# Mother bear kills cub and then itself



## DrakkarTyrannis

Mother bear kills cub and then itself

The Chinese media has reported on an extraordinary account of a mother bear saving her cub from a life of torture by strangling it and then killing itself. The bears were kept in a farm located in a remote area in the North-West of China. The bears on the farm had their gall bladders milked daily for 'bear bile,' which is used as a remedy in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

It was reported that the bears are kept in tiny cages known as 'crush cages', as the bears have no room to manoeuvre and are literally crushed.
The bile is harvested by making a permanent hole or fistula in the bears' abdomen and gall bladder. As the hole is never closed, the animals are suspect to various infections and diseases including tumours, cancers and death from peritonitis. The bears are fitted with an iron vest, as they often try to kill themselves by hitting their stomach as they are unable to bear the pain.

A person who was on the farm in place of a friend witnessed the procedures and told Reminbao.com that they were inhumane. The witness also claimed that a mother bear broke out its cage when it heard its cub howl in fear before a worker punctured its stomach to milk the bile. The workers ran away in fear when they saw the mother bear rushing to its cub's side. Unable to free the cub from its restraints, the mother hugged the cub and eventually strangled it. It then dropped the cub and ran head-first into a wall, killing itself.

Many TCM practitioners have denounced the use of bear bile in their treatment as there are cheaper herbs and synthetics that can be used in its place.
Bear bile is traditionally used to remove 'heat' from the body as well as treat high fever, liver ailments and sore eyes.


----------



## klutvott

Too bad the bear didn't kill them all while it was at it.


----------



## synrgy

Reading through that made my stomach turn...


----------



## vampiregenocide

Chinese medicine is fucking retarded backwards shit.


----------



## Murmel

Reminds me of my sister who has a hole to her stomach for food at night through a pump. Difference is it doesn't hurt her what so ever and isn't open but closed with some weird ass device, so I guess it's not quite the same 

It really makes you suffer with the animals when you hear shit like this, especially the part about them trying to kill themselves so they have to wear iron vests... fuck man..


----------



## Chickenhawk

I secretly wish that bear would have learned to use tools and Mcgyver'd a fucking Gatling Gun and murdered everybody involved in that operation.

well...maybe not so secretly.


----------



## Marv Attaxx

Stuff like this makes me wanna go there and hurt people. badly.


----------



## matt397

That was a tough read. I fucking hate people. Were a disgusting species.


----------



## emperor_black

I'm holding back tears. Humans can be very cruel.


----------



## heavy7-665

Wtf


----------



## Necris




----------



## Michael T

What's that say about us as a species when even a bear knows what they were doing was wrong.


----------



## simulclass83

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> ...they are unable to bear the pain.


Am I the only one that saw this pun?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Stop blaming humanity. Just because some retards in China are sucking bear bile from a bear's abdomen doesn't mean the rest of us are monsters. 

In any case, this is sad.


----------



## Razzy

simulclass83 said:


> Am I the only one that saw this pun?



I wanted to say something, but I figured I'd get flamed for it because of how sad this story is.

Good luck. 



Also Adam. +1


----------



## AySay

The people in China who still believe in this bullshit seriously need to get with the fucking times. It's disgusting. Their unreasonable demands lead to poaching of so many beautiful, and endangered animals. Tigers, Elephants, Bears, Rhinos...

The worst fucking part is that these "remedies" are so often used for "sexual help". Fucking pathetic...and mildly funny because of a certain stereotype...

We have enough tried and tested medicine as it is.


----------



## Dvaienat

Disgusting case of animal cruelty, no wonder the bears kill themselves. The workers should kill themselves too. A disgrace to the human species, since not all of us are like that.

Am I the only one who thinks there should be international law (which all countries would have to abide to) regarding the treatment of animals? There is already an international human rights law I believe.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> Stop blaming humanity. Just because some retards in China are sucking bear bile from a bear's abdomen doesn't mean the rest of us are monsters.
> 
> In any case, this is sad.



Let's face it, humans are tearing this whole planet apart and killing each other in the name of money/power/religion. We have a lot of potential to do good things, but we're way off reaching that. There are good people out there, but there are also a lot more bad people and they tend to get their way because they're willing to d bad things for it.



NatG said:


> Disgusting case of animal cruelty, no wonder the bears kill themselves. The workers should kill themselves too. A disgrace to the human species, since not all of us are like that.
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks there should be international law (which all countries would have to abide to) regarding the treatment of animals? There is already an international human rights law I believe.



I agree. I particularly think we need more laws governing international fishing and ocean harvesting. Problem is, you need to get a lot of countries to bad together to put this through, and then force those laws onto other countries who may not want them. That would cause a lot of political friction in a world already very divided.


----------



## Dvaienat

vampiregenocide said:


> I agree. I particularly think we need more laws governing international fishing and ocean harvesting. Problem is, you need to get a lot of countries to bad together to put this through, and then force those laws onto other countries who may not want them. That would cause a lot of political friction in a world already very divided.


 
True, it is something which would be beneficial. I should imagine most western countries would be behind it, though countries in the east would most likely be resistant, which could lead to war or weaken relations between countries.


----------



## Zorkuus

NatG said:


> Am I the only one who thinks there should be international law (which all countries would have to abide to) regarding the treatment of animals? There is already an international human rights law I believe.


What good would that do? There are plenty of countries who haven't even signed the universal declaration of human rights. Why would someone like that sign a declaration of animal rights? Not much of a solution if they can just choose to not agree with it and continue business as usual.

The article reminded me of that M. Night Shyamalan film where nature turned on man. Imagine if animals evolved just enough that they would revolt against humans en masse.


----------



## nostealbucket

Wait.... so in "Ancient China Time" they found a bear, killed it... and then decided to consume the bile.... 

What the fuck moment....

Bears are fucking awesome. I'm surprised they haven't taken over china.... but they will... oh, they will....


----------



## Guitarman700

China really needs to progress socially as well as industrially. Seems like a lot of the people in that region have some batshit ideas.


----------



## vampiregenocide

NatG said:


> True, it is something which would be beneficial. I should imagine most western countries would be behind it, though countries in the east would most likely be resistant, which could lead to war or weaken relations between countries.



Yeah, exactly. I do think we need more international laws involving ecological issues, and also internet. I believe those are two international matters that we need to deal with as a race, not as countries. I think it would bring us together to be honest, if we all shared and agreed on certain laws. It would show we can work together for a good cause, not just trade.




Zorkuus said:


> What good would that do? There are plenty of countries who haven't even signed the universal declaration of human rights. Why would someone like that sign a declaration of animal rights? Not much of a solution if they can just choose to not agree with it and continue business as usual.
> 
> The article reminded me of that M. Night Shyamalan film where nature turned on man. Imagine if animals evolved just enough that they would revolt against humans en masse.



Yes, it would be very hard to implement and regulate, but I think it is worth striving for. Eventually we'll be forced to do it anyway because we'll be on the verge of having wars over resources.


----------



## Dvaienat

Zorkuus said:


> What good would that do? There are plenty of countries who haven't even signed the universal declaration of human rights. Why would someone like that sign a declaration of animal rights? Not much of a solution if they can just choose to not agree with it and continue business as usual.


 
They wouldn't. But it is something to aim for. We are advancing in issues such as human and animal rights all the time.

I suppose if they did not agree, then it would be time for interventionism, though that would most certainly cause friction. Which the world has enough of already.


----------



## emperor_black

Adam Of Angels said:


> Stop blaming humanity. Just because some retards in China are sucking bear bile from a bear's abdomen doesn't mean the rest of us are monsters.
> 
> In any case, this is sad.



Bro, not a personal attack, but knowingly or unknowingly, we are all responsible for whatever happens to beings who cannot fight for themselves.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> Let's face it, humans are tearing this whole planet apart and killing each other in the name of money/power/religion. We have a lot of potential to do good things, but we're way off reaching that. There are good people out there, but there are also a lot more bad people and they tend to get their way because they're willing to d bad things for it.



There's definitely not "a lot more bad" people than good. You just buy into the fear you're fed, and therefore you notice the bad far more than the good. You'll see what you're looking for - the world's pretty big.


----------



## highlordmugfug

I can't help but wonder how many people that realize what they're doing to those bears is atrocious, don't think twice about eating factory farm produced meat/eggs/dairy.

Feel free to flame me.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

emperor_black said:


> Bro, not a personal attack, but knowingly or unknowingly, we are all responsible for whatever happens to beings who cannot fight for themselves.




A dude in China guts a bear in the privacy of his own establishment, and we're all responsible? I understand what you're implying, but this just isn't true. In fact, it's absurd. We all have our own will and our own actions. I'm sure the majority of us here would do something about these assholes if given the opportunity.. However, being that we don't have the opportunity, we probably won't be able to do anything about it, let alone be responsible for it.


----------



## rjnix_0329

Chickenhawk said:


> I secretly wish that bear would have learned to use tools and Mcgyver'd a fucking Gatling Gun and murdered everybody involved in that operation.
> 
> well...maybe not so secretly.



I secretly wish the bear would've done all of this, but only wounded the fuckers with a bullet hole in the gut, placed them all in 3x3 cages, and collected bile from their wounds for the next 50 years. 

...well, maybe not so secretly. 

Damn humanity. No matter what religion or philosophy or lack of either that you believe in, we have a responsibility to stop this shit.


----------



## FretWizard88

China...

Producing shitty guitars, and making animals kill themselves.

















Seriously though....fuck them...this makes me sick.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

In these situations it's easy to say that the Chinese are cruel but you have to take into consideration the cultural differences. Whereas I do believe the animals suffered for no reason, it's because I grew up in an environment which taught that. These people aren't "evil", but it's just in their culture. Their medicine is a part of their culture and history and even though it violates modern-world ethics, that doesn't make it right or wrong. 

I often try to take myself out of the modern/western way of thinking whenever I read articles such as this. It's hard and it doesn't sit right with me to justify what they do but I have to take into consideration that these people don't have the same mindset. Doesn't make me better or whatever, just different.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> There's definitely not "a lot more bad" people than good. You just buy into the fear you're fed, and therefore you notice the bad far more than the good. You'll see what you're looking for - the world's pretty big.



I don't buy into anything, I formulate my own educated opinions based on what I see. I notice the bad more than the good because bad people tend to be more successful in achieving what they want. They are willing to do more to get it. That's why the world economy is in a state, that's why we have wars, that's why millions of people suffer in poverty. There may not be more bad people than good, but bad people are in control.



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> In these situations it's easy to say that the Chinese are cruel but you have to take into consideration the cultural differences. Whereas I do believe the animals suffered for no reason, it's because I grew up in an environment which taught that. These people aren't "evil", but it's just in their culture. Their medicine is a part of their culture and history and even though it violates modern-world ethics, that doesn't make it right or wrong.
> 
> I often try to take myself out of the modern/western way of thinking whenever I read articles such as this. It's hard and it doesn't sit right with me to justify what they do but I have to take into consideration that these people don't have the same mindset. Doesn't make me better or whatever, just different.



I am pretty open to other cultures, but in this instance, fuck culture. Not only do most of their medicines hold no real medical value, it is obtained in an unsustainable and disgusting way. Throughout history we have discarded aspects of our culture that either hold no logical weight or are morally challenging. Simply allowing people to do whatever they want in the name of culture is silly. No animal should suffer because of some stupid human notion that we have to continue with a pointless tradition of useless medicines.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't buy into anything, I formulate my own educated opinions based on what I see. I notice the bad more than the good because bad people tend to be more successful in achieving what they want. They are willing to do more to get it. That's why the world economy is in a state, that's why we have wars, that's why millions of people suffer in poverty. There may not be more bad people than good, but bad people are in control.



This is exactly my point. What you see is what's in the news. It's an industry of fear.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is exactly my point. What you see is what's in the news. It's an industry of fear.



I see plenty of good things in the news too though, and in every day life. It's not like I am not exposed to good things, unfortunately a small charity event that raises a few hundred pounds for Cancer is a drop in the ocean compared to a negative event like 90 people being killed in a bombing attack on some Middle Eastern country.

When bad things happen, they tend to have a bigger effect than good things.


----------



## Sicarius

vampiregenocide said:


> All Rural medicine is fucking retarded backwards shit.


fixed


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

vampiregenocide said:


> I am pretty open to other cultures, but in this instance, fuck culture. Not only do most of their medicines hold no real medical value, it is obtained in an unsustainable and disgusting way. Throughout history we have discarded aspects of our culture that either hold no logical weight or are morally challenging. Simply allowing people to do whatever they want in the name of culture is silly. No animal should suffer because of some stupid human notion that we have to continue with a pointless tradition of useless medicines.



Well if nothing else it's the placebo effect. They think it works and for some it might. Does that make it okay? To us, no. I certainly think it's completely useless and just stupid, not to mention cruel to the animals. However to "tread" on another culture is a dangerous issue because even though we see this custom as needless and stupid (which from our perspective is hard to see any other way), they see it as valid. It would be nice if they eventually saw it as a stupid custom that should be done away with, I'm just saying don't hold your breath waiting for it.


----------



## highlordmugfug

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Well if nothing else it's the placebo effect. They think it works and for some it might. Does that make it okay? To us, no. I certainly think it's completely useless and just stupid, not to mention cruel to the animals. However to "tread" on another culture is a dangerous issue because even though we see this custom as needless and stupid (which from our perspective is hard to see any other way), they see it as valid. It would be nice if they eventually saw it as a stupid custom that should be done away with, I'm just saying don't hold your breath waiting for it.


I don't think that he has an issue with 'Chinese culture', well since I can't speak for him, I'll say that I personally don't have an issue with Chinese culture, but I do take issue with cruel things like what's being done to those bears in question.

If they think that it works, and want to continue doing it, then it'd be best if double blind studies could/would be done to prove if it even actually has an effect (dollars to doughnuts it doesn't), as opposed to blindly continuing to do what is so obviously cruel. That's not even taking into account what we value the necessity of it to be. If something so blatantly cruel is going on, then it makes perfect sense to question if it's really necessary/accomplishing what's going on, all cultural differences aside. All it takes is empathy, would you like be cut into, thrown into a cage, and have your bladder milked for years? No, go figure. You should probably make sure that you actually should be doing it/that you're even accomplishing what the intended goal is.


It is a strange gray-area of sorts, but I don't think that there's anything culturally-insensitive about questioning actions that are so obviously harmful to the the welfare of other living, thinking, feeling beings.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

highlordmugfug said:


> I don't think that he has an issue with 'Chinese culture', well since I can't speak for him, I'll say that I personally don't have an issue with Chinese culture, but I do take issue with cruel things like what's being done to those bears in question.
> 
> If they think that it works, and want to continue doing it, then it'd be best if double blind studies could/would be done to prove if it even actually has an effect (dollars to doughnuts it doesn't), as opposed to blindly continuing to do what is so obviously cruel. That's not even taking into account what we value the necessity of it to be. If something so blatantly cruel is going on, then it makes perfect sense to question if it's really necessary/accomplishing what's going on, all cultural differences aside. All it takes is empathy, would you like be cut into, thrown into a cage, and have your bladder milked for years? No, go figure. You should probably make sure that you actually should be doing it/that you're even accomplishing what the intended goal is.
> 
> 
> It is a strange gray-area of sorts, but I don't think that there's anything culturally-insensitive about questioning actions that are so obviously harmful to the the welfare of other living, thinking, feeling beings.



I certainly agree. You would THINK it'd be a matter of common sense that this custom is just stupid, yet they keep doing it. The issue, partially, is that they actually think the product justifies how it's obtained. Not to just seem argumentative but I honestly wonder if people view the slaughter of animals for food in the same manner as this. Actually I ask because of a previous poster's input.


----------



## highlordmugfug

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I certainly agree. You would THINK it'd be a matter of common sense that this custom is just stupid, yet they keep doing it. The issue, partially, is that they actually think the product justifies how it's obtained. Not to just seem argumentative but I honestly wonder if people view the slaughter of animals for food in the same manner as this. Actually I ask because of a previous poster's input.


The previous poster was me. 

EDIT: And I think self-centerednes has a lot to do with it: if it benefits themselves (or for another food example if it seems to benefit their species/humans) then to hell with everyone else.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> I see plenty of good things in the news too though, and in every day life. It's not like I am not exposed to good things, unfortunately a small charity event that raises a few hundred pounds for Cancer is a drop in the ocean compared to a negative event like 90 people being killed in a bombing attack on some Middle Eastern country.
> 
> When bad things happen, they tend to have a bigger effect than good things.




To clarify, my point is that fear and negativity sells in the news... Positivity, not so much.


----------



## BrianUV777BK

I thought that header was going to be a joke when I first read it. Now I wish it was.


----------



## Bobo

We can look back in time and be disgusted in past cultures...I wonder how we will generally be thought of in the distant future. Ok, sorta tangent, kinda.


----------



## Jakke

Anyone who's ever played Polar Bear Payback? That is how I wanted it to be on that farm...

The chinese however will not stop with their medicine any time soon... I'd say the chinese have a kind of disposition to feel superior to others, anicent China sent out ships to explore all around the word. When they came back with their finds, all of China concluded there was nothing of interest outside of their country, and they closed themself in. The latest sixty years of communist borderlining on rascist propaganda has also done wonders for inflating the chinese self-image.

So, if they believe their medicine to be superior to our western (that is proved to work on a chemical level), are they really gonna stop with it?


----------



## Murmel

nostealbucket said:


> Wait.... so in "Ancient China Time" they found a bear, killed it... and then decided to consume the bile....
> 
> What the fuck moment....
> 
> Bears are fucking awesome. I'm surprised they haven't taken over china.... but they will... oh, they will....



You'd be surprised how many weird ass things people did back in the day.


----------



## daemon barbeque

All of you who eat chicken, eggs and pork products should STFU! You all do it to chickens and pigs on daily basis. 
Crush Cages? Check!
Inhuman Injections, overfeeding, sleep deprivation? Check!

It happens to come interesting and disgusting if somebody in China does it to an uncommon animal we tend to repsect more than pigs and poultry, but we do it in the same way.
We transport animals to the slaughterhouse where %10 die or heavylie hurt themselfs on transport.
Talk about Cruelty!


----------



## Dvaienat

highlordmugfug said:


> I can't help but wonder how many people that realize what they're doing to those bears is atrocious, don't think twice about eating factory farm produced meat/eggs/dairy.
> 
> Feel free to flame me.


 
Exactly. I'm a vegetarian and would like to be vegan, though I have an eating disorder which would prevent that. I always make the effort to buy free range eggs and dairy farmed organic milk. 

Though factory farming is not as bad as what is happening in China, it still is pretty atrocious.



