to the masses, he would with no such irony, be eaten alive. Certainly thievery would be insurmountable would there be no law to enforce otherwise. How quickly would we entertain and convince ourselves that not too great a harm was caused by us merely taking the belongings of others. If it was never taught or enforced to me, I may genuinely see no harm in taking what I please from wherever I please, save for fending off the offended party. Until the first time I stole something as a young boy, and my mother scolded me, I had no idea I had wronged at all. If we are taught at a young age that killing any living thing is wrong, the world changes in a generation. It is a sentence. A thought. But it hits so pure and close to our logic, to our intrinsic desire to be good, to not kill, that in our young, impressionable minds, this would only enforce what we perceive to be a human truth. It is why we cry when our dogs die. It is why we guffaw when we hear tale of people eating cats, horses, monkeys, whales, dolphin, or any other animal not eaten in our localized united states. Perhaps less polarizing, but with shared effect, lamb or rabbit. Or as those who don't eat them call it, "little baby lamb" and "bunny rabbit", I'll take the braised veal instead, because I'm not quite sure what it is. If it is taught at a young age, a people can change with urgency. Ask the billion people in India about the best hamburger they every had.
We have been given a gift of lucidity, clarity, and empathy through divinity or otherwise, and it is our responsibility to act with this gift in accordance. We pride ourselves on our clout, our evolution, and our grandiose stature in the animal kingdom. I will take us through, and disseminate, and dispel the logic we have procured to futilely, and blindly defend our decisions every single day, with the sole purpose of misdirecting ourselves from the blatant and obvious truth of our everpresent ruthless and brutal decision that we desperately want to hide and pretend never existed. The clinical mind state of an addict. Let us start with the utmost egregious and ignorant comments heard most frequently, and work our way from there. "It doesn't think. It's stupid. It doesn't even know its alive. Therefore, we have garnered the right to murder it, and eat it." Mind you, I'm not using the term murder here for effect, simply for accuracy by definition. Let us break this one down. Let us begin with the most assaulting of them all. "It doesn't even know its alive". There is something engineered into every single living organism on this planet from a bacteria to a blue whale, which is the will and desire to survive. It is why all living prey run from predators. It is why scores of species migrate halfway across the entire world avoiding deadly winters. It is why quite frankly any given species is on this planet today; because they survived. Sure, there are differentiations as to how self aware any given species is, but there is a reason they are all born to this earth with the desire to stay on it, and this, is the definition of "knowing you are alive". If you don’t know, what would be the point of avoiding death at all costs? The only time someone would challenge this, or denigrate a species' god given rite to witness the miracle of the world, is when they want lunch. A person who goes about mitigating another creature's perception of life, simply to clear their conscience about murdering them, is an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺. It is equivalent to the logic abusive husbands use when beating their wives. I will berate you, so that my physical abuse is then validated.
Now, we move on to intelligence. "It is stupid. Therefore, we are granted the right to murder it." The irony. Let us start with the largest and grandest. The whale. Classified as a majestic, untouchable creature to most americans. Japanese eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner as simply as a hot pocket. Result- We are better than the Japanese. They are stupid. They are barbarians. Truth is, they are humans, so please don't go running so quick to disassociate. Next we'll move on to dolphins. We exclaim, "intellect! Lack of Intellect is what allows us to kill!" An overwhelming amount of the scientific community believe dolphins are smarter than human beings. Japanese eat them as an amuse bousche to their whale steak. Again with the Japanese. These cruel monsters. These strange aliens whose moral compass is obliterated. Don't disassociate now, it's just getting fun, they're human beings, we'll get to you soon enough. At what point does the intellectual barrier grey enough to where we can pass through the now dissipated pixels, and allow ourselves that rite that we strive for. That access. That permission to murder a creature so we can eat more tastily. Monkeys? Eaten all over the world, every day. Wait, that is not just Japan now, how do we compensate, how do we explain? A large portion of the world is doing something we so clearly see as wrong, surely we can still disassociate. There's still hope. Perhaps the united states is the only country of reason, perhaps we are the stronghold of morality. Elephants, Kangaroos, only mad men would eat these majestic creatures, we are not part of that domain. We are separate. A dog? No, you have crossed the line, no human could eat our most precious, intelligent companion. His cognition is unparalled, his sentience unmatched. This is a mad world, who would eat such things?! Then we enter the pig. And we have silenced. It is agreed upon throughout the scientific community that a pig is simply smarter than a dog. Uh oh... How do we quickly, and instantly remove this information from our minds, what is the quickest exit for this truth from my mind? "IT'S DIRTY!! Phew! The pig's dirty!" That'll do it, I saw a picture of a pig in mud once, so even though they've been shown to be of the most hygienic animals, I'll negate that part from my memory and use my childhood illustration of the archetypal pig in mud, and now I'm with clear enough conscience to murder it for breakfast. Phew! That was ☺☺☺☺ing close. Almost had to give up pig. Anyway, back to those ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ Japanese, what cruelty! The line is blurred now. Do we now hold hands with the estranged Japanese? Moments ago they were our antithetical moral companion who shared nothing more than our DNA. And now we dine together on porpoise and swine. There is no line for us to have crossed. The "line" is merely a fictional tool for our exoneration, lodging with Santa Claus and the omnivorous tooth fairy. This is simply uncircumventable with resounding logic, so this is the one we will most desperately try to ignore. Yet, if all else failed, this should be the only bit of logic needed to cease murdering these creatures. Tiny bits of logic are the fiercest adversaries, yet they are so small, instead of facing them, we can simply step on them.
Let us continue down the path of intelligence. Cows, true they're not so bright, so...what would be the logical response to a creature not being bright? Leave him to pasture, and enjoy with whatever capacity given to him by god the world he is living in for however brief amount of time? Ah yes, no of course, sorry, let's murder it, my mistake. The human reasoning train gains speed, fueled by its depleting fuel of empathy. On to the mighty turkey. Idiot. Dead. Chickens? Really? Have you seen a chicken? Morons. Dead. Fish? A tuna?? Some salmon?? Compared to us, these beings have no intellect, they are proverbially dumb as posts. Though they are able to coexist familially and maintain a sense of community. Though they school, spanning the globe's vast oceans and wonders, experiencing sensations we could never imagine. Their scholastic assessment scores are indeed fairly low compared to our own, so once again, based solely on their diminished intellect, we now allow for their appropriated murders. This is where people are going to get really angry. If we follow these rules agreed upon. If we allow ourselves, unabashedly, the freedom to take another's life because of their diminished intelligence, then I pose you this question. By that theory, should we be allowed to murder a person who is born with a diminished intelligence level to that of a chicken, and he is never to get smarter ? Should anyone be able to walk up to that person, and put a gun to their head? Before you convince yourself that you've found your out, your portion of the discussion where you can yell incredulously "that's ridiculous!! This guy's a loon, now that he's said this one sentence, I can convince myself that nothing else he's said has merit, I've found my conversation scape goat, back to my own reality now." Let your outrage pass for a moment if you're strong minded enough to allow it, and then look at nothing more than the facts. If a person is a vegetable with a clinically proven intelligence level of a chicken, why, then oh why, by your own very standards can we not kill this person? Your brain gets stuck now. You can't quite explain it, but there's nothing scientifically or logically that explains how this differs. So now is when we rant. And now is when we rave. Backed into a corner of hypocrisy. We scrape, and we claw at our own flawed felled logic in an attempt to escape. "A soul! We have a soul!!! That's the difference!!" Again, this thread is devoted purely to scientific and logical findings. Not to say we don't have a soul, but please, I do bid you, show me that scientific paper we're all so familiar with that demonstrates conclusively that we have souls and other creatures do not, or vice versa. I know some don't want to hear harsh assimilations, but all I ask you, is to ask yourself if they are true, and if you can see some truth in them, allow your mind to explore those truths, instead of what it is programmed to do, which is to calmly and quickly block them out as irrational thought before they can penetrate too deep into the psyche. Again, allow your brain to explore the scenario, don't shut it down in a defense mechanism immediately as you'll want to.
I've always been turned off by anti-meat protestors as a youth, because something about them was disengaging. I've soon realized that it is not the act of yelling at people, or shaming people. That is just noise. It is about painting undeniable scenarios that on a human level, can not be denied. It is then and only then, when something is undeniable, that a person comes to a realization on their own, and indeed that is the only way for a change. The good news is, once it is realized, it can not be unrealized. On the chance of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, it is very much blue pill, red pill. We are ensconced by this cape, blanketing a travesty of epic proportions, but much like the matrix, we are blissfully unaware, and unaware together, giving our wrongness strength.
There are almost 7 Billion people on this earth today, an uncountable, inconceivable number, 7 Billion strong. Within the past 100 years, we have slaughtered 50 Billion land animals for food. That's right, that's Fifty Billion with a B. Sentient lives slaughtered. Oh wait. Wait, did I say in the past 100 years? I meant to say in the past 10 years. 50 Billion cognitive beings murdered by us without necessity in the past 10 years, that's 7 times the earth's human population, who are able to see, think, feel, live, slain by our frivolous decision. Oh wait wait wait! Did I say 50 Billion have been killed in the past 10 years??! silly me!! It must be late. I meant to say in the past 1 year. In the past 1 year, 50 Billion land animals were murdered so we could eat a hamburger. Please take in that number. There are maaaany more statistics equally as disturbing, but I think it will dilute this one, so let's just really really focus on this one. Let's help you visualize 1 Billion first, and then you can place cow, sheep, pig or whatever faces you want on them. 1 Billion minutes ago, was around the time of Christ. 1 Billion months ago was 82 million years ago. Now multiply that by 50. These are lives we are talking about, not minutes, creatures who most definitely can feel, see, breathe, experience and live. 50 Billion in ONE year, in ten years that is half a TRILLION animals murdered, for a taste we crave. A taste and a texture is the absolute, and only reason. Half a TRILLION animals are murdered every 10 years for a taste and a texture. We have to malevolence where we just want to go kill animals because it’s fun, that would actually be a more understanding reason. We are killing half a TRILLION animals every ten years because of a taste and a texture. How trivial. How selfish. People are quick to make fun of wine enthusiasts. “Oh yes, I went to Martha’s Vineyard for this wine, this has a note of vanilla and oak, with a nice bouquet”. Such ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s, requiring such delicacies of their wine. “Yeah I had to slice open a cow’s neck and end it’s existence in this universe, because I like to chew mushy, wet things that taste a little bit like blood.” Ah, the elite. Now who’s more pompous. Half a Trillion. Mind you, this is just land animals, when you take the sea into effect, the numbers would be mind boggling. Who has given us this right. Who has given us the allowance to rob this earth of such an ungodly number of god's creations. Certainly it's not god. Be you a religious man or not, the statement holds merit with or without the word god. I hope the rabbit hole is widening for you.
The act of killing an animal to eat it is so rarely talked about, we are almost shunned to speak. "you know that cow was eating grass last week with his sister in a field" "Gross, don't talk about that while I'm eating the afformentioned cow" Those are the brief windows, when we recognize for that sharp split second, the truth. And for that moment it is so disturbing, it literally churns our stomach, but we have honed our skill of ignoring an evil that satiates us for so long, we are devilishly skilled. Unlearn the skill, and you will unleash your truth. We are collectively the One to make change. So you can betrayingly eat your juicy, pink, inch thick steak knowing that "ignorance is bliss", or you can take the red pill and save the ☺☺☺☺ing world.
Now, what kind of guest would I be, if I didn't provide you with some key steps to making a change and taking the ultimate noble shift.
1. Be realistic - Many times, I've tried to simply become a vegetarian, and guess what. I don't. You are fighting something ingrained in you, it will take strength, insight, and a plan. Start by deliberately choosing to not eat meat of any kind for two days a week. Even by doing this simple act, you will have eaten nearly 1/3 less of the animals you would have eaten over your entire life. That's enormous. Could you imagine if the population all ate just 1/3 less of the animals? If this is all you get to, fine! You should be filled with elation. ☺☺☺☺ all the purist vegetarians and vegans. And if any of your friends give you ☺☺☺☺ saying you're not a true vegetarian, it's all or nothing, tell them to ☺☺☺☺ off, misery loves company, if you're doing the right thing, they'll want you to stop so you they feel less bad. You are eating 1/3 less animals than you normally would have, you're a ☺☺☺☺ing saint! If you get very comfortable with this, and decide you feel like adding another day, then by god you add a day. And so on. You do whatever you can do. When you feel you're doing too much, so you start veering, pull back, and do less. keep it manageable. It is better to do less consistently, than more, inconsistently.
2- Treat yourself on those days you don't eat meat. Eat like an ass if you want to, that's your day to order the large pizza, spaghetti, whatever the hell you want. Shove potato chips in your mouth. You're not atoning on those days, you're celebrating. Suck ice cream through a straw for ☺☺☺☺'s sake. Make vegetarian days the least healthy day of the week.
3- Here's the tricky bit and isn't for everyone. I can only tell you when my red pill moment happened, and express to you a desire for you to share in the same experience since it was so clearing for me. I was in a slaughterhouse for a good hour or so. Not when I was young either. This was the most beneficial traumatization I ever had, because I don't believe I would have allowed the reality of it in otherwise. If you are courageous and if you are brave, even if you need to go with a few friends for support, go to a slaughterhouse. And immerse yourself. Don't just walk briskly through and say "I got it, let's get out of here". Allow yourself to stand there, watching the animals on deck for a good ten, twenty minutes. Watch their eyes. And then follow them without veering, through the process. This is a truth. This is something our impulse pulls us away from with all the diligence it has, but if you want to face a truth and see how you will truly respond to it, allow yourself this moment. Don't let them give you the sanitized tour, ask to see the up close and personal of every stage, because they will surely not suggest that on their on. I've seen the videos of slaughterhouses, cruel, horrible things as I'm sure you have, but it did not affect me or my decisions past that day. I've heard stories, gruesome stories as I'm sure you have, but it did not affect me or my decisions past that hour. I've been there, standing there in person, and it affected my decision for my life. Don't fall prey to the excuses your mind is currently generating as to why you shouldn't go see. Nothing I can write here will describe it, it will change your chemistry. Schedule a date right now as you are reading this or you will never schedule a date again. So, here is your litmus test, face it bravely.
Guaco
-If there are other websites you believe would benefit from this, please feel free to post a link to this thread.
Guaco - I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding something. We aren't shamefully hiding our slaughter of animals - we just don't care.
In the same way that I don't care about someone I never knew being killed, I care even less about a non-human animal being killed. I care even less than that when the animal turns out to be incredibly delicious.
As long as you stick to salmon and small fish then you should be fine.
Generally the larger the fish is you eat, the more mercury it contains. This is because the larger fish eat the smaller ones and obtain their mercury content.
Sardines & herrings are low mercury. Swordfish and tuna (Albacore in particular) are high in mercury and thus should be avoided.
Then there's always the way in which these animals are caught en masse, and how overfishing affects specific areas of the world such as Africa where fishing villages can no longer sustain themselves in the traditional manner extending from the illegal overfishing. The illegal fish are also mixed in with legal fish, so enforcement makes it even more difficult to "not eat illegal fish."
So even with "being fine," you're still being inhumane to other humans by consuming that very fish, and yet humans need meat by which to survive. Moral eating is a real kick in the pants, and I haven't even gotten into the abuses with farming vegetables.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Guaco - I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding something. We aren't shamefully hiding our slaughter of animals - we just don't care.
In the same way that I don't care about someone I never knew being killed, I care even less about a non-human animal being killed. I care even less than that when the animal turns out to be incredibly delicious.
We are indeed hiding the slaughter of animals. Why do you think slaughterhouses have such high walls. Why do you think media access is not allowed? Because they're making pillows?
And please don't use the term "we". Use the term "you", don't try and lump others into your irrational thinking so you feel more secure about it. If others, even meat eaters, share your complete lack of empathy, than you are simply the minority. Some even start groups for these biggotted minorities, kkk. If humor is the only response you can rouse (incredibly delicious), that simply makes you an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺, which you are entitled to be. But please don't fool yourself into thinking you should be proud of that trait.
We are indeed hiding the slaughter of animals. Why do you think slaughterhouses have such high walls. Why do you think media access is not allowed? Because they're making pillows?
Media access is allowed. There are video recordings of animals getting slaughtered all over the place.
And please don't use the term "we". Use the term "you",
No, seriously, animals get slaughtered all the time. The public doesn't go out of their way to watch because:
1. This happens all the time
2. We're all aware it happens all the time
3. We don't care
My personal favorite example are the open markets in Asia. Go to any Chinese stall where there are animals in cages/tanks and ask for "that one". They'll carve it up right in front of you.
We're fully aware where meat comes from. We don't hide away from it, we just don't care.
don't try and lump others into your irrational thinking so you feel more secure about it.
Exactly how is it irrational? "Body wants meat, go eat meat". That's about as simplistic as it can get.
If others, even meat eaters, share your complete lack of empathy, than you are simply the minority.
No, because the majority of people aren't vegetarian, and don't care about not being so.
Some even start groups for these biggotted minorities, kkk.
Really now? You're going to compare the KKK's actions to an omnivore eating the way an omnivore evolved to eat?
If humor is the only response you can rouse (incredibly delicious), that simply makes you an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺, which you are entitled to be. But please don't fool yourself into thinking you should be proud of that trait
What, because I'm aware that meat is the flesh of animals? Because I voluntarily engage in carnivorous activities? Because I enjoy doing so? How does that make me wrong?
You even said you're not a vegetarian. Why are you patronizing people who eat meat?
I would like to handle this with as little emotional vestment as possible, so as to highlight the factual and most human elements.
...
Phew! That was ☺☺☺☺ing close. Almost had to give up pig. Anyway, back to those ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ Japanese, what cruelty!
...
On to the mighty turkey. Idiot. Dead. Chickens? Really? Have you seen a chicken? Morons. Dead. Fish? A tuna?? Some salmon?? Compared to us, these beings have no intellect, they are proverbially dumb as posts.
...
"A soul! We have a soul!!! That's the difference!!"
...
Oh wait wait wait! Did I say 50 Billion have been killed in the past 10 years??! silly me!! It must be late. I meant to say in the past 1 year.
...
Such ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s, requiring such delicacies of their wine. “Yeah I had to slice open a cow’s neck and end it’s existence in this universe, because I like to chew mushy, wet things that taste a little bit like blood.”
...
☺☺☺☺ all the purist vegetarians and vegans. And if any of your friends give you ☺☺☺☺ saying you're not a true vegetarian, it's all or nothing, tell them to ☺☺☺☺ off, misery loves company, if you're doing the right thing, they'll want you to stop so you they feel less bad. You are eating 1/3 less animals than you normally would have, you're a ☺☺☺☺ing saint!
Why say "I would like to handle this with as little emotional vestment as possible" and then proceed to do the opposite?
Your argument is based mainly on invoking empathy and using appeal to emotion, to say nothing of your overuse of Loaded language.