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> In these situations it's easy to say that the Chinese are cruel but you have to take into consideration the cultural differences. Whereas I do believe the animals suffered for no reason, it's because I grew up in an environment which taught that. These people aren't "evil", but it's just in their culture. Their medicine is a part of their culture and history and even though it violates modern-world ethics, that doesn't make it right or wrong.
> 
> I often try to take myself out of the modern/western way of thinking whenever I read articles such as this. It's hard and it doesn't sit right with me to justify what they do but I have to take into consideration that these people don't have the same mindset. Doesn't make me better or whatever, just different.


 
Having a 'different culture' does not justify torturing animals to produce unnecessary medicines. Torturing innocent animals is wrong on all bases and the people behind it are evil. No two ways about it. It is not about the culture, it is about the action.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> To clarify, my point is that fear and negativity sells in the news... Positivity, not so much.



Well I certainly agree with that, though I didn't think that was the point you were trying to make originally.



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Well if nothing else it's the placebo effect. They think it works and for some it might. Does that make it okay? To us, no. I certainly think it's completely useless and just stupid, not to mention cruel to the animals. However to "tread" on another culture is a dangerous issue because even though we see this custom as needless and stupid (which from our perspective is hard to see any other way), they see it as valid. It would be nice if they eventually saw it as a stupid custom that should be done away with, I'm just saying don't hold your breath waiting for it.



I have no problem with culture as a whole, the Chinese culture is beautiful and they have provided us with a myriad of inventions now common in modern times. However, without international pressure, they will continue this selfish industry. And what then? When tigers are extinct in the wild will you still stand up for their culture then? We have to draw a line in the sand, and sometimes it takes people with common sense to force other people to see the light. There is a clear line between right and wrong here, and we need to enforce it. We have stopped bear baiting, whaling and other such activities across the world by international pressure. We still have a long way to go, but if we just let them have at it then they will cause damage and harm the lives of many animals.




daemon barbeque said:


> All of you who eat chicken, eggs and pork products should STFU! You all do it to chickens and pigs on daily basis.
> Crush Cages? Check!
> Inhuman Injections, overfeeding, sleep deprivation? Check!
> 
> It happens to come interesting and disgusting if somebody in China does it to an uncommon animal we tend to repsect more than pigs and poultry, but we do it in the same way.
> We transport animals to the slaughterhouse where %10 die or heavylie hurt themselfs on transport.
> Talk about Cruelty!



I'm sorry dude but that really doesn't hold much weight. Here especially, many farms at least in the UK are under strict animal rights standards so the animals have to be treated well and have good living conditions. I try to stay away from anyone who has a bad record with that sort of thing. And either way, there's the old saying 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I wouldn't accept that sort of cruelty wherever it took place.


----------



## daemon barbeque

vampiregenocide said:


> Well I certainly agree with that, though I didn't think that was the point you were trying to make originally.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with culture as a whole, the Chinese culture is beautiful and they have provided us with a myriad of inventions now common in modern times. However, without international pressure, they will continue this selfish industry. And what then? When tigers are extinct in the wild will you still stand up for their culture then? We have to draw a line in the sand, and sometimes it takes people with common sense to force other people to see the light. There is a clear line between right and wrong here, and we need to enforce it. We have stopped bear baiting, whaling and other such activities across the world by international pressure. We still have a long way to go, but if we just let them have at it then they will cause damage and harm the lives of many animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry dude but that really doesn't hold much weight. Here especially, many farms at least in the UK are under strict animal rights standards so the animals have to be treated well and have good living conditions. I try to stay away from anyone who has a bad record with that sort of thing. And either way, there's the old saying 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I wouldn't accept that sort of cruelty wherever it took place.



You are right about that two wrongs don't make a right, and I am happy to hear that. But I have to say something about livestock farming in the whole Europe. I am a Vet as you might remember, and the "workarounds" for those "high-standarts" is pretty common thing to see. I am confident that you eat somehow somewhere some chicken, or go to restaurants and order something. How many of you ever went to local farms to check how the food is processed? How animals are made "unconcious".
Do you know how the Bulls are castrated? How we brand livestock? There are too many atrocities we accept in the name of convinience. My rant is not about those atrocities, that belongs to another thread. But my rant is about the double standard of humankind, not important where.
Chinese do that, but the Danes and Norwegians kill seals for fun, kill young animals with clubbs to get fur or blubber or whatever else. Whales got shot and tortured to produce lip-stick and other cosmetics. We do it as much or worse as the chinese.There is no excuse for that.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> Well I certainly agree with that, though I didn't think that was the point you were trying to make originally.



What - you thought I was calling you gullable? I guess I am in a way, but to be more specific, I'm saying that you simply believe what you're told (naturally, news tells you what happens in the world). That sounds offensive, but it's irrefutably true. Therefore, you just focus n the negative. Humans are not inherently bad, it's just that we're still minimally evolved and a lot of us are narrow-minded, stupid, ignorant and lack empathy. We're like children, yet.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I know there are a lot of places that don't do things as well as they should do. Only recently footage of animal abuse at a farm I think it was in the UK was passed about. There was a huge uproar and I believe the workers lost their jobs. 

I have spoken to a guy who is trained to slaughter animals, and they have to do it by the book. If they get caught doing something they shouldn't they pay for it. It takes training before they're allowed to kill an animal. In the UK at least (Can't speak for the mainland) there are very strict guidelines as pressure is growing on farmers from animal welfare groups and the general public. There tends to be a very good record here, and anyone who doesn't keep the standards soon feels the heat.

Sure, I've probably eaten animals that have suffered at one point or another, but then we all probably use things every day that have been created out of suffering either human or animal. Animal testing, human slave labour, these things make the world go round. Do you know where all the parts of your computer and electronic goods come from? What about the fuel you use? Or all the other foods you eat? To say that an opinion is invalid just because we use something created by one of these processes is unfair, as most people are guilty of the same thing. And either way, whether I eat chicken or not doesn't negate the fact that what these people are doing is wrong. My opinion is still valid. Just because I eat meat doesn't mean I can't speak up for the rights of animals. 

There are no double standards as far as I'm concerned. Animal cruelty is wrong full stop. I have boycotted companies who have been found to allow animal cruelty until they sorted their act out. It doesn't matter whether it is China, Japan, America or the UK, I will speak against it. Yeah there are probably worse cases than what we're seeing in China, KFC have done some horrific shit, but comparing one bad thing to another and saying 'oh well other people do bad stuff too' doesn't make it any less of a bad thing.




Adam Of Angels said:


> What - you thought I was calling you gullable? I guess I am in a way, but to be more specific, I'm saying that you simply believe what you're told (naturally, news tells you what happens in the world). That sounds offensive, but it's irrefutably true. Therefore, you just focus n the negative. Humans are not inherently bad, it's just that we're still minimally evolved and a lot of us are narrow-minded, stupid, ignorant and lack empathy. We're like children, yet.



Yes that is what I thought and that's why I was 'arguing' with you. The news isn't the be all and end all of information for me. Personal experience applies too. The bias in the new towards negative things is obvious, and when you notice that you can seek out a more general view of things by looking at other news sources. Thus, you get a more rounded view of the way things are.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> Just because I eat meat doesn't mean I can't speak up for the rights of animals.



"Just because I smoke cigarettes doesn't mean I can't speak up about lung disease."

I'm not trying to pick on you, bro, but these are both examples of hypocrisy. Sure, you can speak up, but your efforts don't matter as much. Most of us are guilty here.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> "Just because I smoke cigarettes doesn't mean I can't speak up about lung disease."
> 
> I'm not trying to pick on you, bro, but these are both examples of hypocrisy. Sure, you can speak up, but your efforts don't matter as much. Most of us are guilty here.



I don't think that holds much weight to be honest.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't think that holds much weight to be honest.




That doesn't mean it doesn't. If somebody were actively fighting the cigarette companies, but smoking cigarettes all the while, not many people would give a fuck about what that person had to say. If somebody were seeing a doctor for frequent heart problems, but continually refused to eat right, not many people are going to be sympathetic toward them. If somebody is speaking up about animals rights, but condoning their slaughter, let alone the unethical treatment of them, their opinion doesn't really matter to anybody but their self.


----------



## daemon barbeque

vampiregenocide said:


> but comparing one bad thing to another and saying 'oh well other people do bad stuff too' doesn't make it any less of a bad thing.



It doesn't make it a less of a bad thing, but it clearly shows the double standard. When other cultures do something bad, it is far more " easy" to pick on it. I am against all livestock farming, especially big scale farms.


----------



## Sicarius

daemon barbeque said:


> All of you who eat chicken, eggs and pork products should STFU! You all do it to chickens and pigs on daily basis.
> Crush Cages? Check!
> Inhuman Injections, overfeeding, sleep deprivation? Check!
> 
> It happens to come interesting and disgusting if somebody in China does it to an uncommon animal we tend to repsect more than pigs and poultry, but we do it in the same way.
> We transport animals to the slaughterhouse where %10 die or heavylie hurt themselfs on transport.
> Talk about Cruelty!


Get out of here, PETA.

Instead of throwing eggs and blood on people, why dont you go abroad and try and do "good" in other areas, like China?

Oh yea, because if they even let you in, they'd beat the hell out of you for even starting up that shit.

Go eat a carrot, and calm down.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> That doesn't mean it doesn't. If somebody were actively fighting the cigarette companies, but smoking cigarettes all the while, not many people would give a fuck about what that person had to say. If somebody were seeing a doctor for frequent heart problems, but continually refused to eat right, not many people are going to be sympathetic toward them. If somebody is speaking up about animals rights, but condoning their slaughter, let alone the unethical treatment of them, their opinion doesn't really matter to anybody but their self.



I had a long post written out to respond to this, but honestly I don't see how it would've aided things. You have your opinion and that's fine, I just think it is completely wrong and the whole smoking thing doesn't really fit. But I'll leave it at that.



daemon barbeque said:


> It doesn't make it a less of a bad thing, but it clearly shows the double standard. When other cultures do something bad, it is far more " easy" to pick on it. I am against all livestock farming, especially big scale farms.



Like I said, I'll rage on any example of animal cruelty I see, be in next door or half way across the world. I won't get started on the livestock farming bit haha.


----------



## AxeHappy

Most Vets are know are to smart to be a part of PETA which is a really fucked up organisation. 



Do people really not see a difference between:

A) Slaughter (I find the concept of "Humane" slaughter...interesting) of animals for Food

And

B) Keeping an animal alive in constant pain, with holes in it's body, to harvest parts of them for the placebo effect? 


Really? No difference. That's just fucking ridiculous. Food has a measurable effect. Bear Bile does not. 

Killing an animal for food is just the way the world works. Maybe the way we do it isn't the best (don't get me started on those mass farms in the US...) but there is a clear, easy to see benefit from it. 

There is no reason for what the Chinese are doing to the bear. None. It serves no effect but to torture the bear. 

To equate the two as one and the same is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Get out of here, PETA.
> 
> Instead of throwing eggs and blood on people, why dont you go abroad and try and do "good" in other areas, like China?
> 
> Oh yea, because if they even let you in, they'd beat the hell out of you for even starting up that shit.
> 
> Go eat a carrot, and calm down.


How about you act like an adult and explain how the things he pointed out aren't exactly like what's being done to the bears instead of nonsense personal attacks and stereotypes.


----------



## vampiregenocide

AxeHappy said:


> Most Vets are know are to smart to be a part of PETA which is a really fucked up organisation.
> 
> 
> 
> Do people really not see a difference between:
> 
> A) Slaughter (I find the concept of "Humane" slaughter...interesting) of animals for Food
> 
> And
> 
> B) Keeping an animal alive in constant pain, with holes in it's body, to harvest parts of them for the placebo effect?
> 
> 
> Really? No difference. That's just fucking ridiculous. Food has a measurable effect. Bear Bile does not.
> 
> Killing an animal for food is just the way the world works. Maybe the way we do it isn't the best (don't get me started on those mass farms in the US...) but there is a clear, easy to see benefit from it.
> 
> There is no reason for what the Chinese are doing to the bear. None. It serves no effect but to torture the bear.
> 
> To equate the two as one and the same is fucking ridiculous.




This.


----------



## highlordmugfug

AxeHappy said:


> Most Vets are know are to smart to be a part of PETA which is a really fucked up organisation.
> 
> 
> 
> Do people really not see a difference between:
> 
> A) Slaughter (I find the concept of "Humane" slaughter...interesting) of animals for Food
> 
> And
> 
> B) Keeping an animal alive in constant pain, with holes in it's body, to harvest parts of them for the placebo effect?
> 
> 
> Really? No difference. That's just fucking ridiculous. Food has a measurable effect. Bear Bile does not.
> 
> Killing an animal for food is just the way the world works. Maybe the way we do it isn't the best (don't get me started on those mass farms in the US...) but there is a clear, easy to see benefit from it.
> 
> There is no reason for what the Chinese are doing to the bear. None. It serves no effect but to torture the bear.
> 
> To equate the two as one and the same is fucking ridiculous.


The thing is, are the animals in both situations being harmed (and in some cases tortured absolutely horribly): yes.

Is it possible to live without bear bile: yes.

Is it possible to live without eating meat/eggs/milk: yes.

And don't bring up third world countries, or hyper poverty or anything like that because it's not the point and we could get 30x as much plant based food for meat to them if we so pleased. Everyone could easily live without both bear bile and meat, and yet people only notice the difference because being against bear bile won't affect them at all because they don't use it, whereas most people eat meat/dairy/eggs so there's a reason for them to defend it. It's been shown time and time again that we can live without both of them, yet they're still going on, therefore, they are very closely related.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Bears can survive on fruit and grass, therefore bears in zoos shouldn't be fed meat as they can live without it.


----------



## Zorkuus

AxeHappy said:


> Most Vets are know are to smart to be a part of PETA which is a really fucked up organisation.
> 
> 
> 
> Do people really not see a difference between:
> 
> A) Slaughter (I find the concept of "Humane" slaughter...interesting) of animals for Food
> 
> And
> 
> B) Keeping an animal alive in constant pain, with holes in it's body, to harvest parts of them for the placebo effect?
> 
> 
> Really? No difference. That's just fucking ridiculous. Food has a measurable effect. Bear Bile does not.
> 
> Killing an animal for food is just the way the world works. Maybe the way we do it isn't the best (don't get me started on those mass farms in the US...) but there is a clear, easy to see benefit from it.
> 
> There is no reason for what the Chinese are doing to the bear. None. It serves no effect but to torture the bear.
> 
> To equate the two as one and the same is fucking ridiculous.


I was about to write something but this sums it up nicely.

Killing animals for food has a practical use and is a necessary evil. Torturing animals for something which has no practical use and is not necessary is just cruel.

I wonder what went through in those peoples minds when the bear killed herself and the cub. Did they even stop to think why she did such a thing?


----------



## highlordmugfug

vampiregenocide said:


> Bears can survive on fruit and grass, therefore bears in zoos shouldn't be fed meat as they can live without it.


Bears don't have industries that slaughter and torture millions of other animals everyday, your analogy is irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point. Explain how they aren't the same.


----------



## vampiregenocide

highlordmugfug said:


> Bears don't have industries that slaughter and torture millions of other animals everyday, your analogy is irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point. Explain how they aren't the same.



It has everything to do with you point. I don't back torturing animals either. Slaughtering animals should only be done in a humane way, and their living conditions should be to a high standard.

The point brought up in this thread is that if you eat meat then your opinion on animal welfare doesn't matter as much, because animals are dying for your consumption. Bears kill other animals to feed as well, yet they don't need to. They could survive on fruit and grass if the proper amounts were given. It's their nature. Eating meat is human nature too, we have just made a conscious decision over time to try alternate diets. Slaughtering an animal to eat isn't wrong, it depends on the context. If that animal was mistreated all it's life, abused and then slaughtered in a painful and horrific way, then that would be unnecessary and I would speak against that as much as this bear matter. However, if an animal is slaughtered in a quick and painless way, the living conditions are fine and it is a safe sustainable source etc, then there is nothing wrong with it. All it comes down to is whether you choose to eat meat or not.


----------



## Nimgoble

NatG said:


> Having a 'different culture' does not justify torturing animals to produce unnecessary medicines. Torturing innocent animals is wrong on all bases and the people behind it are evil. No two ways about it. It is not about the culture, it is about the action.



There's a lot of this sentiment in this thread and it's kind of scary. Not because I disagree that the torturing of animals is wrong. I don't. However, I do recognize the fact that our morals are subjective. There are, in fact, "two ways" about it. If the Chinese deem this to moral, then it is, in their opinion. We can pressure them to adopt our morality, which I would be all for. But don't for one second think your morality is absolutely correct and that you're not just the biggest bully on the playground.


----------



## vampiregenocide

When you're driving animals to commit suicide and you don't see it as wrong, you're fucked.


----------



## McKay

Ever heard of Batul?

Boiled alive duck chicks. Yum. Common street snack in SE Asia.


----------



## vampiregenocide

McKay said:


> Ever heard of Batul?
> 
> Boiled alive duck chicks. Yum. Common street snack in SE Asia.



I heard of similar things. Live sushi bothers me also.

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore though, it's a subjective matter and people's opinions on this only frustrate me.


----------



## Zorkuus

McKay said:


> Ever heard of Batul?
> 
> Boiled alive duck chicks. Yum. Common street snack in SE Asia.


Another example of something that is completely unnecessary. If you want to eat duck chicks you can do it perfectly fine by killing them before boiling them, even the taste will not be different.


----------



## Nimgoble

vampiregenocide said:


> When you're driving animals to commit suicide and you don't see it as wrong, you're fucked.



I agree. It seems that we hold the same opinion.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> It has everything to do with you point. I don't back torturing animals either. Slaughtering animals should only be done in a humane way, and their living conditions should be to a high standard.
> 
> The point brought up in this thread is that if you eat meat then your opinion on animal welfare doesn't matter as much, because animals are dying for your consumption. Bears kill other animals to feed as well, yet they don't need to. They could survive on fruit and grass if the proper amounts were given. It's their nature. Eating meat is human nature too, we have just made a conscious decision over time to try alternate diets. Slaughtering an animal to eat isn't wrong, it depends on the context. If that animal was mistreated all it's life, abused and then slaughtered in a painful and horrific way, then that would be unnecessary and I would speak against that as much as this bear matter. However, if an animal is slaughtered in a quick and painless way, the living conditions are fine and it is a safe sustainable source etc, then there is nothing wrong with it. All it comes down to is whether you choose to eat meat or not.



Why is it ok to kill an animal for food? A bear doesn't have self awareness or the capacity for morality. Humans do. We have the ability to conquer our own flesh... A bear just follows their nature because they don't make moral decisions like humans do. We absolutely do not need to eat flesh, and it's therefore not a natural neccessity. Calling it "right" just because it's commonplace is stupid. Just because it's been done for a long time doesn't mean it's ok or that it's in our nature... It just means that we've chosen to do so for a long time, since it's in our nature to choose. Your logic is completely flawed.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Okay I wasn't going to post here, but seeing as you're being unnecessarily condescending I'm going to.