When things eventually get crowded enough, animals that don't serve a purpose to us will eventually be squeezed out.
Prey animals evolved to walk around, eat veggies, crap & pee, give birth to other prey animals, occasionally run like hell from predators, then eventually to be killed by a predator before you overpopulate & overgraze all the veggies and starve your species.
For cows that are raised free range, which part are they deprived of?
If they're not eaten eventually by somebody in a human dominated biosphere, what place for their species is there in our biosphere? One way to look at the cow species is that they have adapted and evolved (with our help) to co-exist with us in a symbiotic manner, in a world that has no space left for any creature that can't survive in the nook and crannies of our habitat.
Media access is allowed. There are video recordings of animals getting slaughtered all over the place.
My personal favorite example are the open markets in Asia. Go to any Chinese stall where there are animals in cages/tanks and ask for "that one". They'll carve it up right in front of you.
We're fully aware where meat comes from. We don't hide away from it, we just don't care.
Yes, in Asia. Where is your example of such transparency in the states? Does Tony Roma's walk a pig to your table? Does KFC let you choose the bird from the cage? Just simply answer those questions and we'll be good.
Exactly how is it irrational? "Body wants meat, go eat meat". That's about as simplistic as it can get.
Let's use your logic then and you tell me "Body wants meat, go eat meat (regardless of meat's consent)" ..."***** wants sex, ***** takes sex regardless of girl's consent" Just simply respond to that example and we'll be good.
Really now? You're going to compare the KKK's actions to an omnivore eating the way an omnivore evolved to eat?
No, I said they're a group of bigots. And I believe killing an animal is also biggotry. You're killing something/mistreating something you believe is underneath you, yet have no factual basis.
What, because I'm aware that meat is the flesh of animals? Because I voluntarily engage in carnivorous activities? Because I enjoy doing so? How does that make me wrong?
Yes. That makes you wrong. Do you think because you're phrasing the words in questions, that it somehow makes it less wrong? It doesn't. Yes, killing creatures is wrong.
You even said you're not a vegetarian. Why are you patronizing people who eat meat?
I suppose you're resorting to flat out lying now. Where did I say I wasn't a vegetarian?
You assume death is inherently immoral. You also make the statement that we shouldn't treat some living things as lower then us. However then you push for the consumption of an entirely defenseless group of species, plants. So why do you feel this is suddenly okay? Is it because they don't have brains and so supposedly can't feel pain or think? This argument has just as much merit as someone who argues that we shouldn't kill any species who can understand their own mortality. Essentially your line of demarcation is completely arbitrary and based upon your own personal belief instead of concrete facts.
You would make a far more persuasive argument if you approached it from a sustainability point of view. All energy comes from the sun so the lower we eat on the food chain, the better our use of limited resources and land.
I suppose you're resorting to flat out lying now. Where did I say I wasn't a vegetarian?
1. Be realistic - Many times, I've tried to simply become a vegetarian, and guess what. I don't.
Right there.
You're not even a vegetarian, so what the crap are you getting on a soap box for? You eat meat just like the rest of us. The difference is some of us don't want to sit in the fetal position feeling guilty that we're human beings and taking part in being omnivores.
In fact, I find this kind of funny:
We would hide these killings because we know, it is ingrained in our being that to kill another is wrong. It is why, if the majority of people were forced to kill their own animal in order to eat meat, there would be far fewer people eating meat. It is why early native american hunters were deemed brave. They were. It is an ardent task to overcome the emotional and spiritual law that feeds us the empathetic pain of killing a living creature.
Except, then you say:
Many times, I've tried to simply become a vegetarian, and guess what. I don't. You are fighting something ingrained in you, it will take strength, insight, and a plan.
Wait, what? No, I thought it was ingrained in us not to kill things. But when you have to give up meat, it's ingrained in us to kill things and it's not eating meat that's the struggle?
Yes, in Asia. Where is your example of such transparency in the states?
Well we don't exactly have the whole marketplace thing that many countries have. Unless you live in farm country or hunt or buy local you're going to be getting your meat from a distributor who works for perhaps another company who buys the meat from a farm because that's just the nature of the industry. That and health codes, restaurants don't keep live animals for a reason.
An obvious exception to this is seafood. I don't think you can argue people have no idea what lobster is when they just boiled one alive and are shelling it.
The difference is in the differences between urban and rural life. People in urban settings are separated from farm life because they don't live on a farm and can go their whole lives having never set foot on one, or even having never met anyone who has. Simple reality of being in a place where there ain't much greenery.
However, I'm pretty positive that it's safe to say that anyone in a rural setting knows where bacon comes from. Moreover, people go hunting, fishing, and work as butchers all the time. None of these people have developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so I think it's natural to say that the act of killing animals and eating them is a perfectly natural thing that involves no trauma whatsoever.
Let's use your logic then and you tell me "Body wants meat, go eat meat (regardless of meat's consent)" ..."***** wants sex, ***** takes sex regardless of girl's consent" Just simply respond to that example and we'll be good.
I don't need to answer this question, because you already know the answer, and you already know the answer because you eat meat.
Now you can live your entire life hating yourself for not starving yourself to death, or you can live your life without a self-inflicted and exceptionally stupid guilt complex. Either one is fine.
However, clogging up an internet forum with posts you know full well are hypocritical and dumb aren't going to make matters any better for you, nor endear people to the idea of vegetarianism. Or do you honestly expect to accomplish anything by screaming at people for how horrible they are for not starving themselves when you partake in exactly the same thing?
I put forth for you the following example. If this alien civilization were to come, and our goal, to hide all of our misgivings and vulgar misdeeds, to represent the perfect, model world and society. I press upon you, as a people in the presence of a superior race, we would with much haste, urgently cease, cloak, and hide the act we perform daily; taking millions of innocent lives, more primitive than our own, as the superior race, betraying their choiceless trust in us, and lead them helplessly to slaughter in order to fulfill our basest opulence of taste. We would hide this shamefully like a child who was just caught ripping the head off a doll. It is my belief, we would have no intelligible recourse should they choose to enact the same tactic on us. It would be pure hypocrisy, as any being advanced enough to arrive at our solar system, is far more advanced on an evolutionary scale than we are from whom we slaughter. We would hide these killings because we know, it is ingrained in our being that to kill another is wrong. It is why, if the majority of people were forced to kill their own animal in order to eat meat, there would be far fewer people eating meat.
I'd highlight more, but all the malapropisms and purple prose make it just too painful to continue. What you think is English, isn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You assume death is inherently immoral. Never said that, I said murder is inherently immoral.
You also make the statement that we shouldn't treat some living things as lower then us. However then you push for the consumption of an entirely defenseless group of species, plants. So why do you feel this is suddenly okay? Is it because they don't have brains and so supposedly can't feel pain or think? This argument has just as much merit as someone who argues that we shouldn't kill any species who can understand their own mortality. Essentially your line of demarcation is completely arbitrary and based upon your own personal belief instead of concrete facts. Plants don't have brains. Or a central nervous system. Without plants, we can't survive. Without meat, we can. Sorry I had to paint this ridiculous point out to you so blatantly. It is funny though, that after that entire thing you've read, the only response you can muster is "why is it okay to eat plants", seems like you're really scraping here.
You would make a far more persuasive argument if you approached it from a sustainability point of view. All energy comes from the sun so the lower we eat on the food chain, the better our use of limited resources and land. I don't care to approach it from a sustainability point of view. That's not the point of view I have. My point of view is we shouldn't kill living animals that we don't have to.
You're not even a vegetarian, so what the crap are you getting on a soap box for? You eat meat just like the rest of us. The difference is some of us don't want to sit in the fetal position feeling guilty that we're human beings and taking part in being omnivores.
Okay, I hate to debunk every argument you made based on your somehow misunderstanding, but here goes. I am a vegetarian. When I say I've tried and I don't, it is referring to when I was trying to become one. I was talking about how difficult it is to make the change. I don't say "I'm not".
In fact, I find this kind of funny:
Except, then you say:
Wait, what? No, I thought it was ingrained in us not to kill things. But when you have to give up meat, it's ingrained in us to kill things and it's not eating meat that's the struggle?
You're correct and wrong at the same time. It is ingrained in us to kill things. It is also ingrained in us to know that killing things is wrong. That is why it is difficult, but we are capable of making that choice as I've described in my first post.
Well we don't exactly have the whole marketplace thing that many countries have. Yeah, no kidding, that's my point. Because if we did, no one would "choose their animal" to bring home and kill. That's why there are no market places like that, you think it's just coincidence?
Unless you live in farm country or hunt or buy local you're going to be getting your meat from a distributor who works for perhaps another company who buys the meat from a farm because that's just the nature of the industry.
"again, that chain of command is also referred to as the very veil I'm talking about. Seperating the public from the truth as much as possible. How do you do that? Layers. There's no reason why local farmers can't bring their livestock to farmer's markets with their fruits and vegetables, other than it would gross everyone out at the though of having to kill their own animal, and no one would make any money because the truth is horrifying.
That and health codes, restaurants don't keep live animals for a reason.
They have restaurants where they serve you an egg, and inside it is a still barely living baby chicken that you eat. That doesn't violate health codes. But guess what, it grosses people the ☺☺☺☺ out. Soooo...they don't eat it and there's no demand for it.
An obvious exception to this is seafood. I don't think you can argue people have no idea what lobster is when they just boiled one alive and are shelling it.
Of course I can argue. First of all, you tell me how often you see people at the deli ordering live lobsters that they'll have to dismember vs the pressed log of turkey breast that comes in a plastic bag. You know how many conversations go on in kitchens when the wife screams "I can't cut that thing's head in half, it's alive!" Or "I can't drop that thing into boiling water, it's alive and it screams in the pot!" This is the innate instinct to not want to murder things. This one's interesting, because a LOT of people have a problem (even non vegetarians) with picking their lobster from the tank at a restaurant, you may not, but all day long you hear "awww I can't pick one, then they're gonna kill it" That's why very few places have the tank, it deters business. Much easier to point to the word "lobster" on a menu and have zero connection to the actual life.
The difference is in the differences between urban and rural life. People in urban settings are separated from farm life because they don't live on a farm and can go their whole lives having never set foot on one, or even having never met anyone who has. Simple reality of being in a place where there ain't much greenery.
That's true. But all it is is an excuse. It's not like people don't understand an animal is getting killed somewhere so they can eat bacon.
However, I'm pretty positive that it's safe to say that anyone in a rural setting knows where bacon comes from. Moreover, people go hunting, fishing, and work as butchers all the time. None of these people have developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so I think it's natural to say that the act of killing animals and eating them is a perfectly natural thing that involves no trauma whatsoever.
Yes. No trauma for the killer. I'd call getting your head sliced off trauma for the animals, wouldn't you agree? Wasn't making an argument about the trauma the one's doing the killing are experiencing. And it is natural. So is rape. So is masturbating in public. So is walking around nude. So is taking what you want if you're larger than your victim. All of these are natural. Would you agree? Yet we realize it's morally wrong so we choose not to do them. You can't just cherry pick out the one where we murdered billions of living creatures.
I don't need to answer this question, because you already know the answer, and you already know the answer because you eat meat.
I don't eat meat.
Now you can live your entire life hating yourself for not starving yourself to death, or you can live your life without a self-inflicted and exceptionally stupid guilt complex. Either one is fine.
Running out of things to say? Who said anything about starving yourself? I don't think guilt over killing billions of living creatures is stupid.
However, clogging up an internet forum with posts you know full well are hypocritical and dumb aren't going to make matters any better for you, nor endear people to the idea of vegetarianism. Or do you honestly expect to accomplish anything by screaming at people for how horrible they are for not starving themselves when you partake in exactly the same thing?
Not hypocritical, I'm a vegetarian, sorry I took that tool out of your arsenal, you might have to resort to actual logic now. Again, you're the only person who mentioned starving, not sure why you keep saying that.
The very concept of extending morality to animals is somewhat out there in my opinion. Morality at it's very basic level is what we use to hold together human groups in a manner that we can be productive in.
The more insane thing is that many of the same people that defend "animal rights" would commit many acts contrary to the concept without even considering their "morality". Ever set a mouse trap, put out rat poison, called the exterminator, swatted a fly? It's for your health, why not relocate them? Ever killed a spider, or ant colony? Hell lets be a bit more absurd! Building your home has changed the habitat of many animals and likely resulted in the death of many of those animals just so you can be comfortable while its well known that people can live a nomadic life style. Do you oppose pesticides due to them not allowing animals to feed on our crops? do you oppose farm fields as they destroy the natural environment of animals? Do you tell bears no to east salmon because they can also eat roots and berries? Might as well oppose antibiotics as well because they take away the ability of bacteria to do what bacteria do and don't they deserve the same shielding as cows and pigs?
If an Alien society has the means to travel to our planet the first thing I'm going to worry about is not if they are being critical of our eating habits or the way we treat other spices on this planet.
Plants don't have brains. Or a central nervous system.
So? They're alive. You just said that we should not be judging animals different than humans, why suddenly are you saying its ok to do that to plants?
Just because they are more different?
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Without plants, we can't survive. Without meat, we can.
Alternatively, you could also just eat large quantities of bacteria and forgo both.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
Sorry I had to paint this ridiculous point out to you so blatantly.
Well, since your wrong you might want to have researched a bit before making such strong statements about humans dietary needs.
Quote from GuacoJeep »
It is funny though, that after that entire thing you've read, the only response you can muster is "why is it okay to eat plants", seems like you're really scraping here.
Well, you seem to also imply in all of your above statements that humans have more of a right to live than plants. When it comes to us or them you pick us.
Thanks for the AdHominem, shame you weren't capable of commenting on the actual topic.
Pointing out your hypocrisy is not ad hominem. You make sweeping, unsubstantiated, and highly contentious generalizations about humanity, then you criticize Jay13x for making a much more modest one. And when I call you on this double standard, all you do is whip off a sarcastic deflection. Did I strike a nerve, or are you really just that full of yourself?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I haven't read too many posts but it seems like a heated argument. I would like to share that I am a vegetarian but with a few exceptions, so one may call me a omnivore but the label doesn't matter as what I feel is right.
I never buy chicken, pork, or red meat but I do eat fish and seafood. I do have compassion for mammals and birds and I heavily inveigh the despicable treatment of these animals and the nonchalant butchering of them by beasts with no affection and killing fish and seafood is less violent if violent at all as you merely choke them off. I do not hold it on moral grounds but it is aesthetically disgusting and perverse. I am not so much against eating meat as much as the process of it. Hunting in its purest form I have some respect for but I don't find that it is necessary, and idiots who do it for merely sport are to me shallow, lost individuals who want a power trip, need entertainment because of their low capacity and overall losers (I have met many).
As far as the argument about plants, I am not against killing, you have to eat to survive. I do not believe that they have feelings and if they do, then it is a sacrifice we have to make, and its pretty evident that animals are more evolved and DO have feelings and emotions and fish and seafood are killed almost instantly when they are gathered by nets so there isn't much torture. A plants death is not a torturous one as it seems. You are killing many mites, bugs, and organisms when you breath so should you stop breathing, and if you did you would kill yourself invariably killing another living being. This argument should of been dead a long time ago.
I do sometimes eat meat if I go to a family or dinner setting who has prepared some kind of bird. At this point I am trying to show respect to the family and will make my own sacrifice; however, I will refuse pork or red meat as they are more evolved beings and are tougher to digest which comes to my other reason. I think keeping keeping the body pure and less violent and also brighter it is hindered by the digestive system processing these heavy meats. I do not drink milk. I believe in veganism but I do eat cheese and butter which can be argued against as it is taken from the animals that are being butchered and animal prodcuts are found in them. I am working on that and have been cutting butter but not eating cheese is too hard for me, I probably will never give up cheese I might make my own cheese but then I need Milk which defeats the purpose. If we were to all boycott eating beef, then cultivating cheese would not involve the torture for cows but the distress caused by inanimal cattle methods would still probably exist as well.
Take it how you will this isn't really debatable but if you have any inquiries or want wholesome elaborations I would be more than happy to give my viewpoints as I won't make a subject like this into a battle of hypocrisy.
Making the system robust in the face of potential catastrophe, is a problem that governments and industries take on together. Because industry (by itself) is going to be concerned with short term profits, not whether the people in Africa all starve to death in 2026 after a famine.
And my thesis is that "efficiency", especially when population shoots up, and efficiency and (someday) consumption=limitsofworldproduction is a terrible situation, and a temporary one, unless you want starvation to be a primary driver of population control.
The reason I brought up obesity in the US, is just that this is a rather clear demonstration that as a nation, we have more than enough calories available to eat, which is NECESSARY for obesity to even be a problem of this magnitude.
People can scream all they want about how McDonald's, or cheap, fatty (or carb-heavy) foods, are to blame for obesity, but that's just bull☺☺☺☺. One additioanl fat calorie vs One additional protein calorie, will essentially add the same weight to your ass (once you've taken care of basic nutritional needs).
Eating small fries instead of big fries, or not drinking soda is not some Superhuman feat of willpower.
You eat too many calories, you gain weight. You cut back those extra calories, and you don't gain weight. Cut back more, and you lose weight. Yeah, Americans may have cheap, fattier foods available, but that does not mean they have to eat 5000 calories a day of cheap, fattier food. They could eat 2500 calories of that food, and put the extra pennies in the piggy bank.
I watched this special called "I eat 30,000 calories a day" which is apparently what some of these 500-900 pound people eat. In interviews, these people would sit their and gripe about McDonald's and fast food and what-not as the cause, but it's obvious they have to be fat mostly from home-cooking and eating too much of that (Because frankly, these useless ☺☺☺☺s can't possibly afford 30,000 calories of fast food a day, at a cost of $100+/day, when they don't have a damn job).
I reject the notion that people are fat because of the KIND of food they eat. They are fat because of the QUANTITY of food they eat.
People need to take responsibility for what they shove in their damn mouth. Just ridiculous.
I know this is not the point of your statements about economics driving obesity, but I think we really most not let people avoid personal responsibility for their own weight. Weight gain does not occur by magic. You gain weight by putting too many calories into your mouth your digestive system. If you are willing to exercise more, you can eat more and not gain weight. McDonald's (and other sources of cheap, high calorie food) may be guilty of many things, but they are not responsible for the obesity problem.
It's not like you go to a fast food place, buy a $6 large value meal (when you could by a smaller $4 one), stuff a giant burger in your mouth and a superlarge coke, and giant fries and say to yourself... "Gee, that was so tiny and I'm still hungry. I can't believe I'm gaining weight eating this stuff."