My logic isn't flawed, it's simply different to yours. Your opinion is your opinion not fact, this is a subjective matter and a little different to the original topic of this thread. Clearly you disagree with me and that's fine, but don't be rude about it. I've only just got back for being banned and I'm not getting banned again for arguing over something so subjective that it is ultimate pointless to get all fired up over.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> Okay I wasn't going to post here, but seeing as you're being unnecessarily condescending I'm going to.
> 
> My logic isn't flawed, it's simply different to yours. Your opinion is your opinion not fact, this is a subjective matter and a little different to the original topic of this thread. Clearly you disagree with me and that's fine, but don't be rude about it. I've only just got back for being banned and I'm not getting banned again for arguing over something so subjective that it is ultimate pointless to get all fired up over.




I'm not being condescending, man. What I'm saying has nothing to do with opinion - it's solid fact that you do not need to eat meat. Period. It's a solid fact that a human has the capacity to make moral decisions. Period.


----------



## Dvaienat

Nimgoble said:


> There's a lot of this sentiment in this thread and it's kind of scary. Not because I disagree that the torturing of animals is wrong. I don't. However, I do recognize the fact that our morals are subjective. There are, in fact, "two ways" about it. If the Chinese deem this to moral, then it is, in their opinion. We can pressure them to adopt our morality, which I would be all for. But don't for one second think your morality is absolutely correct and that you're not just the biggest bully on the playground.


 
Put yourself in the position of the animals being tortured. Then you may understand why it is wrong. 

Morality is not subjective. Anything which causes unneccesary suffering to humans or animals is wrong.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

NatG said:


> Morality is not subjective. Anything which causes unneccesary suffering to humans or animals is wrong.



Precisely.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not being condescending, man. What I'm saying has nothing to do with opinion - it's solid fact that you do not need to eat meat. Period. It's a solid fact that a human has the capacity to make moral decisions. Period.



Yes you were. And I never even said we _had_ to eat meat, I simply said that is how we started we have simply chosen to try different diets since. 

So please, let's leave it at that and move on. This is tiring.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> Yes you were. And I never even said we _had_ to eat meat, I simply said that is how we started we have simply chosen to try different diets since.
> 
> So please, let's leave it at that and move on. This is tiring.




I was criticizing the sentiments you shared, which are not unique to you, not you. Therefore, it wasn't a matter of condescension.

And no, let's not leave it there, because you're ignoring the facts for what they're worth and calling them subjective. If we don't have to eat meat, yet we do, and we also have the capacity for morality, then we're being immoral when we kill animals for food. You said that it's alright to kill animals for food, so I broke it down logically and explained why that sentiment was illogical.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Right.


----------



## Dvaienat

Adam Of Angels said:


> I was criticizing the sentiments you shared, which are not unique to you, not you. Therefore, it wasn't a matter of condescension.
> 
> And no, let's not leave it there, because you're ignoring the facts for what they're worth and calling them subjective. If we don't have to eat meat, yet we do, and we also have the capacity for morality, then we're being immoral when we kill animals for food. You said that it's alright to kill animals for food, so I broke it down logically and explained why that sentiment was illogical.


 
It is natural for humans to eat meat, however if we have the capability to not harm animals by not eating meat, then yes, we should not eat it. We have the higher intellect. 

I do not condemn people for eating meat because they are just following the natural order, however if one chooses to use their higher intelligence, they are clearly taking the moral high ground.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

There's just no solid science describing the consumption of animal products as being part of human nature. It's a choice, and we happen to be able to digest meat with relative ease. That's pretty much it. It's a head-scratcher outside of that.


----------



## Nimgoble

NatG said:


> Put yourself in the position of the animals being tortured. Then you may understand why it is wrong.



I didn't say that I didn't think it was wrong. I said that there are people who don't and that they are just as right as we are, technically. There are those who don't CARE if the other animal is in pain, as long as it suits their goals.



> Morality is not subjective. Anything which causes unneccesary suffering to humans or animals is wrong.



There is not source of an absolute morality. It's a subjective standard. Also, humans are animals.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Precisely.



The fact that you agree with his opinion on the matter does not mean that your morality is absolute. Sorry.



NatG said:


> It is natural for humans to eat meat, however if we have the capability to not harm animals by not eating meat, then yes, we should not eat it. We have the higher intellect.



What does our "higher intellect" have to do with not eating meat? You're arrogant assumption is that anyone with "higher intellect" is automatically empathetic to everything else? Wrong. You can be one of the smartest humans on the face of the planet (highest of the highest intellect) and still lack empathy and compassion. You've created a false dichotomy.



> I do not condemn people for eating meat because they are just following the natural order, however if one chooses to use their higher intelligence, they are clearly taking the moral high ground.



What exactly is this "higher intelligence" you are talking about? Is this some sort of qualifications you've constructed for yourself and labeled as "higher intelligence" so you can feel superior to those who don't share your opinion?



Coward said:


> So it would be neither immoral nor moral for you to be tortured for life would it?



Depends on who you ask, really. This is the problem with acknowledging that morality is subjective: Idiots automatically think that you are amoral, yourself.


----------



## jymellis

i wonder what chinese scientist "bladder bile" could do for us?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

What is morality if not the consideration of the ethical treatment of living beings?


----------



## Nimgoble

Adam Of Angels said:


> What is morality if not the consideration of the ethical treatment of living beings?



morality: a doctrine or system of morals.

morals: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

Edit: I realized after posting this that copying dictionary definitions may come off as condescending. This was not my intent.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

...and pain is undesirable. If somebody thinks there's no problem causing pain to others, they lack morality. You're suggesting that somebody who thinks it's alright to hurt another living being simply includes such a belief in their personal morality. There's a difference between opinions and morals.


----------



## Dvaienat

Nimgoble said:


> I didn't say that I didn't think it was wrong. I said that there are people who don't and that they are just as right as we are, technically. There are those who don't CARE if the other animal is in pain, as long as it suits their goals.
> 
> 
> 
> There is not source of an absolute morality. It's a subjective standard. Also, humans are animals.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you agree with his opinion on the matter does not mean that your morality is absolute. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> What does our "higher intellect" have to do with not eating meat? You're arrogant assumption is that anyone with "higher intellect" is automatically empathetic to everything else? Wrong. You can be one of the smartest humans on the face of the planet (highest of the highest intellect) and still lack empathy and compassion. You've created a false dichotomy.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is this "higher intelligence" you are talking about? Is this some sort of qualifications you've constructed for yourself and labeled as "higher intelligence" so you can feel superior to those who don't share your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on who you ask, really. This is the problem with acknowledging that morality is subjective: Idiots automatically think that you are amoral, yourself.


 
That is good that you think it is wrong. But for the people actually torturing the animals, they are evil for actually doing these acts to animals. 

Just for thought, if we all followed your logic then murderers wouldn't go to prison, since no one can be wrong can they? 

I realise humans are a species of animal. 

Humans are the most intelligent of animals. We can choose to live as the human animal or we can choose to overcome that. By overcoming it we use our higher intellect. I never tallied intellect with compassion. That was your assumption.

Someone who does not cause harm or suffering is quite clearly superior to one who does. If we follow your logic then you yourself should consider yourself no better than a serial killer.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Nimgoble said:


> Edit: I realized after posting this that copying dictionary definitions may come off as condescending. This was not my intent.



If somebody were offended by that, I'd have no sympathy for them in that situation.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sicarius said:


> Get out of here, PETA.
> 
> Instead of throwing eggs and blood on people, why dont you go abroad and try and do "good" in other areas, like China?
> 
> Oh yea, because if they even let you in, they'd beat the hell out of you for even starting up that shit.
> 
> Go eat a carrot, and calm down.



PETA? Man, the quality of your response is even lower than PETA freaks.
Carrots are good! You could post something smart if you would eat some too!


----------



## Razzy

My reaction upon entering the fourth page of this thread.


----------



## emperor_black

McKay said:


> Ever heard of Batul?
> 
> Boiled alive duck chicks. Yum. Common street snack in SE Asia.



how about the way they cook lobsters and crabs? Put them in boiling water!


----------



## Nimgoble

Adam Of Angels said:


> ...and pain is undesirable.



Not to everyone. Also, that in no way conflicts with the definitions I posted. 



> If somebody thinks there's no problem causing pain to others, they lack morality.



No, they don't. It's entirely possible for someone's morality to be entirely self-serving.



> You're suggesting that somebody who thinks it's alright to hurt another living being simply includes such a belief in their personal morality. There's a difference between opinions and morals.



The two are directly related.



NatG said:


> That is good that you think it is wrong. But for the people actually torturing the animals, they are evil for actually doing these acts to animals.



In your opinion of what qualifies as "evil". The majority's opinion is not an absolute.



> Just for thought, if we all followed your logic then murderers wouldn't go to prison, since no one can be wrong can they?



Incorrect and it's frustrating that I have to explain this. A person falls under the jurisdiction of the society the live in. The laws of the society reflect the morals of the people in charge of that society(the biggest bully on the playground). In the US, we would send that person to jail because they violated our laws.

The fact that we don't have an absolute morality(which is what I was arguing against to begin with), does not mean that we are unable to enforce our subjective morality.




> I realise humans are a species of animal.
> 
> Humans are the most intelligent of animals. We can choose to live as the human animal or we can choose to overcome that. By overcoming it we use our higher intellect.



No, we cannot choose to live as anything but "the human animal(redundant)." Our actions don't determine whether we are animals or not. We are animals. Period. Our actions, however, do broaden the scope of what qualifies as "animal behavior".



> I never tallied intellect with compassion. That was your assumption



No, that was your implication by stating that if we used this higher intellect, we wouldn't eat meat.



> Someone who does not cause harm or suffering is quite clearly superior to one who does.



I beg to differ. It depends on what your criteria for "superior" are. You don't seem to understand that concepts like "goals", "good" and "bad" are subjective.



> If we follow your logic then you yourself should consider yourself no better than a serial killer.



In an absolutist sense? I don't. In respect to my subjective morals? Sure I am. And, lucky for me, the majority shares my morals. And we can enforce them because we are the biggest bully on the playground.



Adam Of Angels said:


> If somebody were offended by that, I'd have no sympathy for them in that situation.



I'm glad and I quite agree. I don't mind being condescending, but I don't like coming off as such when I don't mean to be.


----------



## Dvaienat

Nimgoble said:


> Not to everyone. Also, that in no way conflicts with the definitions I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. It's entirely possible for someone's morality to be entirely self-serving.
> 
> 
> 
> The two are directly related.
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion of what qualifies as "evil". The majority's opinion is not an absolute.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect and it's frustrating that I have to explain this. A person falls under the jurisdiction of the society the live in. The laws of the society reflect the morals of the people in charge of that society(the biggest bully on the playground). In the US, we would send that person to jail because they violated our laws.
> 
> The fact that we don't have an absolute morality(which is what I was arguing against to begin with), does not mean that we are unable to enforce our subjective morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we cannot choose to live as anything but "the human animal(redundant)." Our actions don't determine whether we are animals or not. We are animals. Period. Our actions, however, do broaden the scope of what qualifies as "animal behavior".
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was your implication by stating that if we used this higher intellect, we wouldn't eat meat.
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. It depends on what your criteria for "superior" are. You don't seem to understand that concepts like "goals", "good" and "bad" are subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> In an absolutist sense? I don't. In respect to my subjective morals? Sure I am. And, lucky for me, the majority shares my morals. And we can enforce them because we are the biggest bully on the playground.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad and I quite agree. I don't mind being condescending, but I don't like coming off as such when I don't mean to be.


 
Pain is undesirable to humans, unless they are a masochist. Pain is always undesirable to animals. Whoever inflicts this pain or takes the life away from a human or animal clearly has no care. I describe evil as something which causes harm or does not care. Someone who is entirely self serving and does not care what happens to other people or animals is evil. 

You're only explaining what happens to murderers under the laws of the country. Do you actually consider yourself better than a murderer, and do you consider a murderer to be neither right nor wrong? I fail to see how killing an innocent person in cold blood could be anything but pure evil. 

If we cannot live life as anything other than the human animal, then how do you explain compassion and care then? Since I refer to the human animal as a person who does not have any care. If we used the higher intellect, then we would not eat meat. I refer to 'intellect' in the sense we rise above our base instincts. We can do this because of our intelligence. 

'Good' and 'bad' are made sense of based upon the implications of our actions upon others. If it causes suffering, it is bad. I do not consider that to be a subjective moral. You cannot say torturing animals is a good thing in any sense. If you would not want to experience suffering yourself then it would be wrong to make others suffer unless they had commited acts of wrong themselves.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

For food I feel it's fair game to an extent. Just torturing the animal just because is needless however to kill an animal for food isn't cruel anymore than any other animal killing another for food. In the wild many animals get eaten alive or "eaten to death" and there's no thought to whether it's hurting the prey. I wouldn't like to have my neck snapped, to be decapitated, gutted, steamed alive, eaten alive, etc but it's how we do our food. There are more socially "pleasing" ways to kill an animal for food but if you ask the animal I'm sure it'd tell you it would prefer to live instead of being killed "humanely".


----------



## Nimgoble

NatG said:


> Pain is undesirable to humans, unless they are a masochist.



...So, like I said: Not to everyone. 



> Pain is always undesirable to animals.



As stated above: No, it isn't. Humans being an example of an animal in which pain is not always undesirable.



> Whoever inflicts this pain or takes the life away from a human or animal clearly has no care. I describe evil as something which causes harm or does not care. Someone who is entirely self serving and does not care what happens to other people or animals is evil.



That's fantastic. Your definition of evil is not the only one that exists. Nor are you any more correct, in an absolutist-sense, than the rest of them. 



> You're only explaining what happens to murderers under the laws of the country. Do you actually consider yourself better than a murderer, and do you consider a murderer to be neither right nor wrong? I fail to see how killing an innocent person in cold blood could be anything but pure evil.



This is getting really old. You are unable to see things from any perspective but you're own. And, even worse: you take your perspective as some kind of absolute. My example was sufficient in the context of the question you asked. It's how we can hold views like my own and still send a murderer to jail. And I answered your question about whether I thought myself better than a murderer or not. What did you not understand? And yes, I understand what your definition of evil is. Thank you.



> If we cannot live life as anything other than the human animal, then how do you explain compassion and care then? Since I refer to the human animal as a person who does not have any care.



...Really? Stop saying "the human animal". You're drawing this line between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. We ARE animals. Therefore, as I've said before, compassion and caring are traits that are found in the animal kingdom. We are animals with the capacity for compassion.



> If we used the higher intellect, then we would not eat meat.


Once again: Incorrect. The use of "higher intellect" coupled with a compassion for other animals that outweighs our desire to be self-serving would result in us not eating meat.



> I refer to 'intellect' in the sense we rise above our base instincts. We can do this because of our intelligence.



Thanks for the clarification, but this is a rather narrow use of our intellect.




> 'Good' and 'bad' are made sense of based upon the implications of our actions upon others.



Good and bad are arbitrary values we assign to pretty much anything in the universe. It extends much further than our actions and their implications upon others.



> If it causes suffering, it is bad.



Now, let's say I'm a sadist. If it causes suffering, I think it's a good thing.



> I do not consider that to be a subjective moral.



Well, it is. Sorry?



> You cannot say torturing animals is a good thing in any sense.



I sure can! If I don't care about the animal's suffering (or less, even, than the following: ) and I derive pleasure from causing said animal to suffer, then it is a good thing.



> If you would not want to experience suffering yourself then it would be wrong to make others suffer unless they had commited acts of wrong themselves.



Incorrect. I may not want to suffer, but I may not care about the suffering of others. Indeed, I may even enjoy it(as in the above example). And my morality is there to serve my well-being(also subjective).

Note for those of you who can't pick up on context: I don't actually hold any of these views myself. I was asked for examples(rather, gave examples in response to rather absolutist claims to the contrary).


----------



## BigPhi84

You know what's funny? Nimgoble is one of the posters on this site that I hate. I shudder when I see that he's posted, and I know that I've neg-repped him before for being an absolute douchenozzle. 

That being said, what amuses me is that I've agreed with (and "liked") every post that he's written in this thread. It gives me some joy that I can agree with my archnemesis on an issue. Maybe, somewhere down the line, I'll be able to agree with something that the Tea Partyists spout. 

Any Intro to Ethics and Morals class in college will teach you that Morality is not absolute and will explain why. It's too huge of a scope to teach on a guitar forum, especially to ones that might not be open to the idea.

NatG and Adam of Angels, I like you guys, and I hope this thread won't cause bitter feelings in the end. Discussions like these never end well b/c it's bloody hard to change someone's mind. I applaud you guys for being Vegetarians. It's not easy (and it's not cheap either!!! LOL. Adam, how can you afford to buy all those sweet guitars whilst you eat organic spring vegetables?!?!? )

To Nimgoble, let it be known that, on August 18th, 2011, I applauded you.  Cheers for taking the time to write out your responses and cheers to getting in the line of fire and not being afraid of being neg-repped in the process (I know that it's something that hinders me posting from time to time.)


----------



## Dvaienat

Nimgoble said:


> ...So, like I said: Not to everyone.
> 
> As stated above: No, it isn't. Humans being an example of an animal in which pain is not always undesirable.
> 
> That's fantastic. Your definition of evil is not the only one that exists. Nor are you any more correct, in an absolutist-sense, than the rest of them.
> 
> This is getting really old. You are unable to see things from any perspective but you're own. And, even worse: you take your perspective as some kind of absolute. My example was sufficient in the context of the question you asked. It's how we can hold views like my own and still send a murderer to jail. And I answered your question about whether I thought myself better than a murderer or not. What did you not understand? And yes, I understand what your definition of evil is. Thank you.
> 
> ...Really? Stop saying "the human animal". You're drawing this line between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. We ARE animals. Therefore, as I've said before, compassion and caring are traits that are found in the animal kingdom. We are animals with the capacity for compassion.
> 
> Once again: Incorrect. The use of "higher intellect" coupled with a compassion for other animals that outweighs our desire to be self-serving would result in us not eating meat.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, but this is a rather narrow use of our intellect.
> 
> Good and bad are arbitrary values we assign to pretty much anything in the universe. It extends much further than our actions and their implications upon others.
> 
> Now, let's say I'm a sadist. If it causes suffering, I think it's a good thing.
> 
> Well, it is. Sorry?
> 
> I sure can! If I don't care about the animal's suffering (or less, even, than the following: ) and I derive pleasure from causing said animal to suffer, then it is a good thing.
> 
> Incorrect. I may not want to suffer, but I may not care about the suffering of others. Indeed, I may even enjoy it(as in the above example). And my morality is there to serve my well-being(also subjective).
> 
> Note for those of you who can't pick up on context: I don't actually hold any of these views myself. I was asked for examples(rather, gave examples in response to rather absolutist claims to the contrary).