You say, "God, I'm stuffed... maybe I'll start exercising Tomorrow"
Maybe you don't, because here's how it works. You have something, say a bacterium. Eventually, one develops a random mutation that helps it survive the cold, and it reproduces. A little later, winter comes and only the ones with the mutation to survive the cold survive. That gene then continues to get carried on. Because this process has been going on for so long, there's been plenty of time for mutations to develop, such has having taste, which helps tell us whats in food. In general, evolution adds on from something else, such as in the example I gave above. It's still bacterium, but it happens to have a gene that changes some small part of it which allows it to survive in the cold. And, since humans first came about in a region typically scarce of vegetation, it would only make sense that a mutation built off of taste in which meat tastes good would develop, especially since after the first tools were made, or harnessed, getting meat would become a little easier.
Things have an impact on genes. It's not that things automatically adapt, but if you have a chemical that keeps getting introduced into a body which wasn't previously introduced, and it interacts with your body, your body has to keep producing more or less of something, or it has to respond in some way to the chemical. What this does is encourages other genes and processes more, and the more times a gene is replicated, the more chances there are for that type of gene to mutate.
1. That's not what you originally argued.
2. Or, alternatively, meat simply just tastes good.
Heck, gorillas are herbivorous, but they will eat bird eggs.
I originally said evolution has something to do with how we have the morals we have, then got sidetracked by someone into describing how we have the specific taste we do. Also, gorillas can't be herbivores if they can digest things that aren't from plants. If I remember correctly, their omnivores.
All foods may weigh the same going into your body, but some of them stay on your body as fat better than others, instead of passing through as waste or even nutrients strengthening other aspects of your system. Excess sugar and saturated fat are not necessarily more filling than foods with less of them, but they will fatten you far faster that other types of calories. Similarly merely reducing the quantity of a sugar/fat-heavy diet may mean you are missing out on other important nutrients; these nutrients might be in low ratio compared to the fat/sugar consumption, but you still need those X nutrients even if forced to eat that much more fat/sugar. Of course instead changing what you eat can remedy that issue.
Another issue is psychological addiction to certain levels and types of excess energy. Sugar is the biggest issue, with the body adjusting to a certain level of sugar and craving it constantly, even when that amount is in excess to result in constantly adding fats. There is a similar problem getting addicted to the rush of energy from complex carbohydrates, which is sudden in the case of simple "white" starches like white sesame buns and potatoes. When that rush wears off there is hunger again, and most people are more likely to eat when feeling that hunger. The same buns as whole wheat bread are more complex and take longer to digest, resulting in a slower and steady release of energy that inmost people results in less feeling of hunger. Leaving aside the additional nutrients in wheat bread, you get the same calories from wheat and white, but the wheat will make you feel less hungry in the long run, and thus the majority of people (not calorie counting or having self control) will eat less and have less weight.
You CAN lose weight just counting calories. But you can also lose it simply changing what you eat instead of counting calories, and you can derive other nutritional benefits beyond weight loss in the process. You can even combine the two approaches if you like.
As long as you stick to salmon and small fish then you should be fine.
Generally the larger the fish is you eat, the more mercury it contains. This is because the larger fish eat the smaller ones and obtain their mercury content.
Sardines & herrings are low mercury. Swordfish and tuna (Albacore in particular) are high in mercury and thus should be avoided.
Simply having people die meaningless deaths over the outcome of a gamble... It's better that way.
That gets closer to the meaningless death that is the essence of gambling.
I'll get closer to it's depths.
That's where the real pleasure in gambling is.
-Akagi Shigeru, The Genius Who Descended Into the Darkness
no. Extra calories don't get dumped as "waste". Unless you're sick, and have diarrhea, or have lactose intolerance or whatever, you will not find many usable calories in human ☺☺☺☺.
Whether you eat carb, protein, or fat, 1 excess calorie of each will find itself eventually turned into ATP, then help build a storage calorie.
one "excess" calorie of any substance will put fat on you at the same rate as one calorie from any other source. Our digestive systems are very efficient (far more so than carnivores) so if you eat the calories, you will have to carry whatever you don't use. "Excess" calories you consume in any form get broken down and then stored, simple as that.
in this country, not a huge issue. Nutrient deficiency is far far down the list for most Americans (except maybe Calcium). Too much fat and cholesterol, and certain fats and too much sodium in hypertensives is way bigger issue.
For a person who is already overweight to manage their diet without being aware of calories is like saying the best approach for a person in debt to manage their finances is to "shop more bargains" but don't balance your checkbook or keep a budget. It's ludicrous.
Yes, you can change the types of things you eat in hopes that your own internal satiety meter combined with "healthier" food will result in healthy weight loss, but that is a profoundly flawed approach usually doomed to failure, given an overweight person's internal satiety meter is already a proven failure.
One of the reasons that so many people fail their diets or gain weight back after losing, is because they refuse to acknowledge the bottom line truth of why they got fat in the first place: more calories in than burned.
you have to limit your intake to less than what you burn.
I am totally in favor of eating "healthier" food.
But it's vague and unscientific to not count the calories (in one way or another, you can count "portions", calories, equivalents, exchanges, whatever).
It's not hard to get all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, etc. that you need in most diets. Actually, after the number 1 nutritional problem in the USA (obesity, i.e. Too many calories), the number 2 problem is NOT nutritional deficiencies, it is EXCESS (excess cholesterol, excess fat, excess sodium).
Your heart is in the right place, but in your wishful thinking, you seem to want to remove accountability from the equation. Fat is about 9 calories/gram, protein and carbs are about 4.5, give or take. Eat slower (to trigger satiety), try to eat lower calorie/gram foods, even go on a gimmick diet (becaus it may help the you eat less), but still ultimately, less calories have to go in, or more have to get burned. Counting the calories is simply like balancing a checkbook ( though many people prefer to take their entire diet like it was a series of impulse purchases, without regard to budget or price).
You seem quite knowledgeable, so don't take it to mean that I doubt you when I say this, I am just curious and want to learn: What are your sources?
However the bottom line is for any given weight gain or stability you want, the total calories is completely interchangeable. If their weight is stable on 1500 calories a day of fatty formula, their weight will be stable on 1500 calories a day of less fatty formula (People's anecdotal reports and misconceptions about "fatty food makes me fat" are meaningless to me when they are never accurately counting the amounts and calories they're actually consuming). I have nurses measuring and putting food in a tube, and have dieticians counting calories accurately. I work with hospital dieticians on a weekly basis and they all say the same thing. For weight purposes, calories are calories (but from a psychologic standpoint, sensation of satiety, and perception of portion sizes is very relevant to real world intake of those calories, and perceived intake are generally distorted and delusionally self-serving).
So if a person is gaining weight, they're eating TOO MUCH or NOT EXERCISING ENOUGH, regardless of whether they deny it or blame McDonald's.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Let me know which specific information that you wish to find a source for, and I'll try to track down a source for you.
The reasons for obesity are complex from a pschological & behavioral standpoint, thus leading to a multitude of different frameworks for weight loss, meant to modify intake and exercise by creating a "mental framework" that lends itself to less intake (yes, strictly following a weight watcher's diet will lead to the same weight loss as South beach, if you take in the same number of calories... but it might be much harder for some to stick to weight watchers). South beach gives you the illusion of not being restricted on some levels, which works better for some people actually sticking to it.
The reasons for obesity are complex from a pschological & behavioral standpoint, BUT they're simple from a calories standpoint. From a calories standpoint, you gain weight when you consume more calories than you burn. It can be fat calories and it can be carb calories, and it can be protein calories.
There are minimum requirements of protein and minimum requirements of some fats to not get sick, but beyond that, the mix of calorie sources is not very relevant to weight gain or loss.
Look at the Chart of illnesses, under 'Deficiencies' column and it's the most revealing of what is necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition
This is basic nutrition 101:
(1) Your CALORIE sources are fats, carbs and proteins. Note that there is no disease caused by deficiency or absence of carbs. But there are small minimum requirements for protein and some types of fat.
(2) NON-CALORIE "nutrients" include Vitamins & minerals, and are essential for normal functioning of the body.
Vitamins & minerals:
Minerals: Mineral deficiencies and excesses are unlikely in most reasonable American diets (except for Calcium, which can often be very lacking in vegetarian diets, and even mixed diets)
Vitamins and Calcium supplements are cheap and easily found in the US if you restrict your diet in other ways. Currently big controversy on whether we're all vitamin D deficient, and whether that leads to health problems. Lots of docs pushing mega-doses of Vitamin D.
Vitamins A, D, E and K can be dangerous in excessive quantities because they're fat soluble. The other vitamins are water soluble, and mostly safe in quantities a reasonable person would physically tolerate, because you pee the excess out and dangerous quantities will make you... uncomfortable.
And just ftr, (A) there are risks for nutrition problems (mostly deficiencies) with vegetarian diets.. but (B) there are risks of other nutritional problems (mostly health risks born of excess) with heavy meat diets.
I put forth for you the following example. If this alien civilization were to come, and our goal, to hide all of our misgivings and vulgar misdeeds, to represent the perfect, model world and society. I press upon you, as a people in the presence of a superior race, we would with much haste, urgently cease, cloak, and hide the act we perform daily; taking millions of innocent lives, more primitive than our own, as the superior race, betraying their choiceless trust in us, and lead them helplessly to slaughter in order to fulfill our basest opulence of taste. We would hide this shamefully like a child who was just caught ripping the head off a doll. It is my belief, we would have no intelligible recourse should they choose to enact the same tactic on us. It would be pure hypocrisy, as any being advanced enough to arrive at our solar system, is far more advanced on an evolutionary scale than we are from whom we slaughter. We would hide these killings because we know, it is ingrained in our being that to kill another is wrong. It is why, if the majority of people were forced to kill their own animal in order to eat meat, there would be far fewer people eating meat. It is why early native american hunters were deemed brave. They were. It is an ardent task to overcome the emotional and spiritual law that feeds us the empathetic pain of killing a living creature. However, in their time, it was near mandated through necessity. A kill provided then for them, a week or more's worth of sustenance. These are animals they lived with, interacted with, coexisted, sharing the same plains and days. It was survival, and as such, with each kill the native americans blessed the beast prior to it's kill. Glorified the animal during the feast. And praised the soul afterwards. Never forgetting for a moment, the pure raw sacrifice the animal unwillingly gave for the well being of the greater species. Parents would force the children to watch the hunt, so they too could appreciate what was given so that they could take. Within a blink, this has been sanitized to a slab of pink innocuous wet tissue, wrapped in styrofoam and plastic, and slapped with a frilly Sara Lee foods sticker. I have never been an activist, merely an astute, and perceptive observer. And here I observe an incredulous act of the killing of cognitive beings carried out by the millions, literally every, single, day. I will get to why we allow this later.
We laud and pat our backs by the moment as to how far we've evolved as a species. Quick to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the world's species, for we have built buildings, we have procured the sciences, we have risen temples, and we have in no uncertain terms been the first known species to literally change our earth. Why are brutal beatings condemned in the courts and punishable by imprisonment? Because, with our evolution, we have shunned our primeval ways. We have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. Why is a man imprisoned for taking carnal pleasure from a woman without her consent? Because, with our evolution, we have shunned our primeval ways. We have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. Why is a man imprisoned for the theft of another man's home or property? Because, with our evolution, we have shunned our primeval ways. We have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. So then why, I ask you, when asked of the majority of men and women on this planet, why do we let the innocent lives or millions of majestic, cognizant, sentient beings be forcefully brought to slaughter every single moment of every single day by our own hands, the predicated response is always "It's human nature. It is our instinct." And just like that, with the utterance of a flippant sentence, the masses of the world conveniently force themselves to forget, that we have recognized our distinct and unique ability to make noble choices against our instinctive and intrinsic desires. We have that insight. We are the only species on this planet who has the clear and unwavering choice as to whether or not they kill an animal in order to survive.
We have also placed ourselves in a position, where we can not only survive, but thrive healthily and even gluttonously if we choose, without killing an animal. We have buildings, built, devoted and dedicated to placing any food your mind can imagine, on a plate in front of you. Legions devoting their lives supplying us with delicacies that wouldn't harm a treefly in the making. Billions spent formulating in perfect proportion, ingredients to even mimic the desired taste of meat so as to provide the nicorette patch for those who simply can't handle the withdrawal. And to this we brutishly, and with pompous indignance respond, "that doesn't taste exaaactly like meat, and because of this slight deviation, we are so proud, and so noble, and so selfish and so spoiled, that we choose instead to have you murder a few million sentient beings, because this bacon doesn't taste exaaaactly like the bacon that comes from having a pig's head cut off involuntarily. It doesn't quite have the twang of death I'm accustomed to." So says every diet pepsi drinker during their first week of conversion from regular to diet. So says every smoker during their first week transitioning from regulars to lights. The only time we are willing to make these small and ultimately simple transitions, is when it is in the benefit for our own health. Let's recognize the selfishness here in the knowledge that this transition is not only in the benefit for another's health, but to avoid another's murder. Avoid a revolving genocide. The one and only shining moment of a genocide is that it will eventually end. However, we have created this carousel, where we are continuously slaughtering populations greater than the entire world's human population combined, yet we do not let it end, and instead force breed the flourishment of millions of lives for the sole purpose and goal of slaughtering them all again. How else can you define the word 'evil'?
Some might say we were blessed, others, bestowed with this distinct ability to choose. However, it is irrevocably, and futilely shamed and wasted, if we only selectively use this moral clairvoyance. The most difficult moral shifts and decisions, should and have always been, our proudest. This may well be our pinnacle shift as a species. The rite to deny ourselves base pleasures at the expensive of another creature's life. I believe the day we allow ourselves to recognize this, and enact forcefully the means to shift it, we will truly be a great species. The law is the strength of our society which has the nobility to stand where others lay. The law is the footing that states, we are above this brutal, primitive mentality, and there will be consequences for those who bade otherwise and are too weak of mind to realize their archaic ways are humanely unjust. There is a reason that a rape, a murder, a theft is seen only at a relative modicum. It is because there is a consequence. A consequence enforced by law. However, even this celestial law, representing our utmost nobility, has found it's achilles. This law is now also too weak of mind to overcome this most instinctive and primitive desire ingrained into our genetics, which is to kill and eat meat. If our nobility falls to the narcotic impulse to slaughter millions for our own gratification, how are we supposed to then put up an effrontery when we too share the same desire. We are teetering on nobility. And our law is on our side of the fulcrum with no one to balance out the other, we sink, overloaded, to the mud.
Do we need a Lincoln? Do we need a renaissance of morality in the form of an official governance? For let's face it, even if a vegetarian were in the oval office, if he tried to employ his insight to the masses, he would with no such irony, be eaten alive. Certainly thievery would be insurmountable would there be no law to enforce otherwise. How quickly would we entertain and convince ourselves that not too great a harm was caused by us merely taking the belongings of others. If it was never taught or enforced to me, I may genuinely see no harm in taking what I please from wherever I please, save for fending off the offended party. Until the first time I stole something as a young boy, and my mother scolded me, I had no idea I had wronged at all. If we are taught at a young age that killing any living thing is wrong, the world changes in a generation. It is a sentence. A thought. But it hits so pure and close to our logic, to our intrinsic desire to be good, to not kill, that in our young, impressionable minds, this would only enforce what we perceive to be a human truth. It is why we cry when our dogs die. It is why we guffaw when we hear tale of people eating cats, horses, monkeys, whales, dolphin, or any other animal not eaten in our localized united states. Perhaps less polarizing, but with shared effect, lamb or rabbit. Or as those who don't eat them call it, "little baby lamb" and "bunny rabbit", I'll take the braised veal instead, because I'm not quite sure what it is. If it is taught at a young age, a people can change with urgency. Ask the billion people in India about the best hamburger they every had.
We have been given a gift of lucidity, clarity, and empathy through divinity or otherwise, and it is our responsibility to act with this gift in accordance. We pride ourselves on our clout, our evolution, and our grandiose stature in the animal kingdom. I will take us through, and disseminate, and dispel the logic we have procured to futilely, and blindly defend our decisions every single day, with the sole purpose of misdirecting ourselves from the blatant and obvious truth of our everpresent ruthless and brutal decision that we desperately want to hide and pretend never existed. The clinical mind state of an addict. Let us start with the utmost egregious and ignorant comments heard most frequently, and work our way from there. "It doesn't think. It's stupid. It doesn't even know its alive. Therefore, we have garnered the right to murder it, and eat it." Mind you, I'm not using the term murder here for effect, simply for accuracy by definition. Let us break this one down. Let us begin with the most assaulting of them all. "It doesn't even know its alive". There is something engineered into every single living organism on this planet from a bacteria to a blue whale, which is the will and desire to survive. It is why all living prey run from predators. It is why scores of species migrate halfway across the entire world avoiding deadly winters. It is why quite frankly any given species is on this planet today; because they survived. Sure, there are differentiations as to how self aware any given species is, but there is a reason they are all born to this earth with the desire to stay on it, and this, is the definition of "knowing you are alive". If you don’t know, what would be the point of avoiding death at all costs? The only time someone would challenge this, or denigrate a species' god given rite to witness the miracle of the world, is when they want lunch. A person who goes about mitigating another creature's perception of life, simply to clear their conscience about murdering them, is an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺. It is equivalent to the logic abusive husbands use when beating their wives. I will berate you, so that my physical abuse is then validated.
Now, we move on to intelligence. "It is stupid. Therefore, we are granted the right to murder it." The irony. Let us start with the largest and grandest. The whale. Classified as a majestic, untouchable creature to most americans. Japanese eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner as simply as a hot pocket. Result- We are better than the Japanese. They are stupid. They are barbarians. Truth is, they are humans, so please don't go running so quick to disassociate. Next we'll move on to dolphins. We exclaim, "intellect! Lack of Intellect is what allows us to kill!" An overwhelming amount of the scientific community believe dolphins are smarter than human beings. Japanese eat them as an amuse bousche to their whale steak. Again with the Japanese. These cruel monsters. These strange aliens whose moral compass is obliterated. Don't disassociate now, it's just getting fun, they're human beings, we'll get to you soon enough. At what point does the intellectual barrier grey enough to where we can pass through the now dissipated pixels, and allow ourselves that rite that we strive for. That access. That permission to murder a creature so we can eat more tastily. Monkeys? Eaten all over the world, every day. Wait, that is not just Japan now, how do we compensate, how do we explain? A large portion of the world is doing something we so clearly see as wrong, surely we can still disassociate. There's still hope. Perhaps the united states is the only country of reason, perhaps we are the stronghold of morality. Elephants, Kangaroos, only mad men would eat these majestic creatures, we are not part of that domain. We are separate. A dog? No, you have crossed the line, no human could eat our most precious, intelligent companion. His cognition is unparalled, his sentience unmatched. This is a mad world, who would eat such things?! Then we enter the pig. And we have silenced. It is agreed upon throughout the scientific community that a pig is simply smarter than a dog. Uh oh... How do we quickly, and instantly remove this information from our minds, what is the quickest exit for this truth from my mind? "IT'S DIRTY!! Phew! The pig's dirty!" That'll do it, I saw a picture of a pig in mud once, so even though they've been shown to be of the most hygienic animals, I'll negate that part from my memory and use my childhood illustration of the archetypal pig in mud, and now I'm with clear enough conscience to murder it for breakfast. Phew! That was ☺☺☺☺ing close. Almost had to give up pig. Anyway, back to those ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ Japanese, what cruelty! The line is blurred now. Do we now hold hands with the estranged Japanese? Moments ago they were our antithetical moral companion who shared nothing more than our DNA. And now we dine together on porpoise and swine. There is no line for us to have crossed. The "line" is merely a fictional tool for our exoneration, lodging with Santa Claus and the omnivorous tooth fairy. This is simply uncircumventable with resounding logic, so this is the one we will most desperately try to ignore. Yet, if all else failed, this should be the only bit of logic needed to cease murdering these creatures. Tiny bits of logic are the fiercest adversaries, yet they are so small, instead of facing them, we can simply step on them.