 
I was speaking about the non-human animals. You're manipulating my words to your benefit. I understand we are animals, and I understand we have the capacity for compassion. Yes, you answered my question about being better than a murderer. Just I typed my response before I read further down your post. 

I still do not see how we can call suffering a good thing. I understand you don't think it is a good thing either. If someone else's suffering gave one pleasure, then that person is what I describe as evil. It would only be good for the sadist, and bad for the recipient. Therefore the sadist is selfish. Selfishess is one of many evils. 

We have rather conflicting views on this subject, and I'm glad we've cleared some issues up. So I'd say we call it a day. Arguing about this any longer would be detrimental.


----------



## Nimgoble

...What's this warm, fuzzy feeling that has come over me? Am I dying?!

...What have you done to me...? 


Also: 



> I shudder when I see that he's posted, and I know that I've neg-repped him before for being an absolute douchenozzle.



Not going to lie. This is kiiiiiiiiind of flattering. 

Perhaps this is a question best left for PMs, but: Which posts are these? Have we gotten in to it before?

I WASN'T EVEN AWARE THAT I HAD AN ARCH-NEMESIS!


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Nimgoble said:


> I WASN'T EVEN AWARE THAT I HAD AN ARCH-NEMESIS!



Welcome to my world . Apparently I have many. It's hard to keep track.


----------



## Nimgoble

NatG said:


> I was speaking about the non-human animals. You're manipulating my words to your benefit.



I didn't mean to manipulate your words. To me, there seemed to be an implication in your phrasing.



> I understand we are animals, and I understand we have the capacity for compassion. Yes, you answered my question about being better than a murderer. Just I typed my response before I read further down your post.



I know how this is. I'm guilty of it, as well.



> I still do not see how we can call suffering a good thing. I understand you don't think it is a good thing either. If someone else's suffering gave one pleasure, then that person is what I describe as evil. It would only be good for the sadist, and bad for the recipient. Therefore the sadist is selfish. Selfishess is one of many evils.



I understand your viewpoint. But there is no definitive "List of Evils". That's not to say that I'm trying to change your mind. Please, keep your opinions. I'm just arguing against thinking that we are absolutely correct in our moral stances.



> We have rather conflicting views on this subject, and I'm glad we've cleared some issues up. So I'd say we call it a day. Arguing about this any longer would be detrimental.



Oh. Um, I guess this is one of those instances where I responded before I read further in to your post.  I'll leave my above answer as it is, if only to prove that I do this, as well.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Dvaienat

Nimgoble said:


> I didn't mean to manipulate your words. To me, there seemed to be an implication in your phrasing.
> 
> 
> 
> I know how this is. I'm guilty of it, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your viewpoint. But there is no definitive "List of Evils". That's not to say that I'm trying to change your mind. Please, keep your opinions. I'm just arguing against thinking that we are absolutely correct in our moral stances.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Um, I guess this is one of those instances where I responded before I read further in to your post.  I'll leave my above answer as it is, if only to prove that I do this, as well.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion.


 
It's ok, no hard feelings 

Thankyou too.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> How about you act like an adult and explain how the things he pointed out aren't exactly like what's being done to the bears instead of nonsense personal attacks and stereotypes.


Because, I'm entitled to my opinion.

If you don't like my opinion, please, leave me negative anonymous rep. It makes me laugh.


----------



## BigPhi84

Aww, NatG and Nimgoble. 

From here on out, you guys can call me "Dr. Phi-L."


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Because, I'm entitled to my opinion.
> 
> If you don't like my opinion, please, leave me negative anonymous rep. It makes me laugh.


You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're actually trying to contribute anything, it's best to actually use logic and have any idea of how refuting someone is supposed to work, as opposed to throwing out stereotypes and insulting people to try and prove your point. 

, sincerely.


----------



## highlordmugfug

I was watching Brad Neely videos and I thought it was funny what he brings up about chickens and lobsters since this thread just happened.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

BigPhi84 said:


> Aww, NatG and Nimgoble.



Drak, look what you did to my friends, you big goofy gay. Next we'll be talking about pelvis parties.






No, I don't know what that means either.


----------



## sol niger 333

Unfortunately the only people who can be legitimately outraged without a cloud of hypocrisy on this issue are vegans. We are all so incredibly ignorant of the atrocities that occur in the meat and dairy industry DAILY. 

Calves taken from their screaming mothers, pigs tortured and kept in crush cages their entire life, torture mutilation and evil all day every day behind closed doors. 

I eat free range chicken and a bit of fish occasionally but if you're eating bacon or battery eggs you should be quite comfortable reading the above article about bear bile farms. 

On a side note, the chinese and many other asian races do seem to have their own brand of evil and callousness towards the defenseless. 


Fuck em


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Adam Of Angels said:


> Drak, look what you did to my friends, you big goofy gay. Next we'll be talking about pelvis parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't know what that means either.



I don't know what it means...but I want 2 tickets to it


----------



## Dan

I fully came here by page 3 (i have the long page view) wanting to throw some smackdown but to be honest i got to page 4 and calmed a little! Damn heated debates 

Adam and the rest of you guys who are vegetarians. I'm going to be totally honest with you. Meat is fucking delicious. I love the taste, i source a large portion of my meat produce from an abattoir near where i live and i know its slaughter procedures and where the meat comes from, so i know to an extent i am doing something about what i eat. If i had to kill an animal to eat it i would, at the end of the day its about survival. Where a lot of meat eaters wouldnt do that, i would, and i think that makes me a little different.

YES i do apreciate we live in a society where we can chemically enhance food to give us what we need or import foods so we have the right amounts of nutrients and protein, but meat has always been there for us to do that. It's just with the vast increate in world populous that these places where animals are force fed and caged have been set up. 

Think of it this way: Way back when we would have hunters to go out and find food. We just smartened up to the fact we could breed food and eat it on a mass scale. The whole problem with talking about 'animal humanities' is that they arn't human. Sure they feel just as much as any of us but they will never be able to testify to the horrors they have to endure, so people can get away with it. I don't approve, but it wont change any time soon. 

On that note, have some Disney


----------



## McKay

Adam Of Angels said:


> Why is it ok to kill an animal for food? A bear doesn't have self awareness or the capacity for morality. Humans do. We have the ability to conquer our own flesh... A bear just follows their nature because they don't make moral decisions like humans do. We absolutely do not need to eat flesh, and it's therefore not a natural neccessity. Calling it "right" just because it's commonplace is stupid. Just because it's been done for a long time doesn't mean it's ok or that it's in our nature... It just means that we've chosen to do so for a long time, since it's in our nature to choose. Your logic is completely flawed.



How can you argue that a bear is not self aware if it can kill itself and it's child to spare them both a life of torture?

Surely this also constitutes a basic moral understanding? Obviously it bears don't have the advantage of language to augment their basic instincts but animals usually have an obvious moral compass. Pack animal? They have pack morals. Colony animal? Colony morals.

Our morals are just those of the mute walking apes we descend from. They just happen to be more developed.


----------



## McKay

Also here is the solution to the debate: In vitro meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vat grown meat.


----------



## rjnix_0329

I was afraid that this was going to turn into a "culture" debate. If this WAS part of their culture, seriously, fuck that culture. But it isn't, it's just certain people within that culture, just like the assholes who organize dog fights in the states. I don't care what values these "farmers" were brought up with, as the world globalizes, so do priorities and values, and they will quickly need to catch up with the rest of the world, or be eliminated from our global culture. This insanity has no place in the modern world.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Finding meat delicious is the only argument that can´t be fought against, since it´s a matter of taste.
Everything else you said is more or less not right.
If you look at your body, teeth, intestines, lipid and sugar metabolism, you are clearly not optimized to eat meat, but plants.

I am all ears for an open discussion for it, since i can literally CRUSH all of the pro meat arguments with all scientific facts, except one ..."but it tastes goood" 

The meat production causes the %40 of the earths pollution. You read it right. Not just %40 of air pollution, a lot of drink water pollution too.

If you would know how many liters of water, how much hay and cereals you need to get 1 single Kg of meat, you would see the reason why we still have hunger and poverty on earth.

Animals are not humans that´s right. But look at the wild nature. No Lion eats only 10% of what comes out of the prey and throws the rest in the trash bin. Only USA throws more meat to the garbage that the entire afrika would be fed with. In Germany, the wasted meat is enough to feed Greece. The meat waste is so high, people dry it and feed back to the cows as powder (That brings us to mad cow disease)

It is not right, it is not logical, it is not sustainable in so many aspects, I think either eating meat makes people blind or dumb! Choose your side


----------



## Demiurge

I'm sure that the bears involved would be delighted that their plight is being hijacked for another fucking "ethics of meat" debate. Opportunism to the point of twisting stories around to make glib proclamations relative to one's own personal agenda is the ultimate skill that humans have over animals.

Here's a thought: meat-eating is never going to stop- so good for the carnivores as there will be bacon for all, and good for the vegetarians as they will not be robbed of an artificial means of feeling morally superior. What _can_ be stopped is needless shit like poking holes in animals to farm their bile in the name of unscientific superstition. Additionally, equivocating meat-eating with all instances of animal cruelty (as some want to do here) will just create a idealogical morass that will _all but guarantee that none of it will stop_.


----------



## Dan

daemon barbeque said:


> It is not right, it is not logical, it is not sustainable in so many aspects, I think either eating meat makes people blind or dumb! Choose your side



I choose the side of delicious steak. Delicious, tender, rare steak 




Each to their own dude, there are so many problems wrong with this world and food may be a large part of it. My family keeps chickens and we grow our own vegetables, we're pretty self sufficiant. I'd raise animals for food if i could. But yes you're right, maybe we 'arn't' supposed to eat meat, but i sure as hell love eating it, and no-one is going to stope me otherwise.


----------



## Fred the Shred

Do I eat meat? Yes. In spite of my life as musician, I actually studied veterinary medicine (there's some Fred trivia for you ), and I did some farm / slaughterhouse accompaniment and inspection. 

There are things that are indeed humane and effective, and others that are a bitch and should be more heavily regulated. The killing itself is quite humane - there is instant severing of the spinal cord / electric shock overloading the nervous system and animals such as cows and the like are then killed via massive bleeding and pass out almost instantly after the cut due to the abrupt oxygen supply cut to the brain (which also prevents the agonic asphyxia and the like). 

Meat production farms here are also under strict legislation regarding higiene and quarters size, although I dare say the inspection process is often not enough to make sure the "higiene" part is accomplished, yet we try. Transportation is also subjected to these same regulations, which are transversal to the EU, or at least were at the time. Now comes the bad part - I find that leaving animals stressed and confined to spaces where they can sometimes see the others being slaughtered is as humane as making convicts watch executions while on death row, and all it takes is a bloody wall or door most of the time. Unfortunately, unless there is clear legislation stating this, owners won't give a fuck and the animals go from 30 seconds of WTF?! -> faint to minutes of horror watching the others being taken from their cages to die.

In short, there are indeed ethical problems regarding meat consumption even when legislation regarding the humane treatment of animals that will end up in your food chain, and I'm most sympathetic regarding this subject. 

Food consumption, however, is not comparable to absolutely horrible stories such as this, or the fowls that get immobilized and forcefed to make foie gras and the like - these are lives comprising only suffering, for either placebo effects or a rare delicacy (protip - a non-forcefed fowl with a hypercaloric diet easily acquires a fat liver, or steatosis, this is just saving money and speeding up the process). In spite of being a cultural thing, it's unacceptable to force an animal to spend 100% of its lifetime under the most unspeakable torture.


----------



## Fred the Shred

-- Damn you, double post! --


----------



## vampiregenocide

daemon barbeque said:


> It is not right, it is not logical, it is not sustainable in so many aspects, I think either eating meat makes people blind or dumb! Choose your side



I lost most of my respect for your argument when you made this comment. This is why I got so annoyed at this thread.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

This is why I avoid arguments about the ethics of eating meat, they're all the same and they never change everything. Can't we all learn to shut up, with meat eaters learning to accept the vegetarian's life choices and vegetarians stop acting like such elitist? 

Let me make it clear, like many people, I eat meat, but I abhor many of the practices, such as CAFOs, growth hormones, and force feeding. There are, though, humane ways of getting meat, and the old mainstay of hunting the meat on your own and using everything.

I would have more to say, but it would quickly turn to government bashing.


----------



## vampiregenocide

My stepmother is a vegetarian, so I have a great respect of the lifestyle. I simply choose not to follow it myself, and I would appreciate it if other people wouldn't insult me for that choice. By all means educate me as to the reasoning behind your lifestyle choice, but don't disrespect people.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're actually trying to contribute anything, it's best to actually use logic and have any idea of how refuting someone is supposed to work, as opposed to throwing out stereotypes and insulting people to try and prove your point.
> 
> , sincerely.


To be honest, if you couldn't figure out it was a joke from "Get out of here, PETA", then that's on you.

I Despise elitist vegans and vegetarians who look down their noses at everyone else because *they don't eat meat* except fish, because fish is okay. Especially those that come in here when we're all pretty unabashedly in horror of what happened. Only then to be told that we have no say in animal rights because we eat them? Sorry but fuck that guy. Having a differing opinion is one thing. To tell others they're not allowed from having their opinion because of their dietary ways is fucking fascist. 

I'm not a rural old world Chinese sick, I don't require bear bile for anything, so I'm allowed to say whatever the fuck I want on the subject matter. Crush cages are wrong, what they do is an inhumane practices. BUT, because they are in China, or where ever else this is happening, it probably won't be stopped unless things drastically change in those countries. China is such an old world think tank, that that change is decades away from happening. 

For the people doing it, they're not doing it because they want to torture the animal, they're doing it because it's their culture, and their business to sell the bile. FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE what they're doing isn't wrong, it's what they've been raised to understand, and accept.

There will come a time that a more progressive thinking person comes through and stops these kinds of operations. As the article said, this is a dying (no pun intended) practice as other places have started using synthetics or other herbs.

also: Kiss my ass.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Demiurge said:


> I'm sure that the bears involved would be delighted that their plight is being hijacked for another fucking "ethics of meat" debate. Opportunism to the point of twisting stories around to make glib proclamations relative to one's own personal agenda is the ultimate skill that humans have over animals.
> 
> Here's a thought: meat-eating is never going to stop- so good for the carnivores as there will be bacon for all, and good for the vegetarians as they will not be robbed of an artificial means of feeling morally superior. What _can_ be stopped is needless shit like poking holes in animals to farm their bile in the name of unscientific superstition. Additionally, equivocating meat-eating with all instances of animal cruelty (as some want to do here) will just create a idealogical morass that will _all but guarantee that none of it will stop_.



Yeah, actually, the conversation just turned in that direction in a pretty natural way. I'm not even a vegetarian, so it has nothing to do with any of the horseshit stupidity that you just claimed was driving the underdog arguments here. The vegan philosophies were brought into this debate because it has everything to do with the ethical treatment of animals. Just because you have a real problem with "vegetarian superiority complexes" (ooga booga!) doesn't mean this conversation should exclude such an angle.

Anyway, for the record, I eat fish and poultry, which means I'm not a vegetarian, so my arguments are hypocritical to an extent. That's not the point though. I never said I wasn't amoral in some ways. The point is that we can't prove whether or not an animal suffers in the same way that we do, but our empathy leads us to believe that their pain is real.. When you consider that along with the fact that we can survive perfectly well (and in fact, be much better off) on a vegan diet, it becomes pointless to kill animals for food or any other product. That's really the bottom line. You might think meat is delicious, but a coke addict thinks coke is great too. It's just not a justification. Its fact that we don't need it, so it's irresponsible to have it. It has nothing to do with elitism, it's just simple logic, so don't use that cop out.


----------



## daemon barbeque

I am not an elitist at all. I clearly put an argument stating that the meat industry does the same horrible things, and I can prove that. Come with an argument against it, so we can discuss.
I also argue that eating meat as we do today is unsustainable, uneconomic and wrong to for your own health. If you have any argument against it I am all ears.

I am not an elitist. Meat or meat products are much more expensive than a vegetarian meal. I am also a Vet and know all the insight and tricks. The horror is there and nobody can deny it. Animals suffer badly in transport or waiting rooms even the farmer was very good and they had a great environment.


I am not arguing against your life style, I just show you how the planet get's fucked by meat industry and you guys are a part of that.

Come with some arguments instead of insults, cop-outs or whatever.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> To be honest, if you couldn't figure out it was a joke from "Get out of here, PETA", then that's on you.
> 
> I Despise elitist vegans and vegetarians who look down their noses at everyone else because *they don't eat meat* except fish, because fish is okay. Especially those that come in here when we're all pretty unabashedly in horror of what happened. Only then to be told that we have no say in animal rights because we eat them? Sorry but fuck that guy. Having a differing opinion is one thing. To tell others they're not allowed from having their opinion because of their dietary ways is fucking fascist.
> 
> I'm not a rural old world Chinese sick, I don't require bear bile for anything, so I'm allowed to say whatever the fuck I want on the subject matter.



Ok, and for the last time, the reason that point was made is because you do NOT need to eat meat to survive, therefore, the irresponsibility in doing so negates the sincerity of your concern for animal rights. I'm guilty, you're guilty, most of us are. So I'm not looking down my nose at anyone, I'm posing a position of logic.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sicarius said:


> To be honest, if you couldn't figure out it was a joke from "Get out of here, PETA", then that's on you.
> 
> I Despise elitist vegans and vegetarians who look down their noses at everyone else because *they don't eat meat* except fish, because fish is okay. Especially those that come in here when we're all pretty unabashedly in horror of what happened. Only then to be told that we have no say in animal rights because we eat them? Sorry but fuck that guy. Having a differing opinion is one thing. To tell others they're not allowed from having their opinion because of their dietary ways is fucking fascist.
> 
> I'm not a rural old world Chinese sick, I don't require bear bile for anything, so I'm allowed to say whatever the fuck I want on the subject matter. Crush cages are wrong, what they do is an inhumane practices. BUT, because they are in China, or where ever else this is happening, it probably won't be stopped unless things drastically change in those countries. China is such an old world think tank, that that change is decades away from happening.
> 
> For the people doing it, they're not doing it because they want to torture the animal, they're doing it because it's their culture, and their business to sell the bile. FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE what they're doing isn't wrong, it's what they've been raised to understand, and accept.
> 
> There will come a time that a more progressive thinking person comes through and stops these kinds of operations. As the article said, this is a dying (no pun intended) practice as other places have started using synthetics or other herbs.
> 
> also: Kiss my ass.



You cannot fuck me dude, you can't even call me "that guy". Get some manners.
There is no perspective abaout right or wrong. Your way is wrong and that is well supported by facts and numbers. If you have anything to add as an argument or anything intelligent to this thread do it. If not, stop insulting or being an ass. Insulting Vegetarians and vegans hardly makes any of your rants acceptable. It's like Christians rants about Atheist elitism when we discuss about priest rapes.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> Ok, and for the last time, the reason that point was made is because you do NOT need to eat meat to survive, therefore, the irresponsibility in doing so negates the sincerity of your concern for animal rights. I'm guilty, you're guilty, most of us are. So I'm not looking down my nose at anyone, I'm posing a position of logic.



It has been a staple of the human diet for as long as we have had tools. There is a reason why early human tribes were described as "HUNTERS AND GATHERERS". Even early man understood what apparently, you fucking don't. For a healthy and balanced diet, meats and vegetables are the best way. 

If some poor fucker is only going to eat meat he's going to fucking die of a coronary. And if some dick vegan is only going to eat veggies he's going to be devoid of essential proteins, unless they love living off of a strict vitamin regiment.

As a meat eater, I can feel sorry for an animal that's left in a fucking crush cage. It doesn't matter. Human emotion transcends diet.

Cows slaughtered to feed communities and counties =! A bear left in a fucking cage all it's life.

COMPASSION does not see dietary lines.


----------



## Sicarius

daemon barbeque said:


> You cannot fuck me dude, you can't even call me "that guy". Get some manners.
> There is no perspective abaout right or wrong. Your way is wrong and that is well supported by facts and numbers. If you have anything to add as an argument or anything intelligent to this thread do it. If not, stop insulting or being an ass. Insulting Vegetarians and vegans hardly makes any of your rants acceptable. It's like Christians rants about Atheist elitism when we discuss about priest rapes.


You have completely missed the point. As person who is not a citizen of China, you do not fully understand their rights and customs. You look at them with outside eyes and judge them.

Yes what they're doing it wrong, IN OUR EYES, BEING CITIZENS NOT OF CHINA. But what they're doing isn't wrong in their eyes. 

The white man's burden is pretty strong, still today, apparently. Because you're willing to cast down judgement on anyone who's different from you.

Stop judging everyone who's different from you, and attempt, to look at it from their perspective.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> It has been a staple of the human diet for as long as we have had tools. There is a reason why early human tribes were described as "HUNTERS AND GATHERERS". Even early man understood what apparently, you fucking don't. For a healthy and balanced diet, meats and vegetables are the best way.
> 
> If some poor fucker is only going to eat meat he's going to fucking die of a coronary. And if some dick vegan is only going to eat veggies he's going to be devoid of essential proteins, unless they love living off of a strict vitamin regiment.



Wrong. There's plenty of viable, natural substitutes for meat. Throughout most of human history, man didn't possess this knowledge. Now we do, and there's no excuse anymore. Either way, though, the excuse that we've done it forever doesn't justify your hunger for meat. In fact, that's the number one thing I'm going to label as sheerly stupid in this whole debate.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> As a meat eater, I can feel sorry for an animal that's left in a fucking crush cage. It doesn't matter. Human emotion transcends diet.
> 
> Cows slaughtered to feed communities and counties =! A bear left in a fucking cage all it's life.
> 
> COMPASSION does not see dietary lines.



That is not the point... Read what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is proven fact that you don't need meat to survive. You're not retarded or crippled, so you're perfectly capable of surviving without eating meat or using animal products. This is irrefutable fact. So, with that in mind, arguing in favor of animal rights while continuing to use animal products, even though you're needlessly feeding the industry that benefits from their slaughter, is completely illogical and silly. That's all. If you don't understand that position, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Sicarius

That's it? The same old tired argument over and over?

It's obviously not too much of a deal if you haven't become a vegan?


You're seriously making my head hurt. Where are these facts that are so Irrefutable? 

I don't know what else to tell you. That's the human emotion, dude. I eat meat and do not feel guilt. But I can, and regularly do, feel compassion, and sadness for an animal that has a hole cut into it's stomach, so it's gall bladder can be milked. But I'm not going to stop eating something just because there's some new magical bean that takes care of everything for me. I can't live off of nothing but vegetables. I don't want to look like Davey Havok from A.F.I. I don't want to be some pretencious self-righteous asshole, who doesn't eat meat because it hurts animals. And maybe that's not what I'll actually think, but that's the connotation that's carried by vegans and vegetarians. 

This isn't about me eating a burger and saying, "We need to treat the cows better! Fuckin' A!". I won't say that, because that would label me a hypocrite. 
What I'm saying, While I eat a turkey sammich is, "Man, that's really terrible about what happened to that bear. At least she was able to save her cub from that kind of life. It really is a shame."


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sicarius said:


> You have completely missed the point. As person who is not a citizen of China, you do not fully understand their rights and customs. You look at them with outside eyes and judge them.
> 
> Yes what they're doing it wrong, IN OUR EYES, BEING CITIZENS NOT OF CHINA. But what they're doing isn't wrong in their eyes.
> 
> The white man's burden is pretty strong, still today, apparently. Because you're willing to cast down judgement on anyone who's different from you.
> 
> Stop judging everyone who's different from you, and attempt, to look at it from their perspective.



Again, you miss one important point. That point is called logic. I am not interested what chinese think, what Danes think when they kill dolphins, whales and seals for fun. I also do not accept the double standard between people eating farmed animals and the bear. Both where horribly tortured for a "human reason".
All of it is wrong, destructive and unsustainable. My opinion does not matter either. facts are facts.

BTW, you are totally wrong about diet. People where living without meat for thousands of years. perfectly. So good that they could even advance intelligently and create tools. Their teeth, intestines, hormones are all perfectly tuned for plant digestion. 
I know what I talking about.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> That's it? The same old tired argument over and over?
> 
> It's obviously not too much of a deal if you haven't become a vegan?
> 
> So, instead of being a hypocrite, why don't you drop it?




Because it has nothing to do with being a vegan. The same old "tired" argument keeps being used because your responses are clearly indicating that you're either ignoring the same old "tired" argument, or that you're too stubborn to comprehend it. It's logic and fact, not the opinion of an elitist.


----------



## Dan

daemon barbeque said:


> I am not an elitist at all. I clearly put an argument stating that the meat industry does the same horrible things, and I can prove that. Come with an argument against it, so we can discuss.
> I also argue that eating meat as we do today is unsustainable, uneconomic and wrong to for your own health. If you have any argument against it I am all ears.



I currently own a plot of land in which i keep around 20 chickens and ducks. The amount of food i provide these birds with plus the space of land i keep them on is very economical. The birds have a rough laying estimate of around 4 years before they pass that phase and just turn into pets. 

If i keep these hens for roughly 3 and a half years a piece and they lay on average 2 eggs each a day each hen will lay roughly 2550 eggs in its 'shelf life'. If i sell these eggs for £1 per 6 pack (which is my going rate) then each hen makes roughly £425. The hen feed is around £25 per bag which lasts all 20 chickens 2 weeks. I make on average around £40 per week on egg selling (if you dont include the ones i give away) so im making on average £55 every two weeks by keeping these animals. 

Seen as i bring up my own chicks as well there is no cost included from buying fertilized eggs. So i find that VERY economical. The hens have a good life and when i need to eat them i can. Their waste is also placed in my fertilizer bin for the vegetables and plans i grow. Because their waste is full of nutrients my plants grow stronger than they would if i didn't have them there as the soil is rich.

I'm sorry you were saying something about it being unsustainable and uneconomic? As for bad for my health i get good protein from the birds and their waste helps my other plants to grow so i can get my other needed intake of nutrients. I think you will find I have proved you wrong on pretty much every category you mentioned there. It keeps me active and I know the food I eat comes from a good source. 

Please, tell me Im wrong here? Chicken for dinner it is!


----------



## Sicarius

daemon barbeque said:


> Again, you miss one important point. That point is called logic. I am not interested what chinese think, what Danes think when they kill dolphins, whales and seals for fun. I also do not accept the double standard between people eating farmed animals and the bear. Both where horribly tortured for a "human reason".
> All of it is wrong, destructive and unsustainable. My opinion does not matter either. facts are facts.
> 
> BTW, you are totally wrong about diet. People where living without meat for thousands of years. perfectly. So good that they could even advance intelligently and create tools. Their teeth, intestines, hormones are all perfectly tuned for plant digestion.
> I know what I talking about.


All I'm trying to say, is that if you were born in China, and you were actually Chinese, you would think completely differently on the subject. But because you aren't, you feel that your "logic" is far superior than theirs.
Yes, you think eating meat is terrible, that's fine. I don't care what you eat, so long as you don't try and tell me or my friends that we're bad people for doing so, and that we have no say so whatsoever, about how we should feel.
And I'm leaving it at that. I don't have the will power, or veggie power, or whatever to keep arguing with you because you're so set in your ways, that you feel it's completely fine to judge everyone.


Adam Of Angels said:


> Because it has nothing to do with being a vegan. The same old "tired" argument keeps being used because your responses are clearly indicating that you're either ignoring the same old "tired" argument, or that you're too stubborn to comprehend it. It's logic and fact, not the opinion of an elitist.


refresh the thing. I edited it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Chicken does taste good with ranch, though.....................


....wait.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

I am tired of vegetarians and vegans generalizing the whole meat industry as one thing. You can't do that to something so varied.



daemon barbeque said:


> I am not an elitist at all. I clearly put an argument stating that the meat industry does the same horrible things, and I can prove that. Come with an argument against it, so we can discuss.



Yes, there are horrible factory farms which pollute, spread/nurture diseases, and other horrible things. The thing is, though, that's only some farms. There are still family owned farms that are like actual farms, there are "organic" farms that treat their livestock well and don't give them artificial hormones or force feed them food that they can't digest. 



daemon barbeque said:


> I also argue that eating meat as we do today is unsustainable, uneconomic and wrong to for your own health. If you have any argument against it I am all ears.



You know what? The health food craze recently, with focus on "organic" foods, is actually causing factory farms to lose money and giving proper farms more. I for one prefer "organic" meat, and whenever I get the chance I will choose that over factory meat. 

Vegetables can be just as bad as meat, you know. Due to few plants having significant amounts of protein, it's very likely that you at least have a slight protein deficiency. Fibrous vegetables such as lettuce, broccoli, and celery, as well as starches like corn, are difficult or just can't be digested by the human body. The growth of large amounts of single crops leads to water logging of the land, causing salinization of local water supplies, or acidification of the land, eventually rendering the land useless for agricultural use. Vegetable farming is one of the worst offenders of excess water use, as many farms insist on using out dated, inefficient techniques. This excess water use causes increased runoff, picking up nutrients from fertilizers, such as nitrates and phosphorus, that will drain into bodies of water and cause grossly accelerated eutrophication, killing the majority of the lakes organisms and lowering the water quality. You know what fertilizers don't have as much of those nutrients? Natural fertilizers produced as waste by the meat industry.

I know that their are smaller farms that aren't as shitty as the larger ones, but it seems that that doesn't matter to you, does it?

Most of the lower prices of vegetables are just artificial prices set up by the government due to them subsidizing those farms that produce too much of the crop, in reality the prices of meat and vegetables are about the same.

Don't act so high and mighty and say the meat industry is a bad thing, you're just as bad.



daemon barbeque said:


> I am not an elitist. Meat or meat products are much more expensive than a vegetarian meal. I am also a Vet and know all the insight and tricks. The horror is there and nobody can deny it. Animals suffer badly in transport or waiting rooms even the farmer was very good and they had a great environment.



There you go generalizing again! Like I said earlier, not everywhere is an inhumane shit hole.



daemon barbeque said:


> I am not arguing against your life style, I just show you how the planet get's fucked by meat industry and you guys are a part of that.



You say you aren't arguing against our life style when you keep saying that the meat industry is bad, which is the main part of the meat eaters lifestyle.

Why did you feel the need to mention that you weren't an elitist again?



daemon barbeque said:


> Come with some arguments instead of insults, cop-outs or whatever.



There you go.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> Chicken does taste good with ranch, though.....................
> 
> 
> ....wait.


Ew.

It's all about the Chicken Alfredo.

I love the broccoli.

and the chicken.

but broccoli is fucking awesome.

I love veggetables. I really do. The girls at subway hate me because I get pretty much every vegetable on my "spicy italian" which is made from turkey pepperoni and salami, and I get damn near every vegetable they have. But for me, a salad isn't filling. I'm sure if I barbegued some giant shitaki mushrooms and had a shitaki burger, it'd be filling. But just eating veggies isn't going to cut it, at least not for me.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Start eating some decent edamame, and you'll thank me for it.


----------



## Sicarius

No.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Bitch. For real, it's delicious. I used to eat eggs in the morning, but I started eating edamame instead most of the time and it tastes better, makes me feel better, and is easier to absorb (for me a least) so I actually end up getting more protein from it than eggs.


----------



## Sicarius

1) I don't like peas.
2) Giant Japanese peas freak me out
3) I think Sushi, and things from the sushi craze, are stupid. Except Wasabi.
4) I'm not a weeaboo.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

It's a soybean, son.

Sushi is for men, so yeah.


----------



## Sicarius

uh not if you're allergic to fish and hate the taste of cold rice.

Then it's for Weeaboos and hipsters.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Only guys with boyfriends are allergic to fish.


I hope we don't get banned.


----------



## Dan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Only guys with boyfriends are allergic to fish.
> 
> 
> I hope we don't get banned.




Ohh you guys


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> Only guys with boyfriends are allergic to fish.
> 
> 
> I hope we don't get banned.


I don't know what it is. But I almost died the day we buried my grandma.

Fuck Tilapia. Seriously Anaphlyactic shock sucks.


----------



## BigPhi84

Sicarius said:


> Fuck Tilapia. Seriously Anaphlyactic shock sucks.




Really?!? Tilapia is such a pussy fish.  No Flavor at all. 



Are you allergic to all seafood?


----------



## BigPhi84

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're not retarded or crippled, so you're perfectly capable of surviving without eating meat or using animal products.




 So retards and cripples have free reign over meat products? Someone hand me a Hammer!  Afterwards, you can call me Ha-PHI-estus (or Vulcan, your choice ). 


(LOL, I know. It was in bad taste. Please don't neg-rep me! )


----------



## Sicarius

Nope.

That's the weird thing. I can eat shrimp, and probably crab and lobster.

but I think it might be whitefish. Like Fish sticks gave me terrible indegestion and heartburn.

Until I found out, closing your airway somewhat, wasn't either of those things.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I've said a couple of awful things here, I guess..

I just meant that somebody who is perfectly capable should have no problem being a vegan. I'm neither crippled nor retarded, but I have temporary reasons for not being a vegan.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

daemon barbeque said:


> There is no perspective abaout right or wrong. Your way is wrong



Usually when such a thing is uttered, the one who said it has already lost. You should come off the high horse a little and think about your word choice. Not getting into the meat debate because it's pointless, but you sure don't help anyone see your side of things with such statements.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> I've said a couple of awful things here, I guess..
> 
> I just meant that somebody who is perfectly capable should have no problem being a vegan. I'm neither crippled nor retarded, but I have temporary reasons for not being a vegan.


It's the chicken, isn't it?

It's too delicious to give up.

also, if I didn't know any better, I'd think BigPhi is a fan of mine.


----------



## BigPhi84

Sicarius said:


> also, if I didn't know any better, I'd think BigPhi is a fan of mine.




What are you talking about? I hate you too, FUCKER!!!  


LOL. j/k.


----------



## daemon barbeque

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Usually when such a thing is uttered, the one who said it has already lost. You should come off the high horse a little and think about your word choice. Not getting into the meat debate because it's pointless, but you sure don't help anyone see your side of things with such statements.



That might be the outcome, but I can't see the high horse here. I put the facts, and still didn't get a proper answer except Plug, who does his own small frowing and has no significant effect on giant food industry.

As I said before, even my own opinions do not have any impact on right or wrong.

1) We torture animals to get convenient food supply
2) We pollute the world doing it. %40 is a very high figure

The facts are there, so nobodies opinion would change it.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Plug said:


> I currently own a plot of land in which i keep around 20 chickens and ducks. The amount of food i provide these birds with plus the space of land i keep them on is very economical. The birds have a rough laying estimate of around 4 years before they pass that phase and just turn into pets.
> 
> If i keep these hens for roughly 3 and a half years a piece and they lay on average 2 eggs each a day each hen will lay roughly 2550 eggs in its 'shelf life'. If i sell these eggs for £1 per 6 pack (which is my going rate) then each hen makes roughly £425. The hen feed is around £25 per bag which lasts all 20 chickens 2 weeks. I make on average around £40 per week on egg selling (if you dont include the ones i give away) so im making on average £55 every two weeks by keeping these animals.
> 
> Seen as i bring up my own chicks as well there is no cost included from buying fertilized eggs. So i find that VERY economical. The hens have a good life and when i need to eat them i can. Their waste is also placed in my fertilizer bin for the vegetables and plans i grow. Because their waste is full of nutrients my plants grow stronger than they would if i didn't have them there as the soil is rich.
> 
> I'm sorry you were saying something about it being unsustainable and uneconomic? As for bad for my health i get good protein from the birds and their waste helps my other plants to grow so i can get my other needed intake of nutrients. I think you will find I have proved you wrong on pretty much every category you mentioned there. It keeps me active and I know the food I eat comes from a good source.
> 
> Please, tell me Im wrong here? Chicken for dinner it is!



I am okay with people doing their own small farm work and eat. I have respect to that and have no problem with it. But this would be no argument against what I stated before, since youir little business is too insignificant compared to the big guys with 150 000 chicken per ranch. 

BTW, technically, chicken Protein is not as good as you think, and is one of the allergic proteins for the body. 

So no, you didn't prove me wrong


----------



## Sicarius

Dude, just drop it already. 

You're not going to prove to us that you're correct, and we're not going to even be able to get you to see any other view than your own.

at least when I yell at a wall it doesn't yell back and tell me I'm a bad person. Sheesh.