Let us continue down the path of intelligence. Cows, true they're not so bright, so...what would be the logical response to a creature not being bright? Leave him to pasture, and enjoy with whatever capacity given to him by god the world he is living in for however brief amount of time? Ah yes, no of course, sorry, let's murder it, my mistake. The human reasoning train gains speed, fueled by its depleting fuel of empathy. On to the mighty turkey. Idiot. Dead. Chickens? Really? Have you seen a chicken? Morons. Dead. Fish? A tuna?? Some salmon?? Compared to us, these beings have no intellect, they are proverbially dumb as posts. Though they are able to coexist familially and maintain a sense of community. Though they school, spanning the globe's vast oceans and wonders, experiencing sensations we could never imagine. Their scholastic assessment scores are indeed fairly low compared to our own, so once again, based solely on their diminished intellect, we now allow for their appropriated murders. This is where people are going to get really angry. If we follow these rules agreed upon. If we allow ourselves, unabashedly, the freedom to take another's life because of their diminished intelligence, then I pose you this question. By that theory, should we be allowed to murder a person who is born with a diminished intelligence level to that of a chicken, and he is never to get smarter ? Should anyone be able to walk up to that person, and put a gun to their head? Before you convince yourself that you've found your out, your portion of the discussion where you can yell incredulously "that's ridiculous!! This guy's a loon, now that he's said this one sentence, I can convince myself that nothing else he's said has merit, I've found my conversation scape goat, back to my own reality now." Let your outrage pass for a moment if you're strong minded enough to allow it, and then look at nothing more than the facts. If a person is a vegetable with a clinically proven intelligence level of a chicken, why, then oh why, by your own very standards can we not kill this person? Your brain gets stuck now. You can't quite explain it, but there's nothing scientifically or logically that explains how this differs. So now is when we rant. And now is when we rave. Backed into a corner of hypocrisy. We scrape, and we claw at our own flawed felled logic in an attempt to escape. "A soul! We have a soul!!! That's the difference!!" Again, this thread is devoted purely to scientific and logical findings. Not to say we don't have a soul, but please, I do bid you, show me that scientific paper we're all so familiar with that demonstrates conclusively that we have souls and other creatures do not, or vice versa. I know some don't want to hear harsh assimilations, but all I ask you, is to ask yourself if they are true, and if you can see some truth in them, allow your mind to explore those truths, instead of what it is programmed to do, which is to calmly and quickly block them out as irrational thought before they can penetrate too deep into the psyche. Again, allow your brain to explore the scenario, don't shut it down in a defense mechanism immediately as you'll want to.
I've always been turned off by anti-meat protestors as a youth, because something about them was disengaging. I've soon realized that it is not the act of yelling at people, or shaming people. That is just noise. It is about painting undeniable scenarios that on a human level, can not be denied. It is then and only then, when something is undeniable, that a person comes to a realization on their own, and indeed that is the only way for a change. The good news is, once it is realized, it can not be unrealized. On the chance of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, it is very much blue pill, red pill. We are ensconced by this cape, blanketing a travesty of epic proportions, but much like the matrix, we are blissfully unaware, and unaware together, giving our wrongness strength.
There are almost 7 Billion people on this earth today, an uncountable, inconceivable number, 7 Billion strong. Within the past 100 years, we have slaughtered 50 Billion land animals for food. That's right, that's Fifty Billion with a B. Sentient lives slaughtered. Oh wait. Wait, did I say in the past 100 years? I meant to say in the past 10 years. 50 Billion cognitive beings murdered by us without necessity in the past 10 years, that's 7 times the earth's human population, who are able to see, think, feel, live, slain by our frivolous decision. Oh wait wait wait! Did I say 50 Billion have been killed in the past 10 years??! silly me!! It must be late. I meant to say in the past 1 year. In the past 1 year, 50 Billion land animals were murdered so we could eat a hamburger. Please take in that number. There are maaaany more statistics equally as disturbing, but I think it will dilute this one, so let's just really really focus on this one. Let's help you visualize 1 Billion first, and then you can place cow, sheep, pig or whatever faces you want on them. 1 Billion minutes ago, was around the time of Christ. 1 Billion months ago was 82 million years ago. Now multiply that by 50. These are lives we are talking about, not minutes, creatures who most definitely can feel, see, breathe, experience and live. 50 Billion in ONE year, in ten years that is half a TRILLION animals murdered, for a taste we crave. A taste and a texture is the absolute, and only reason. Half a TRILLION animals are murdered every 10 years for a taste and a texture. We have to malevolence where we just want to go kill animals because it’s fun, that would actually be a more understanding reason. We are killing half a TRILLION animals every ten years because of a taste and a texture. How trivial. How selfish. People are quick to make fun of wine enthusiasts. “Oh yes, I went to Martha’s Vineyard for this wine, this has a note of vanilla and oak, with a nice bouquet”. Such ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s, requiring such delicacies of their wine. “Yeah I had to slice open a cow’s neck and end it’s existence in this universe, because I like to chew mushy, wet things that taste a little bit like blood.” Ah, the elite. Now who’s more pompous. Half a Trillion. Mind you, this is just land animals, when you take the sea into effect, the numbers would be mind boggling. Who has given us this right. Who has given us the allowance to rob this earth of such an ungodly number of god's creations. Certainly it's not god. Be you a religious man or not, the statement holds merit with or without the word god. I hope the rabbit hole is widening for you.
The act of killing an animal to eat it is so rarely talked about, we are almost shunned to speak. "you know that cow was eating grass last week with his sister in a field" "Gross, don't talk about that while I'm eating the afformentioned cow" Those are the brief windows, when we recognize for that sharp split second, the truth. And for that moment it is so disturbing, it literally churns our stomach, but we have honed our skill of ignoring an evil that satiates us for so long, we are devilishly skilled. Unlearn the skill, and you will unleash your truth. We are collectively the One to make change. So you can betrayingly eat your juicy, pink, inch thick steak knowing that "ignorance is bliss", or you can take the red pill and save the ☺☺☺☺ing world.
Now, what kind of guest would I be, if I didn't provide you with some key steps to making a change and taking the ultimate noble shift.
1. Be realistic - Many times, I've tried to simply become a vegetarian, and guess what. I don't. You are fighting something ingrained in you, it will take strength, insight, and a plan. Start by deliberately choosing to not eat meat of any kind for two days a week. Even by doing this simple act, you will have eaten nearly 1/3 less of the animals you would have eaten over your entire life. That's enormous. Could you imagine if the population all ate just 1/3 less of the animals? If this is all you get to, fine! You should be filled with elation. ☺☺☺☺ all the purist vegetarians and vegans. And if any of your friends give you ☺☺☺☺ saying you're not a true vegetarian, it's all or nothing, tell them to ☺☺☺☺ off, misery loves company, if you're doing the right thing, they'll want you to stop so you they feel less bad. You are eating 1/3 less animals than you normally would have, you're a ☺☺☺☺ing saint! If you get very comfortable with this, and decide you feel like adding another day, then by god you add a day. And so on. You do whatever you can do. When you feel you're doing too much, so you start veering, pull back, and do less. keep it manageable. It is better to do less consistently, than more, inconsistently.
2- Treat yourself on those days you don't eat meat. Eat like an ass if you want to, that's your day to order the large pizza, spaghetti, whatever the hell you want. Shove potato chips in your mouth. You're not atoning on those days, you're celebrating. Suck ice cream through a straw for ☺☺☺☺'s sake. Make vegetarian days the least healthy day of the week.
3- Here's the tricky bit and isn't for everyone. I can only tell you when my red pill moment happened, and express to you a desire for you to share in the same experience since it was so clearing for me. I was in a slaughterhouse for a good hour or so. Not when I was young either. This was the most beneficial traumatization I ever had, because I don't believe I would have allowed the reality of it in otherwise. If you are courageous and if you are brave, even if you need to go with a few friends for support, go to a slaughterhouse. And immerse yourself. Don't just walk briskly through and say "I got it, let's get out of here". Allow yourself to stand there, watching the animals on deck for a good ten, twenty minutes. Watch their eyes. And then follow them without veering, through the process. This is a truth. This is something our impulse pulls us away from with all the diligence it has, but if you want to face a truth and see how you will truly respond to it, allow yourself this moment. Don't let them give you the sanitized tour, ask to see the up close and personal of every stage, because they will surely not suggest that on their on. I've seen the videos of slaughterhouses, cruel, horrible things as I'm sure you have, but it did not affect me or my decisions past that day. I've heard stories, gruesome stories as I'm sure you have, but it did not affect me or my decisions past that hour. I've been there, standing there in person, and it affected my decision for my life. Don't fall prey to the excuses your mind is currently generating as to why you shouldn't go see. Nothing I can write here will describe it, it will change your chemistry. Schedule a date right now as you are reading this or you will never schedule a date again. So, here is your litmus test, face it bravely.