----------



## daemon barbeque

dragonblade629 said:


> I am tired of vegetarians and vegans generalizing the whole meat industry as one thing. You can't do that to something so varied.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are horrible factory farms which pollute, spread/nurture diseases, and other horrible things. The thing is, though, that's only some farms. There are still family owned farms that are like actual farms, there are "organic" farms that treat their livestock well and don't give them artificial hormones or force feed them food that they can't digest.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what? The health food craze recently, with focus on "organic" foods, is actually causing factory farms to lose money and giving proper farms more. I for one prefer "organic" meat, and whenever I get the chance I will choose that over factory meat.
> 
> Vegetables can be just as bad as meat, you know. Due to few plants having significant amounts of protein, it's very likely that you at least have a slight protein deficiency. Fibrous vegetables such as lettuce, broccoli, and celery, as well as starches like corn, are difficult or just can't be digested by the human body. The growth of large amounts of single crops leads to water logging of the land, causing salinization of local water supplies, or acidification of the land, eventually rendering the land useless for agricultural use. Vegetable farming is one of the worst offenders of excess water use, as many farms insist on using out dated, inefficient techniques. This excess water use causes increased runoff, picking up nutrients from fertilizers, such as nitrates and phosphorus, that will drain into bodies of water and cause grossly accelerated eutrophication, killing the majority of the lakes organisms and lowering the water quality. You know what fertilizers don't have as much of those nutrients? Natural fertilizers produced as waste by the meat industry.
> 
> I know that their are smaller farms that aren't as shitty as the larger ones, but it seems that that doesn't matter to you, does it?
> 
> Most of the lower prices of vegetables are just artificial prices set up by the government due to them subsidizing those farms that produce too much of the crop, in reality the prices of meat and vegetables are about the same.
> 
> Don't act so high and mighty and say the meat industry is a bad thing, you're just as bad.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go generalizing again! Like I said earlier, not everywhere is an inhumane shit hole.
> 
> 
> 
> You say you aren't arguing against our life style when you keep saying that the meat industry is bad, which is the main part of the meat eaters lifestyle.
> 
> Why did you feel the need to mention that you weren't an elitist again?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.



%90 of all the meat industry including the fish industry fits the business model I was complaining about. Isn't it enough of a reason to be angry at?

The fertilizer and water argument is not right at all. Check
Environmental impact of meat production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many books about it and you can see it. You can grow 100000 kg of potatos with the same amount of water for getting 1000 kg of meat. Big diffenrence isn't it?

BTW, Bat shit and ash are the best fertilizers. You don't need anything fancy or chemical to have a normal vegetable growth.

The vetebales are absorbed and digested very well by human body. OTOH, humans cannot digest the animal Fat as it is, which causes the heart problems.
Not even single person on earth get's coronary problems, Intestinal cancer or Liver disorders because of vegetables. These are the primary death causes right now in western world. Go figure!



And again, the food industry is bad ( just the %90) and that's that. If you don't want people to abuse animals and torture them, don't eat what they sell. They wouldn't do it if they wouldn't earn money from it!


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

EDIT-You posted right before I posted this.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Some people eat meat..some don't. Neither side is more "right" than the other. Everyone stop whining. Nothing is more annoying than the people who whine about what others are eating while thinking whatever crap they eat is somehow superior..at the end of the day who cares?

You would think common sense wouldn't equate killing and torturing live animals for a medicine which isn't really a medicine with killing an animal for food. There is no real "humane" way to kill an animal..you're still killing it and the animal would prefer to live no matter how clean the kill is. Some of us eat meat and there's nothing wrong with that. Some of us don't for whatever reason and there's nothing wrong with that. If you think one side or the other is doing the "wrong thing" then invest in trying to make it better instead of arguing on the internet, because that only hurts your side.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Honestly, it's not that simple. The real problem is that people seem to think it's that simple.. but whatever. Like I said, I'm not currently in a position to eat as a vegan, so I'm done here for the moment.


----------



## daemon barbeque

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Some people eat meat..some don't. Neither side is more "right" than the other. Everyone stop whining. Nothing is more annoying than the people who whine about what others are eating while thinking whatever crap they eat is somehow superior..at the end of the day who cares?



I care since it's the world I live on wich is polluted, which is raped by mass meat production. Did I make my point clear? Does %40 of earths pollution mean nothing to you guys?


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

I'm just going to leave this since you appear to think that the vegetable industry is so much better than the meat industry. The majority of both industries are shit, that's a fact.


----------



## Dan

Bear + Big piece of meat. How would he feel if he was caged up? Aside from he would have the urge to drink his own piss? 

I think its time to get back on topic guys


----------



## daemon barbeque

dragonblade629 said:


> I'm just going to leave this since you appear to think that the vegetable industry is so much better than the meat industry. The majority of both industries are shit, that's a fact.




I am not disagreeing with that. But there are far more small farms and small familiy operations.


----------



## Dan

daemon barbeque said:


> I am not disagreeing with that. But there are far more small farms and small familiy operations.



That is only because people are lazy and don't have to tend so much to vegetables other than water them and occasionally turn soil. If people knew how to and were allowed to raise livestock on their properties (you cant do this in the UK without a permit) i'm betting you a wealth more people would do so.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

daemon barbeque said:


> I care since it's the world I live on wich is polluted, which is raped by mass meat production. Did I make my point clear? Does %40 of earths pollution mean nothing to you guys?



What exactly do you get from arguing on the internet? No one who eats meat is leaving this thread a vegetarian..most are just annoyed with you, and you haven't lifted a finger to solve the problems you claim the meat industry makes. Join a group, make a video to raise awareness, have OPEN AND PEACEFUL debate on the issue to show people who might not have known, make flyers, start a group at the local college, write a letter to congress, etc etc. Sitting here being the westboro baptist church equivalent to vegetarians doesn't help things. I'm not trying to flame you nor am I saying you don't know what you're talking about or whatever..I just think that if you're that passionate about it, you should rethink your sales pitch.


----------



## Sicarius

Using Wikipedia to prove your point.

Priceless.

Bear Gryhlls would find a way out of that cage with his Gerber.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> *And if some dick vegan is only going to eat veggies he's going to be devoid of essential proteins, unless they love living off of a strict vitamin regiment.*


I don't feel like arguing more in this thread , I just want to point out that that's incorrect: Unless you eat like a complete retard, it's remarkably easy to get enough protein in a vegan/vegetarian diet.

I don't get why people think that meat is the only thing that exists that has protein in it.


----------



## BigPhi84

highlordmugfug said:


> I don't get why people think that meat is the only thing that exists that has protein in it.



_Apparently, semen has protein in it.  _


----------



## highlordmugfug

BigPhi84 said:


> _Apparently, semen has protein in it.  _


I'm not sure if I can eat semen, let me check the vegan manual.




 Wait a minute.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius should be PLENTY alright without meat then.






Sorry man, that's the last one


----------



## Nimgoble

BigPhi84 said:


> _Apparently, semen has protein in it.  _



THAT STILL COMES FROM MEAT!


----------



## Dan

BigPhi84 said:


> _Apparently, semen has protein in it.  _



DRAKKAR... ROLL CALL


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Plug, please don't provoke him.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sicarius said:


> Using Wikipedia to prove your point.
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> Bear Gryhlls would find a way out of that cage with his Gerber.



I am not using Wiki to prove my point, I put numbers from an easy source. There are more in depth sources, but you should be ready to move your ass and go to library to read them, which I think would not happen.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

daemon barbeque said:


> I think either eating meat makes people blind or dumb! Choose your side


 
Aside from its delicious, delicious taste, I find that a good reason to eat meat is just to spite people who say stuff like this.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Aside from its delicious, delicious taste, I find that a good reason to eat meat is just to spite people who say stuff like this.



So you chose your side


----------



## Sicarius

daemon barbeque said:


> I am not using Wiki to prove my point, I put numbers from an easy source. There are more in depth sources, but you should be ready to move your ass and go to library to read them, which I think would not happen.



Yes you are.

Unless somehow posting a wikipedia article that's completely relevant to your arguement is now not considered using it to prove something...

I would like to live in your world. Where I can affably look down on everyone else, see my point of view as the only correct one, and no one else matters.

That's fucking utopia, man.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> 1) I don't like peas.
> 2) Giant Japanese peas freak me out
> 3) I think Sushi, and things from the sushi craze, are stupid. Except Wasabi.
> 4) I'm not a weeaboo.


I'm surprised that it being upset about the bears was brought up as questionable out of respect for culture, but this was let slide.


----------



## Sicarius

Probably because at the time we were joking and having fun.

Then Capt. Vegan came back and started his bullshit again.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sicarius said:


> Yes you are.
> 
> Unless somehow posting a wikipedia article that's completely relevant to your arguement is now not considered using it to prove something...
> 
> I would like to live in your world. Where I can affably look down on everyone else, see my point of view as the only correct one, and no one else matters.
> 
> That's fucking utopia, man.



Well, I don't look down on everyone, I do it just on you. You come to a discussion, with no argument what so ever, write some bullshit, tell me to get out, pointing me and telling " fuck that guy", than state something totally absurd about proteins and other stuff. 

Look, the article is very relative about the effects of meat production, but understanding that wpuld need well fed braincells.
It also dictates someone have to want to understand and learn. If both points are not given, you end up posting stupid and irrelevant shit.

But the most important point, what I have to post for the 3 time in one thread is this.

_It is not important what I or You think. Opinions do not matter on this topic. _There are facts and that is that. You either see them and aknowledge them, or you ignore them. Ignoring them causes the food industry to do shit as they like, and that is not better than what Chinese do with the bear.

So Opinions do not matter. I don't fight for my opinion, but for the future of this lovely earth.

Now go and read something useful like Protein sources and effects on body, and eat some Soybeans. You definetly could profit from some Lecithin.


----------



## Sicarius

daemon barbeque said:


> Well, I don't look down on everyone, I do it just on you. You come to a discussion, with no argument what so ever, write some bullshit, tell me to get out, pointing me and telling " fuck that guy", than state something totally absurd about proteins and other stuff.
> 
> Look, the article is very relative about the effects of meat production, but understanding that wpuld need well fed braincells.
> It also dictates someone have to want to understand and learn. If both points are not given, you end up posting stupid and irrelevant shit.
> 
> But the most important point, what I have to post for the 3 time in one thread is this.
> 
> _It is not important what I or You think. Opinions do not matter on this topic. _There are facts and that is that. You either see them and aknowledge them, or you ignore them. Ignoring them causes the food industry to do shit as they like, and that is not better than what Chinese do with the bear.
> 
> So Opinions do not matter. I don't fight for my opinion, but for the future of this lovely earth.
> 
> Now go and read something useful like Protein sources and effects on body, and eat some Soybeans. You definetly could profit from some Lecithin.


You are the greatest wall, ever. Seriously, well done.

I did say, "Fuck that guy." But I'm guessing by the way you took it, you're homophobic, and completely narcissistic. Instead of taking it as a generality about your view, your want and need to prove yourself right caused it to be taken in a homosexual way. 

I applaud your lack of comprehension, your unequivocal god-complex, and your Xenophobia.

You're completely fighting for your opinions, each and every post you make.

You, truthfully, are too ingrained into your own thought process to not be able to differentiate between killing an animal in a few short moments, and keeping an animal in a small cage, for the whole of it's life with a hole in it's stomach. Living in constant pain.

Those are two completely different things. If you honestly think that whatever you are doing, is so much better than everyone else, fine. Unplug your computer, go off grid, and stay in a commune with other like minded people.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> You are the greatest wall, ever. Seriously, well done.


You really have done anything but insult him and be dismissive and refuse to truly respond to what he's saying, when people do that there's not much more he can really do.



And to respond to all the 'VEGETARIANS AND VEGANS ARE SO PREACHY, O MAH GAWD!" in here: I've been vegan for just shy of 3 years. I've had people who didn't know this for months after I met them, and whenever the subject finally did come up, the first thing out of their mouths is" Well I don't have a problem with vegetarians, but they're too preachy and I like meat, and they try and tell me what to do, NOT GOIN' TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" 
Really  you've know me for half a year and you didn't even know I didn't eat meat until just now, I'm the preachy one? There are douches on all sides of the aisle, that doesn't define either side.

And it's kind of unfortunate that this turned into a big eat meat VS don't eat meat debate, when the point isn't (or at least my intention in pointing it out) wasn't "Stop eating meat" just that factory farming, and face it that's where most people's sources of meat/dairy/eggs and such originate, is quite often just as horrible as what's being done to the bears. Arguing that food production is 'more important' than drinking bear bile to maintain an erection (or whatever it's for ) is really an argument over what you value the worth as: you want to eat meat because you want to and think you need it, these people want to drink bear bile because they want to and think they need it.  The point is, there's a definite similarity, even if you refuse to accept that they're exactly the same, it's impossible to deny that they are (at least in the cases of disgusting agribusiness factory farming techniques) multiple similarities: what you do with that fact/how you react to it is up to you. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.


I feel like Explorer for asking this , but would anyone think it'd be fine if they had 'more humane' bear bile extraction plants? I'm seriously interested in you guys opinions on that.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> You really have done anything but insult him and be dismissive and refuse to truly respond to what he's saying, when people do that there's not much more he can really do.
> 
> 
> 
> And to respond to all the 'VEGETARIANS AND VEGANS ARE SO PREACHY, O MAH GAWD!" in here: I've been vegan for just shy of 3 years. I've had people who didn't know this for months after I met them, and whenever the subject finally did come up, the first thing out of their mouths is" Well I don't have a problem with vegetarians, but they're too preachy and I like meat, and they try and tell me what to do, NOT GOIN' TELL ME WHAT TO DO!"
> Really  you've know me for half a year and you didn't even know I didn't eat meat until just now, I'm the preachy one? There are douches on all sides of the aisle, that doesn't define either side.
> 
> And it's kind of unfortunate that this turned into a big eat meat VS don't eat meat debate, when the point isn't (or at least my intention in pointing it out) wasn't "Stop eating meat" just that factory farming, and face it that's where most people's sources of meat/dairy/eggs and such originate, is quite often just as horrible as what's being done to the bears. Arguing that food production is 'more important' than drinking bear bile to maintain an erection (or whatever it's for ) is really an argument over what you value the worth as: you want to eat meat because you want to and think you need it, these people want to drink bear bile because they want to and think they need it.  The point is, there's a definite similarity, even if you refuse to accept that they're exactly the same, it's impossible to deny that they are (at least in the cases of disgusting agribusiness factory farming techniques) multiple similarities: what you do with that fact/how you react to it is up to you. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
> 
> 
> I feel like Exlporer for asking this , but would anyone think it'd be fine if they had 'more humane' bear bile extraction plants? I'm seriously interested in you guys opinions on that.



As the article said, this practice is going out of style and the bile has been replaces by a number of TCM producers with other herbs and synthetics. 

I have responded as reasonably, and rationally as I can. The exact next post I made after the one you neg-rep'd me for, was completely rational, explained my stance on the topic, and why I completely disagreed with the guy.

You may not be a preachy Vegan/Vegitarian, but obviously the other person is.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> As the article said, this practice is going out of style and the bile has been replaces by a number of TCM producers with other herbs and synthetics.
> 
> I have responded as reasonably, and rationally as I can. The exact next post I made after the one you neg-rep'd me for, was completely rational, explained my stance on the topic, and why I completely disagreed with the guy.
> 
> You may not be a preachy Vegan/Vegitarian, but obviously the other person is.


Well, couldn't it also be argued that since there are more vegans/vegetarians lately and with all of the different meat substitutes being made available, that eating meat is going out of style too? 

EDIT FOR CLARITY/MORE QUESTIONS: If the best option for the bears seems to be moving to synthetic or herb based 'bile', why wouldn't that be viewed as a good way to move for meat production as well?

EDITNUMBATWO: And no, I'm not trying to be facetious or snide, I really want to know the reasoning/logic for it. It seems like if it's not okay to continue gathering the bile and just do it in a more humane way from the bears and that synthetics/herbs are the best way to go about it, logic would dictate that that'd be the way to move when it comes to other animals suffering as well, so why not?


----------



## Sicarius

The Vegan/Vegetarian craze is only a fad. It will pass in a few years.

Protip: You are still a minority, so please, stop trying to force a change onto the rest of the species.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sicarius said:


> You are the greatest wall, ever. Seriously, well done.
> 
> I did say, "Fuck that guy." But I'm guessing by the way you took it, you're homophobic, and completely narcissistic. Instead of taking it as a generality about your view, your want and need to prove yourself right caused it to be taken in a homosexual way.
> 
> I applaud your lack of comprehension, your unequivocal god-complex, and your Xenophobia.
> 
> You're completely fighting for your opinions, each and every post you make.
> 
> You, truthfully, are too ingrained into your own thought process to not be able to differentiate between killing an animal in a few short moments, and keeping an animal in a small cage, for the whole of it's life with a hole in it's stomach. Living in constant pain.
> 
> Those are two completely different things. If you honestly think that whatever you are doing, is so much better than everyone else, fine. Unplug your computer, go off grid, and stay in a commune with other like minded people.



Except the whole low level insult, you finally made and argument.
You say that an animal with a hole in the stomack for the whole life is not equal to killing an animal in instance.
An egg Chicken lives exactly in a cage like that. Mostly can't even turn 1 round because of the lack of space. The cage ripps away the skin of the feet, leaves an open wound, and sometimes leads to leg loss. Not only that, they have to live 24 hours under light, no sleep is given. Normally they would sleep 8 hours. This is torture, and as bad as the one they do with the bear.

I really suggest you to read more. You might not get more intelligent, but maybe learn to speak with at least minimum knowledge.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> The Vegan/Vegetarian craze is only a fad. It will pass in a few years.
> 
> Protip: You are still a minority, so please, stop trying to force a change onto the rest of the species.


It's been around since at least 1944, and that's just when the vegan society was founded.

Protip: asking questions based on facts and asking you to support your views so I can understand what your logic is isn't asking you to change, it's how discussion works.

EDIT: Bbq, while I do agree with you, I do feel like you're being a bit condescending, but with as frustrating and rude as Sicarius is being, I can't really say that I blame you.

EDIT AGAIN: Also, so minorities aren't allowed to voice their opinions and try and change things? I guess slavery is back on guys, to the fields. 

Talking to you sucks.


----------



## daemon barbeque

highlordmugfug said:


> It's been around since at least 1944, and that's just when the vegan society was founded.
> 
> Protip: asking questions based on facts and asking you to support your views so I can understand what your logic is isn't asking you to change, it's how discussion works.
> 
> EDIT: Bbq, while I do agree with you, I do feel like you're being a bit condescending, but with as frustrating and rude as Sicarius is being, I can't really say that I blame you.
> 
> EDIT AGAIN: Also, so minorities aren't allowed to try and change thing? I guess slavery is back on guys, to the fields.
> 
> Talking to you sucks.



Yeah man I should actually lay the keyboard down. It's just me being Lazy, since getting down from my hi-horse needs to much energy


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> It's been around since at least 1944, and that's just when the vegan society was founded.
> 
> Protip: asking questions based on facts and asking you to support your views so I can understand what your logic is isn't asking you to change, it's how discussion works.
> 
> EDIT: Bbq, while I do agree with you, I do feel like you're being a bit condescending, but with as frustrating and rude as Sicarius is being, I can't really say that I blame you.
> 
> EDIT AGAIN: Also, so minorities aren't allowed to voice their opinions and try and change things? I guess slavery is back on guys, to the fields.
> 
> Talking to you sucks.