Guaco
-If there are other websites you believe would benefit from this, please feel free to post a link to this thread.
In the same way that I don't care about someone I never knew being killed, I care even less about a non-human animal being killed. I care even less than that when the animal turns out to be incredibly delicious.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Then there's always the way in which these animals are caught en masse, and how overfishing affects specific areas of the world such as Africa where fishing villages can no longer sustain themselves in the traditional manner extending from the illegal overfishing. The illegal fish are also mixed in with legal fish, so enforcement makes it even more difficult to "not eat illegal fish."
So even with "being fine," you're still being inhumane to other humans by consuming that very fish, and yet humans need meat by which to survive. Moral eating is a real kick in the pants, and I haven't even gotten into the abuses with farming vegetables.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
We are indeed hiding the slaughter of animals. Why do you think slaughterhouses have such high walls. Why do you think media access is not allowed? Because they're making pillows?
And please don't use the term "we". Use the term "you", don't try and lump others into your irrational thinking so you feel more secure about it. If others, even meat eaters, share your complete lack of empathy, than you are simply the minority. Some even start groups for these biggotted minorities, kkk. If humor is the only response you can rouse (incredibly delicious), that simply makes you an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺, which you are entitled to be. But please don't fool yourself into thinking you should be proud of that trait.
Best,
Guaco
Media access is allowed. There are video recordings of animals getting slaughtered all over the place.
No, seriously, animals get slaughtered all the time. The public doesn't go out of their way to watch because:
1. This happens all the time
2. We're all aware it happens all the time
3. We don't care
My personal favorite example are the open markets in Asia. Go to any Chinese stall where there are animals in cages/tanks and ask for "that one". They'll carve it up right in front of you.
We're fully aware where meat comes from. We don't hide away from it, we just don't care.
Exactly how is it irrational? "Body wants meat, go eat meat". That's about as simplistic as it can get.
No, because the majority of people aren't vegetarian, and don't care about not being so.
Really now? You're going to compare the KKK's actions to an omnivore eating the way an omnivore evolved to eat?
What, because I'm aware that meat is the flesh of animals? Because I voluntarily engage in carnivorous activities? Because I enjoy doing so? How does that make me wrong?
You even said you're not a vegetarian. Why are you patronizing people who eat meat?
Your argument is based mainly on invoking empathy and using appeal to emotion, to say nothing of your overuse of Loaded language.
Prey animals evolved to walk around, eat veggies, crap & pee, give birth to other prey animals, occasionally run like hell from predators, then eventually to be killed by a predator before you overpopulate & overgraze all the veggies and starve your species.
For cows that are raised free range, which part are they deprived of?
If they're not eaten eventually by somebody in a human dominated biosphere, what place for their species is there in our biosphere? One way to look at the cow species is that they have adapted and evolved (with our help) to co-exist with us in a symbiotic manner, in a world that has no space left for any creature that can't survive in the nook and crannies of our habitat.
I suppose you're resorting to flat out lying now. Where did I say I wasn't a vegetarian?
all questions answered above in bold.
You assume death is inherently immoral. You also make the statement that we shouldn't treat some living things as lower then us. However then you push for the consumption of an entirely defenseless group of species, plants. So why do you feel this is suddenly okay? Is it because they don't have brains and so supposedly can't feel pain or think? This argument has just as much merit as someone who argues that we shouldn't kill any species who can understand their own mortality. Essentially your line of demarcation is completely arbitrary and based upon your own personal belief instead of concrete facts.
You would make a far more persuasive argument if you approached it from a sustainability point of view. All energy comes from the sun so the lower we eat on the food chain, the better our use of limited resources and land.
Right there.
You're not even a vegetarian, so what the crap are you getting on a soap box for? You eat meat just like the rest of us. The difference is some of us don't want to sit in the fetal position feeling guilty that we're human beings and taking part in being omnivores.
In fact, I find this kind of funny:
Except, then you say:
Wait, what? No, I thought it was ingrained in us not to kill things. But when you have to give up meat, it's ingrained in us to kill things and it's not eating meat that's the struggle?
Well we don't exactly have the whole marketplace thing that many countries have. Unless you live in farm country or hunt or buy local you're going to be getting your meat from a distributor who works for perhaps another company who buys the meat from a farm because that's just the nature of the industry. That and health codes, restaurants don't keep live animals for a reason.
An obvious exception to this is seafood. I don't think you can argue people have no idea what lobster is when they just boiled one alive and are shelling it.
The difference is in the differences between urban and rural life. People in urban settings are separated from farm life because they don't live on a farm and can go their whole lives having never set foot on one, or even having never met anyone who has. Simple reality of being in a place where there ain't much greenery.
However, I'm pretty positive that it's safe to say that anyone in a rural setting knows where bacon comes from. Moreover, people go hunting, fishing, and work as butchers all the time. None of these people have developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so I think it's natural to say that the act of killing animals and eating them is a perfectly natural thing that involves no trauma whatsoever.
I don't need to answer this question, because you already know the answer, and you already know the answer because you eat meat.
Now you can live your entire life hating yourself for not starving yourself to death, or you can live your life without a self-inflicted and exceptionally stupid guilt complex. Either one is fine.
However, clogging up an internet forum with posts you know full well are hypocritical and dumb aren't going to make matters any better for you, nor endear people to the idea of vegetarianism. Or do you honestly expect to accomplish anything by screaming at people for how horrible they are for not starving themselves when you partake in exactly the same thing?
Take your own damn advice:
I'd highlight more, but all the malapropisms and purple prose make it just too painful to continue. What you think is English, isn't.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Oh boy. See bold above for responses.
Merged triple post.
Thanks for the AdHominem, shame you weren't capable of commenting on the actual topic.
Merged triple post.
Not hypocritical, I'm a vegetarian, sorry I took that tool out of your arsenal, you might have to resort to actual logic now. Again, you're the only person who mentioned starving, not sure why you keep saying that.
The more insane thing is that many of the same people that defend "animal rights" would commit many acts contrary to the concept without even considering their "morality". Ever set a mouse trap, put out rat poison, called the exterminator, swatted a fly? It's for your health, why not relocate them? Ever killed a spider, or ant colony? Hell lets be a bit more absurd! Building your home has changed the habitat of many animals and likely resulted in the death of many of those animals just so you can be comfortable while its well known that people can live a nomadic life style. Do you oppose pesticides due to them not allowing animals to feed on our crops? do you oppose farm fields as they destroy the natural environment of animals? Do you tell bears no to east salmon because they can also eat roots and berries? Might as well oppose antibiotics as well because they take away the ability of bacteria to do what bacteria do and don't they deserve the same shielding as cows and pigs?
If an Alien society has the means to travel to our planet the first thing I'm going to worry about is not if they are being critical of our eating habits or the way we treat other spices on this planet.
Just because they are more different?
We can only survive without meat by eating plants. You could survive without plants by eating meat. Inuit Eskimos do it.
http://www.diabetes911.net/readit/chapter9.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish
Alternatively, you could also just eat large quantities of bacteria and forgo both.
Well, since your wrong you might want to have researched a bit before making such strong statements about humans dietary needs.
Well, you seem to also imply in all of your above statements that humans have more of a right to live than plants. When it comes to us or them you pick us.
Why?
Pointing out your hypocrisy is not ad hominem. You make sweeping, unsubstantiated, and highly contentious generalizations about humanity, then you criticize Jay13x for making a much more modest one. And when I call you on this double standard, all you do is whip off a sarcastic deflection. Did I strike a nerve, or are you really just that full of yourself?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I never buy chicken, pork, or red meat but I do eat fish and seafood. I do have compassion for mammals and birds and I heavily inveigh the despicable treatment of these animals and the nonchalant butchering of them by beasts with no affection and killing fish and seafood is less violent if violent at all as you merely choke them off. I do not hold it on moral grounds but it is aesthetically disgusting and perverse. I am not so much against eating meat as much as the process of it. Hunting in its purest form I have some respect for but I don't find that it is necessary, and idiots who do it for merely sport are to me shallow, lost individuals who want a power trip, need entertainment because of their low capacity and overall losers (I have met many).
As far as the argument about plants, I am not against killing, you have to eat to survive. I do not believe that they have feelings and if they do, then it is a sacrifice we have to make, and its pretty evident that animals are more evolved and DO have feelings and emotions and fish and seafood are killed almost instantly when they are gathered by nets so there isn't much torture. A plants death is not a torturous one as it seems. You are killing many mites, bugs, and organisms when you breath so should you stop breathing, and if you did you would kill yourself invariably killing another living being. This argument should of been dead a long time ago.
I do sometimes eat meat if I go to a family or dinner setting who has prepared some kind of bird. At this point I am trying to show respect to the family and will make my own sacrifice; however, I will refuse pork or red meat as they are more evolved beings and are tougher to digest which comes to my other reason. I think keeping keeping the body pure and less violent and also brighter it is hindered by the digestive system processing these heavy meats. I do not drink milk. I believe in veganism but I do eat cheese and butter which can be argued against as it is taken from the animals that are being butchered and animal prodcuts are found in them. I am working on that and have been cutting butter but not eating cheese is too hard for me, I probably will never give up cheese I might make my own cheese but then I need Milk which defeats the purpose. If we were to all boycott eating beef, then cultivating cheese would not involve the torture for cows but the distress caused by inanimal cattle methods would still probably exist as well.
Take it how you will this isn't really debatable but if you have any inquiries or want wholesome elaborations I would be more than happy to give my viewpoints as I won't make a subject like this into a battle of hypocrisy.