Apparently the minority is allowed to insult and tell other people what to do, how to feel and what to eat.

So don't talk to me. I'd be happy.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Apparently the minority is allowed to insult and tell other people what to do, how to feel and what to eat.
> 
> So don't talk to me. I'd be happy.


Once again you ignore what I actually said, refuse to respond to it or discuss it, and resort to baseless insults.

Oh, and it's not me telling you what to do, as much as I'd like to claim I invented organized debate, I wasn't involved. Thanks for the compliment though.


----------



## Sicarius

daemon barbeque said:


> Except the whole low level insult, you finally made and argument.
> You say that an animal with a hole in the stomack for the whole life is not equal to killing an animal in instance.
> An egg Chicken lives exactly in a cage like that. Mostly can't even turn 1 round because of the lack of space. The cage ripps away the skin of the feet, leaves an open wound, and sometimes leads to leg loss. Not only that, they have to live 24 hours under light, no sleep is given. Normally they would sleep 8 hours. This is torture, and as bad as the one they do with the bear.
> 
> I really suggest you to read more. You might not get more intelligent, but maybe learn to speak with at least minimum knowledge.




My vocabulary in the last few posts have been impeccable, and extremely intelligent. Just because I'm not the most well read on a subject matter I couldn't give less of a fuck about, doesn't mean I'm an idiot.

So take your elitist views, and shove it.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> My vocabulary in the last few posts have been impeccable, and extremely intelligent. Just because I'm not the most well read on a subject matter I couldn't give less of a fuck about, doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
> 
> So take your elitist views, and shove it.


If you care about it being done to the bears, why couldn't you give less of a fuck about the exact same thing happening to other animals?


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> Once again you ignore what I actually said, refuse to respond to it or discuss it, and resort to baseless insults.
> 
> Oh, and it's not me telling you what to do, as much as I'd like to claim I invented organized debate, I wasn't involved. Thanks for the compliment though.



This hasn't been a "discussion" since you two decided to gang up on me.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> If you care about it being done to the bears, why couldn't you give less of a fuck about the exact same thing happening to other animals?


What other animals are we talking about?

What other animal is kept in a cage where it's gall bladder milked daily? Because that is the only "exact same thing" that could be happening to the animal.

If you want to talk about the slaughter of animals for the use of public consumption that's not the "exact same thing".


----------



## highlordmugfug

Playing the victim card doesn't help your case, why won't you answer any questions and defend yourself instead of attacking him or me?
EDIT: I really want to know what you think the differences are, and how you arrived at that conclusion, is asking you what you think and why asking too much?


----------



## Sicarius

Are animals kept in cages to be fed, then slaughtered to feed humans? Yes, of course.
Is this the same condition every single farm keeps the animals? No, it's a fraction of the number, not even 1/2 of them do it.

Do I see a difference between an animal kept in constant pain until it finally dies from the excruciating pain, and an animal that's kept in similar conditions but is killed to feed people? While there are some similarities that can not be denied, it's hardly the exact same thing.

Again, this isn't the condition on most of the farms. Things are better on some, and worse on others.

Is this going to stop me from eating meats, eggs, and dairy? Not at all. I don't drink milk, I hardly ever eat eggs, and I typically only eat lean beef, or turkey products. I despise pork.

These dietary choices aren't because of how the animal is treated, it's just what I like, and what I don't like. I hate peas and had to drink soy milk as a child, I don't like either type.

I never asked that you define why you came to these conclusions, I never asked that you explain why you're a Vegan/Vegetarian.

I find it laughable that I'm asked to.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Are animals kept in cages to be fed, then slaughtered to feed humans? Yes, of course.
> Is this the same condition every single farm keeps the animals? No, it's a fraction of the number, not even 1/2 of them do it.
> 
> Do I see a difference between an animal kept in constant pain *to get something people want from *it until it finally dies from the excruciating pain, and an animal that's kept in similar conditions but is killed to feed people? While there are some similarities that can not be denied, it's hardly the exact same thing.
> 
> Again, this isn't the condition on most of the farms. Things are better on some, and worse on others.


I'd guess that it's probably higher than half considering the number of animals that are involved in factory farming, but I'm not sure of the exact numbers and I don't have time to research it right now (gotta get to work soon).

I added in a bolded part just to emphasize another way they're similar (both things are happening to get something from the animals that humans want).

So am I correct in assuming that we both agree that the places that are producing animal products need to at least take strides to keep them all at a high standard (no crush cages, no beak snipping, no grinding baby males chicks to death, etc.)? 
And I'll add to that, making efforts to pollute less with pharmaceuticals, animal waste runoff, and the like?

EDIT TO RESPOND TO YOUR EDIT: If you had asked me why I made that decision, I would have answered you instead of complaining that you were picking on me, and ignoring the issue, I have no beef (lol pun lol) with talking about my reasons. I don't think it's laughable at all to ask why people made the decisions they made in relation to topics that are currently being discussed.

EDIT AGAIN: And I really just asking you to defend your position on why the two acts were so different.


----------



## Sicarius

I don't give a shit anymore, dude.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> I don't give a shit anymore, dude.


You gave enough of a shit to get really defensive about it and continue posting about it 

If you really don't care about a topic, then you wouldn't have posted/responded to all of this. It's childish to say you don't care just because you don't feel like having to discuss, support, or explain yourself. If you're done talking and don't care, then by all means stop posting.


----------



## Sicarius

Cool, thanks bro.

So glad i have your permission to stop.

By the way when someone says "I don't give a shit anymore" That typically means they have lost interest in the argument.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Cool, thanks bro.
> 
> So glad i have your permission to stop.
> 
> By the way when someone says "I don't give a shit anymore" That typically means they have lost the argument.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I don't like milking bear bile because bears are cool and cute and awesome. Cows, pigs and chickens are stupid and ugly, so who cares?

Trolololololololol.

To be up front about it, I can see how there would be some moral hypcrisy involved in being okay with one and not being okay with the other. My solution? I just don't really care. I'm totally fine with saying that my wants and desires don't jive with everyone elses, and can even be defined as hypocritical and/or wrong according to other people's moral compasses. I won't try to make excuses for it. I'll just say I eat meat, and if it's morally wrong, I don't really give a shit .

It's sorta like the whole music piracy "debate" (lol). People can come up with resons why it shouldn't be illegal and the industry needs to change until they're blue in the face, but _it's still illegal_. Instead of making excuses or arguing in its favor, I'm fine just saying "Yeah, it's illegal. I don't care."

Yeah, eating meat can be viewed as immoral. I don't care. Simple as.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I don't like milking bear bile because bears are cool and cute and awesome. Cows, pigs and chickens are stupid and ugly, so who cares?
> 
> Trolololololololol.
> 
> To be up front about it, I can see how there would be some moral hypcrisy involved in being okay with one and not being okay with the other. My solution? I just don't really care. I'm totally fine with saying that my wants and desires don't jive with everyone elses, and can even be defined as hypocritical and/or wrong according to other people's moral compasses. I won't try to make excuses for it. I'll just say I eat meat, and if it's morally wrong, I don't really give a shit .
> 
> It's sorta like the whole music piracy "debate" (lol). People can come up with resons why it shouldn't be illegal and the industry needs to change until they're blue in the face, but _it's still illegal_. Instead of making excuses or arguing in its favor, I'm fine just saying "Yeah, it's illegal. I don't care."
> 
> Yeah, eating meat can be viewed as immoral. I don't care. Simple as.



At least somebody with guts to say it, instead of trying to argue against it!


----------



## Demiurge

Grand Moff Tim said:


> To be up front about it, I can see how there would be some moral hypcrisy involved in being okay with one and not being okay with the other. My solution? I just don't really care. I'm totally fine with saying that my wants and desires don't jive with everyone elses, and can even be defined as hypocritical and/or wrong according to other people's moral compasses. I won't try to make excuses for it. I'll just say I eat meat, and if it's morally wrong, I don't really give a shit .



This is, essentially, what we need to do to be sane!

You can sit in your home, look at everything around you, and wonder where it came from and what effect its production has on the world. Under what conditions were the computer on my desk, the cellphone sitting nearby, the clothes on my back, the guitar on my lap, the chair under my ass, and even my desk itself produced under? Are the human workers treated well? Do the respective factories pollute the environment? Did the production of power for the factories, shops, or even the computer that I'm typing on- is that harming the environment? Is a lifestyle such that I have the luxury of thinking about these things and having these nice things- is this causing others to not have the opportunity to have the same? This can go on and on and on...

...And chances are, there is someone out there who will make the case that yes- your consumer items, your electricity, and your standard of living came at the expense of the life or the dignity of another living thing- plant or animal. Of course, eating another living thing is probably the most obvious example: eating a chicken wing is immediate, while the implications of a worldwide economy that allows me to own and afford my PC while others starve is not.

It's maddening, because it is truly impossible to live a "cruelty-free," aseptic life. In some ways, to be sane is to stuff the guilt away. We can do what we can- trying to make some conscientious lifestyle decisions. It's fine that people try to eat diets that do not stress the environment and harm others- it takes a lot of discipline, but ultimately it's a personal decision that really doesn't reverse everything else.

TL;DR: if we're supposed to be considered guilty for all that we do and consume as humans, then we're all horrible by nature. If a person cherry-picks one or two things that he/she thinks are harmless- that's great- but that just makes him/her a few percentage points less horrible than everyone else. Cheers for being 2% less horrible or less hypocritical, but I want to be 0.5% less horrible by being worried about bears.


----------



## Dan




----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Plug said:


>


----------



## Sicarius

Grand Moff Tim said:


>


----------



## Dan

Sicarius said:


>


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Plug said:


>


----------



## vampiregenocide

Well I'm glad this ended well sort of.


----------



## highlordmugfug

vampiregenocide said:


> Well I'm glad this ended well sort of.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Sorry for the stubbornnes guys. Since Orb is gone, somebody had to do it.
BTW, Sic called me a homophobe. How somebody can be homophobe and post in this forum frequently?


----------



## shredguitar7

jesus christ, how is this even real... ill stick with living in upstate new york, where if you see a bear you fucking run your ass off instead of trying to squeeze its fucking taint for magical juice.. sick fucks..


----------



## Origin

Torturous cruelty to bears for holistic medicine...so basically they live their entire lives in agony and misery for absolute bullshit nothingness. I wanna puke.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

If Chinese culture were completely dominated by traditional medicine, it's unlikely that this story would have been reported. This gets back to what AoA alluded to earlier when discussing negativity in the news: media outlets ultimately cover only that which is profitable. If everyone were "for" this practice, this story would have been marginalized like those of the West's animal cruelty. The fact that this bear's plight was viewed as "profitable" gives me hope that there _is_ a significant portion of the Chinese population that can empathize with the bears. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but obviously whoever covered the story thought it would have a strong emotional impact.


----------



## tacotiklah

Wow, just read 6 pages of pointless debate when I couldve done more useful things with my time. Like work on a bear bile farm.


Since we went down this road, Ill come right out and say it:
I eat meat and do not give two shits and a handshake if you dont like it. I myself have assisted in the raising and butchering of animals. Sorry to say, but pain is a shitty side effect of being killed. Pain is the body's way of informing the brain that it is under attack. So the cleanest and most human way Ive seen of killing an animal is putting a bullet in their head. The brain itself feels no pain, and if done right, can paralyze them so that their throes of death are at a bare minimum. And how else am I gonna eat the damn thing? Alive? I dunno, but my twisted morals see that as just too damn cruel.  
If vegans wanna live off of tofu and wheatgrass, go for it. Just dont expect me to stop eating meat anytime soon. 

The tangents in this thread have made the following sense to me:

Bear kills cub to prevent suffering then offs itself = FUCK YOU MEAT EATERS! NO, FUCK YOU VEGANS!

Which makes about as much sense to me as:
Apple = Recliner

Maybe the discussion would be more interesting if we started talking about the cognitive processes of bears and how they seem to have a higher understanding of ethics than was previously thought. Or we could always talk about wanking each other to get our daily protein. Both those have more potential for entertainment and for actually getting somewhere.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

The wanking thing actually sort of did come up a few pages ago.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Brinks a whole new meaning to the "milking industry"


----------



## Adam Of Angels

ghstofperdition said:


> Wow, just read 6 pages of pointless debate when I couldve done more useful things with my time. Like work on a bear bile farm.
> 
> 
> Since we went down this road, Ill come right out and say it:
> I eat meat and do not give two shits and a handshake if you dont like it. I myself have assisted in the raising and butchering of animals. Sorry to say, but pain is a shitty side effect of being killed. Pain is the body's way of informing the brain that it is under attack. So the cleanest and most human way Ive seen of killing an animal is putting a bullet in their head. The brain itself feels no pain, and if done right, can paralyze them so that their throes of death are at a bare minimum. And how else am I gonna eat the damn thing? Alive? I dunno, but my twisted morals see that as just too damn cruel.
> If vegans wanna live off of tofu and wheatgrass, go for it. Just dont expect me to stop eating meat anytime soon.
> 
> The tangents in this thread have made the following sense to me:
> 
> Bear kills cub to prevent suffering then offs itself = FUCK YOU MEAT EATERS! NO, FUCK YOU VEGANS!
> 
> Which makes about as much sense to me as:
> Apple = Recliner
> 
> Maybe the discussion would be more interesting if we started talking about the cognitive processes of bears and how they seem to have a higher understanding of ethics than was previously thought. Or we could always talk about wanking each other to get our daily protein. Both those have more potential for entertainment and for actually getting somewhere.



Yeah, the whole vegan argument actually did have a rightful place here, though. So, cool.

Being proud doesn't mean ignorance isn't obvious, and it certainly doesn't mean anybody else gives a shit. Facts were brought up, and if your desires and habits don't agree with those facts, then you can ignore the facts all you want. That doesn't make the facts any less substantial, and it certainly doesn't make the condescension anymore impressive. But you're right, this is all about entertainment.............


----------



## JPMike

Psychotic Disorders are hitting animals. 

Nice, got a packet of Xanax??


----------



## tacotiklah

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Brings a whole new meaning to the "milking industry"



Indeed. But remember, we have to milk you in the most humane way possible. We wouldnt want you to come and go at the same time. 


@Adam
You know I got respect for ya man, but just from what I read, you were among the people making the LEAST sense in this whole discussion. It went from being about bears to not believing what "THEY" tell you. And Im not disagreeing with those viewpoints, but mentioning that they dont exactly fit with the topic at hand. By all means, make a new thread for it, and provided that I have anything worth contributing, Id be happy to discuss it with you. Hell, hit up my inbox if you want. I just dont want to see a thread be needlessly closed because we all cant act our age and not our shoe size and stay on topic. 


And no, Im not ignorant to the issues; just apathetic. Big difference. Its sad that bears are being tortured, but its not my place to tell a sovereign nation what it can or cannot do in its own borders. Their way of doing things is screwy and fucked up to me, but Im sure they feel the same way about westerners. If this crap happened inside the US, you can bet Id be among the first to protest. Does this story bother and upset me? Yes. Does the fact that there is nothing I can do about it piss me off? You bet. Do I see any need for this to turn into a discussion regarding the meat industry? Not really. All it does is demonstrate that people with social agendas will come out the woodwork and attach them to a discussion, regardless of the topic at hand. Hence why I felt it prudent to call it out, albeit in my typical cynical and asshole-ish fashion.


I feel that if anybody takes a debate as more serious than a friendly, entertaining discussion among other mature adults, they have communication issues that need to be addressed. And possibly some prep H for their butthurt.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

ghstofperdition said:


> @Adam
> You know I got respect for ya man, but just from what I read, you were among the people making the LEAST sense in this whole discussion. It went from being about bears to not believing what "THEY" tell you. And Im not disagreeing with those viewpoints, but mentioning that they dont exactly fit with the topic at hand. By all means, make a new thread for it, and provided that I have anything worth contributing, Id be happy to discuss it with you. Hell, hit up my inbox if you want. I just dont want to see a thread be needlessly closed because we all cant act our age and not our shoe size and stay on topic.




Naturally, you and I are dudes

However, you completely misread or did not read this thread. I absolutely never blamed anything on "them". Vampiregeneocide said that most humans are bad, and I said that he only believes that because stories about bad people are the ones that sell in the news. Period. Thats where that discussion ended. You're taking things way way out context, making up parts of the story, then accusing me of doing those things. 



ghstofperdition said:


> And no, Im not ignorant to the issues; just apathetic. Big difference. Its sad that bears are being tortured, but its not my place to tell a sovereign nation what it can or cannot do in its own borders. Their way of doing things is screwy and fucked up to me, but Im sure they feel the same way about westerners. If this crap happened inside the US, you can bet Id be among the first to protest. Does this story bother and upset me? Yes. Does the fact that there is nothing I can do about it piss me off? You bet. Do I see any need for this to turn into a discussion regarding the meat industry? Not really. All it does is demonstrate that people with social agendas will come out the woodwork and attach them to a discussion, regardless of the topic at hand. Hence why I felt it prudent to call it out, albeit in my typical cynical and asshole-ish fashion.




Actually, there has been no hijacking or advantage taken by social agendas. The whole argument is that animal products are not necessary and therefore, should not be produced. Whether it bem leather, bear bile, or steak, the argument is exactly the same. Being vegan doesn't just entail diet.. Its a responsibility. This is entirely why there is a debate here. Again, you didn't really read this thread. Everything I've said here has made complete, perfect sense and is in direct context of the thread. Not to sound harsh, but brush up on your late night comprehension a bit



ghstofperdition said:


> I feel that if anybody takes a debate as more serious than a friendly, entertaining discussion among other mature adults, they have communication issues that need to be addressed. And possibly some prep H for their butthurt.



Aside from the jokes directed at a couple if these guys, my arguments and discussion have been friendly.


----------



## sol niger 333

ghstofperdition said:


> Wow, just read 6 pages of pointless debate when I couldve done more useful things with my time. Like work on a bear bile farm.
> 
> 
> Since we went down this road, Ill come right out and say it:
> I eat meat and do not give two shits and a handshake if you dont like it. I myself have assisted in the raising and butchering of animals. Sorry to say, but pain is a shitty side effect of being killed. Pain is the body's way of informing the brain that it is under attack. So the cleanest and most human way Ive seen of killing an animal is putting a bullet in their head. The brain itself feels no pain, and if done right, can paralyze them so that their throes of death are at a bare minimum. And how else am I gonna eat the damn thing? Alive? I dunno, but my twisted morals see that as just too damn cruel.
> If vegans wanna live off of tofu and wheatgrass, go for it. Just dont expect me to stop eating meat anytime soon.
> 
> The tangents in this thread have made the following sense to me:
> 
> Bear kills cub to prevent suffering then offs itself = FUCK YOU MEAT EATERS! NO, FUCK YOU VEGANS!
> 
> Which makes about as much sense to me as:
> Apple = Recliner
> 
> Maybe the discussion would be more interesting if we started talking about the cognitive processes of bears and how they seem to have a higher understanding of ethics than was previously thought. Or we could always talk about wanking each other to get our daily protein. Both those have more potential for entertainment and for actually getting somewhere.



And you complained about everyone else's posts being irrelevant? If you can't join the dots on how the industry of supplying certain animal products, meat included is a parallel to the farming of bear bile you are missing a few screws. Seems to me the connection is obvious. If we're questioning relevance I'd hazard a guess that your boastful apathy and myopia would DEFINITELY qualify as irrelevant. Your rhetoric is a well trampled cliche


----------



## daemon barbeque

The Meat Industry is pretty much very well compareable to the bear-bile industry.

I keep it short.
Both keep animals in extreme small cages. Go to a chicken farm and see for your self, if they even ever let you inside!
Both see animals suffer and see it as "normal". Bear has infections and pain, so does the chicken, plus, they don't even have right to sleep and the surface they stand on literally cuts their feet 24/7. No healing is possible.

Even just 2 of those points are enough to show the similarities. It is apples with apples, torture with torture. If anyone would raise their own animals on an open farm with love and care, and slaughter painless and fast, that would be okay for me and I would shut up. But all of you know that this is not the case. An if it would be the case, only 1/80 of people could eat meat. There would be not enough room.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Like I mentioned, not all meat farms are like that. In the UK at least we have very strict standards and any farms that don't meet those standards get ripped apart by the media. Hence I don't really by into that argument, at least for this country. I know not everywhere has the same animal rights laws as we do so I can't speak for everywhere. I know what you're saying is true and does happen far too often, but there are plenty of farms that do things humanely and fairly. That's why I've disagreed with you so much. I can't speak for every farm in the UK, but I know most of them have a very good track record. I've been to a few. There is more and more pressure by consumers in the UK to have access to free-range, organic, local produce and this in turn puts pressure on larger companies to do things in a similar manner. This is why I don't think I am morally inferior about eating meat, because the horrific situation which is the basis for your hatred of the meat industry is not that common here.


----------



## daemon barbeque

vampiregenocide said:


> Like I mentioned, not all meat farms are like that. In the UK at least we have very strict standards and any farms that don't meet those standards get ripped apart by the media. Hence I don't really by into that argument, at least for this country. I know not everywhere has the same animal rights laws as we do so I can't speak for everywhere. I know what you're saying is true and does happen far too often, but there are plenty of farms that do things humanely and fairly. That's why I've disagreed with you so much. I can't speak for every farm in the UK, but I know most of them have a very good track record. I've been to a few. There is more and more pressure by consumers in the UK to have access to free-range, organic, local produce and this in turn puts pressure on larger companies to do things in a similar manner. This is why I don't think I am morally inferior about eating meat, because the horrific situation which is the basis for your hatred of the meat industry is not that common here.



Fair enough and good for the UK. 
But chicken farms stay mostly as they are, since there is no other way to produce that many chicken or eggs. The egg laying hens have always sleep deprivation, and there is no ruling against it. Same goes for the broilers and their inability to move.
Only egg laying hens are kept free range except the very small farms. So chicken meqt comes 99.99999% from a cage.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I don't like milking bear bile because bears are cool and cute and awesome. Cows, pigs and chickens are stupid and ugly, so who cares?
> 
> Trolololololololol.
> 
> To be up front about it, I can see how there would be some moral hypcrisy involved in being okay with one and not being okay with the other. My solution? I just don't really care. I'm totally fine with saying that my wants and desires don't jive with everyone elses, and can even be defined as hypocritical and/or wrong according to other people's moral compasses. I won't try to make excuses for it. I'll just say I eat meat, and if it's morally wrong, I don't really give a shit .
> 
> It's sorta like the whole music piracy "debate" (lol). People can come up with resons why it shouldn't be illegal and the industry needs to change until they're blue in the face, but _it's still illegal_. Instead of making excuses or arguing in its favor, I'm fine just saying "Yeah, it's illegal. I don't care."
> 
> Yeah, eating meat can be viewed as immoral. I don't care. Simple as.



BTW that is sooo SITH! It totally fits your screen name and avatar LOL


----------



## vampiregenocide

daemon barbeque said:


> Fair enough and good for the UK.
> But chicken farms stay mostly as they are, since there is no other way to produce that many chicken or eggs. The egg laying hens have always sleep deprivation, and there is no ruling against it. Same goes for the broilers and their inability to move.
> Only egg laying hens are kept free range except the very small farms. So chicken meqt comes 99.99999% from a cage.



Not quite that high a percentage. Granted, the amount of free range farms isn't as high as it could be, but within the EU there are strict standards as to how much space there should be per chicken, how much access to the outside they get (during the night as well) etc. There are minimum requirements that a farm has to meet in order to be considered free range, if not they are put into other classes. There are an increasing number of free range meat farms in the UK which actually let out the birds a lot younger than other places. This includes broilers. Their numbers may not be as big, and the meat may be less but there is increasing public pressure to favour this time of farming. If the animals aren't treated well or don't have a good environment, EU/UK regulations give them a sticker saying so and that farm or company will have to deal with it. In the US, these guidelines are a lot more flexible and open to interpretation, meaning companies can get away with a lot more.

Besides, like I said my step mother is a vegetarian so everything we get in is free range, organic and often local.


----------



## tacotiklah

@daemon barbeque

I still fail to see how killing a chicken has anything to do with suicidal bears, but Ill play devils advocate.

Has anybody here actually WORKED on a farm? At age 7 I was responsible for the care of over 1000 animals; half that number being chickens. I have loved and raised farm animals for most of my childhood. Were they in pens and cages? Yes. Reason being that we lived next to a few busy streets and the chickens are dumb enough to try and play chicken with oncoming traffic. They were penned up for their own safety as well as for the safety of other people. We had a cow that we tried to let out of her pen, but she felt compelled to try and hump the hood of my dads F150, and caused enough damage that keeping her horny ass in a pen was necessary. We had geese that we kept in pens because geese are mean animals and they attack anything they come across. My whole point is that every animal we had, we kept penned for their health and safety, and to minimize property damage. I helped build the pens. Each had shade and reasonable protection from the elements. Also all the chickens had their own roost to sleep on and nests with fresh hay to lay eggs on. You can appreciate the time, effort and cost that went into this Im sure.
My job everyday before going to school, was to feed, water, inspect, and clean up after every animal. I must have been the only kid in 2nd grade that got up at 3:30 every morning to take care of a damn farm. If I saw anything wrong, I was to tell my dad immediately so that he could treat the sick animal and we would both nurse it back to health. When it came time to butcher an animal, we had a USDA approved butcher come out with a sterilized mobile trailer and I would assist him. He alone was allowed to actually kill the animal. I assisted in the skinning and gutting. The animals that were butchered died as quickly as we could make happen so that they felt the least amount of pain. I was personally attached to those animals and I personally named a majority of them.


----------



## tacotiklah

(word entry limit phone fail)
We treated every animal with reverence and respect, even when it came time for butchering. I take the wholesale condemnation of the meat industry as a personal insult because a good portion of myself was invested in the proper care and feeding of animals. I also still fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with bears being tortured in crush cages and then left to suffer with massive holes in their gut that get infected and the die horribly. I love animals. (especially with a good marinade.  ) but I just cant see how any well run farm would allow the conditions that are being described by others. Outside of the fact that farmers usually love animals and care for them as children, there is also no profit to be made in letting animals get sick and potentially spread that to others around it. Plenty of potential revenue loss involved there though. But yeah, we all are the bad guys. But what do I know? Im just an ignorant person......


----------



## Adam Of Angels

ghstofperdition said:


> @daemon barbeque
> 
> I still fail to see how killing a chicken has anything to do with suicidal bears, but Ill play devils advocate.
> 
> Has anybody here actually WORKED on a farm? At age 7 I was responsible for the care of over 1000 animals; half that number being chickens. I have loved and raised farm animals for most of my childhood. Were they in pens and cages? Yes. Reason being that we lived next to a few busy streets and the chickens are dumb enough to try and play chicken with oncoming traffic. They were penned up for their own safety as well as for the safety of other people. We had a cow that we tried to let out of her pen, but she felt compelled to try and hump the hood of my dads F150, and caused enough damage that keeping her horny ass in a pen was necessary. We had geese that we kept in pens because geese are mean animals and they attack anything they come across. My whole point is that every animal we had, we kept penned for their health and safety, and to minimize property damage.



...and this is somehow a better alternative than not having these animals in the first place?  You're missing the point entirely.

You fail to see the connection here because you're just not thinking from a perspective outside of a defensive one. Using animals to our advantage is unnecessary, plain and simple. Use them for food, use them for bile, use them for sex, it's all the same. None of it is necessary. Keeping them in cages for their own good is no more a necessary thing than drilling holes in their stomachs. We don't need them for any of it. That's the point.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> ...and this is somehow a better alternative than not having these animals in the first place?  You're missing the point entirely.
> 
> You fail to see the connection here because you're just not thinking from a perspective outside of a defensive one. Using animals to our advantage is unnecessary, plain and simple. Use them for food, use them for bile, use them for sex, it's all the same. None of it is necessary. Keeping them in cages for their own good is no more a necessary thing than drilling holes in their stomachs. We don't need them for any of it. That's the point.



Ants farm aphids for the fluid they produce. The aphids eat and destroy many plants, causing a lot of damage. The ants could eat any number of things, but they found a way of taking advantage of nature and using it to benefit itself. Human's simply do this on a grander scale. Granted, the ant probably has more humane conditions than we do on our farms...


----------



## Adam Of Angels

.......are you comfortable comparing your intelligence to that of an ant? Seriously, dude...

We're able to comprehend that we don't need to use animals to our advantage. We don't NEED to do so. End of story. If you want to use animals, admit to being ignorant and that's that, but comparing yourself to an ant is far more insulting than anything that's been said by the "vegan elite" in this thread.


----------



## highlordmugfug

ghstofperdition said:


> (word entry limit phone fail)
> We treated every animal with reverence and respect, even when it came time for butchering. I take the wholesale condemnation of the meat industry as a personal insult because a good portion of myself was invested in the proper care and feeding of animals. I also still fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with bears being tortured in crush cages and then left to suffer with massive holes in their gut that get infected and the die horribly. I love animals. (especially with a good marinade.  ) but I just cant see how any well run farm would allow the conditions that are being described by others. Outside of the fact that farmers usually love animals and care for them as children, there is also no profit to be made in letting animals get sick and potentially spread that to others around it. Plenty of potential revenue loss involved there though. But yeah, we all are the bad guys. But what do I know? Im just an ignorant person......


You're arguing for something that no one is upset about though: no one has a problem (apart from extremist crazies, none of which have posted in here, yet ) with small-med farms that have their own animals, and treat their animals well, and don't contribute a ton to pollution and such.

It's the huge agribusiness, factory farms that produce *most* of the meat for, at least the USA. I forget the exact numbers, but it's over half of the worlds total food processed cows, chickens, pork that are produced on factory farms. So much of the worlds food supply come from those set ups and it's those that contribute to pollution, treating the animals like shit, lax regulations (or self regulation ), pumping the animals full of vaccines and hormones, the immense amount of animal waste that's produced, the immense amount of groundwater contamination with said animal waste, and other various chemicals involved.

@everyone in this thread that wants to make this a Meat-eater vs Vegetarian thread: No one gives a shit if you eat meat (for the most part), it's the production of it in the huge factory farms (where most meat comes from, your personal experience and how you yourself get meat doesn't effect the fact that an overwhelming percentage of the worlds meat supply comes from them) that are the animal abuse issue, and that causes the environmental issues and pollution that affects everyone regardless of their diet, and it's that that people care about. If you source meat from local/small places that treat they're animals fair and don't fuck up the planet as fast as they can  then good on you  You're really on the same side as everyone else in this thread that just wants to stop the "all meat all the time" way of dietary thinking and factory farming horrors. Adam of Angels isn't even a vegetarian and he was one of the main people trying to get people to see that there IS a relation between treating animals like shit, regardless of what the shit treating is supposed to be accomplishing.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Adam Of Angels said:


> .......are you comfortable comparing your intelligence to that of an ant? Seriously, dude...
> 
> We're able to comprehend that we don't need to use animals to our advantage. We don't NEED to do so. End of story. If you want to use animals, admit to being ignorant and that's that, but comparing yourself to an ant is far more insulting than anything that's been said by the "vegan elite" in this thread.



You completely missed my point, but that's been happening in this thread a lot and I can't be assed to explain. I do understand what you mean though, I just disagree.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I'm not really bashing people who eat meat, I'm just saying that if you think there is absolutely 100% no problem in using animal products, you're simply ignoring the fact that you don't need to do so. I don't judge people, so it's whatever... but people take such great offense to ideas that go against their behavior, it's kind of funny.. That is, if you don't recognize it as human nature.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> You completely missed my point, but that's been happening in this thread a lot and I can't be assed to explain. I do understand what you mean though, I just disagree.



You disagree that it is unnecessary to use animal products? Is it necessary to use animal products?


----------



## vampiregenocide

I'm not getting into it again sorry, this thread has taught me that religion and diets are two things that are worth staying out of on this forum.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Answer the question. This isn't a matter of opinion. From an objective standpoint, is it necessary to use animal products?


----------



## vampiregenocide

No it isn't completely necessary. And that's definitely going to be my last comment in this thread, because otherwise I will get banned for saying some things I shouldn't. I'm going to continue eating meat and using products that are from sustainable, regulated and humanely treated resources while doing anything I can to aid animal rights and welfare groups, as well as generally preserving the natural environment in places where it needs to be preserved. If anyone has a problem with that, can't help you.


----------



## highlordmugfug

highlordmugfug said:


> You're arguing for something that no one is upset about though: *no one has a problem (apart from extremist crazies, none of which have posted in here, yet ) with small-med farms that have their own animals, and treat their animals well, and don't contribute a ton to pollution and such.*
> 
> It's the huge agribusiness, factory farms that produce *most* of the meat for, at least the USA. I forget the exact numbers, but it's over half of the worlds total food processed cows, chickens, pork that are produced on factory farms. So much of the worlds food supply come from those set ups and it's those that contribute to pollution, treating the animals like shit, lax regulations (or self regulation ), pumping the animals full of vaccines and hormones, the immense amount of animal waste that's produced, the immense amount of groundwater contamination with said animal waste, and other various chemicals involved.
> 
> @everyone in this thread that wants to make this a Meat-eater vs Vegetarian thread: *No one gives a shit if you eat meat *(for the most part), it's the production of it in the huge factory farms (where most meat comes from, your personal experience and how you yourself get meat doesn't effect the fact that an overwhelming percentage of the worlds meat supply comes from them) that are the animal abuse issue, and that causes the environmental issues and pollution that affects everyone regardless of their diet, and it's that that people care about. * If you source meat from local/small places that treat they're animals fair and don't fuck up the planet as fast as they can  then good on you  You're really on the same side as everyone else in this thread that just wants to stop the "all meat all the time" way of dietary thinking and factory farming horrors. Adam of Angels isn't even a vegetarian and he was one of the main people trying to get people to see that there IS a relation between treating animals like shit, regardless of what the shit treating is supposed to be accomplishing.*





vampiregenocide said:


> No it isn't completely necessary. And that's definitely going to be my last comment in this thread, because otherwise I will get banned for saying some things I shouldn't. I'm going to continue eating meat and using products that are from sustainable, regulated and humanely treated resources while doing anything I can to aid animal rights and welfare groups, as well as generally preserving the natural environment in places where it needs to be preserved. If anyone has a problem with that, can't help you.


ROSSSS!! Y U NO READ?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vampiregenocide said:


> No it isn't completely necessary. And that's definitely going to be my last comment in this thread, because otherwise I will get banned for saying some things I shouldn't. I'm going to continue eating meat and using products that are from sustainable, regulated and humanely treated resources while doing anything I can to aid animal rights and welfare groups, as well as generally preserving the natural environment in places where it needs to be preserved. If anyone has a problem with that, can't help you.





Nah, it's not even partially necessary. It's completely unnecessary.


----------



## tacotiklah

vampiregenocide said:


> I'm not getting into it again sorry, this thread has taught me that religion and diets are two things that are worth staying out of on this forum.



My exact feelings on the matter. I foresaw the train wreck where this was heading, spoke up about it, and got put down by the mob. Just another day in P&CE.  (ah, im jk, dont get yer thongs in a twist)

The fact of the matter is Ive never worked on a massive farm, and I doubt anyone here has. So Im skeptical of whatever "proof" there is that cows are being tortured. I have seen verifiable fact that cattle farming creates high levels of methane (guess where THAT comes from  ) and that contributes more to the greenhouse effect than the burning of fossil fuels. Thats something I have a problem with. So yes, mass farming has negative impacts and Im not naive enough to dispute that. But to imply that I may have mistreated animals during my time as a farmer is no bueno. (And yes I read comments that had wholesale condemnation of the meat industry)
I also have mentioned in the past (in a previous thread regarding PETA) that many of the people that are all "lets save the animals" clearly have never had contact with the animals they are trying to save. They see a few cute tigers in a magazine and woe betide anyone that fucks with em.

We see said tiger/bear/etc. as a fellow creature worthy of love and respect. You know what the animal sees us as? A potential food source. I say fuck it. Humans are still a part of the animal kingdom no matter what arrogant rationality we cling to to claim otherwise. I find it hilariously backwards that many vegans I encounter are also staunch atheists, and say darwin was right. (I agree with much of his work myself) Well doesnt it strike you as odd that these people claim survival of the fittest and evolution are the way to go, but then decry when people take advantage of being at the top of the food chain and eat animals? What, should we force regulations on lions to leave the zebras be?


----------



## tacotiklah

How about a special commission on the genocide of insects due to bats? (they eat them by the pound) Perhaps sanctions against owls and snakes will force them to relax on their rodent consumption.

Humans have always consumed animals and will continue to do so. In the past we worked pretty well with the ecosystem and everything was happy go lucky. Wanna blame something for where things went wrong? Blame conveinence and our need to industrialize everything. The bulk of meat harvested in the US goes to the fast food industry. Keep that in mind when you take a bite out of a big mac. (mcdonalds is prolly the worst offender here. Thankfully their food disgusts me, so Im not contributing to their bs)
Try and tell a company like them to knock their crap off and you will be laughed right out of their offices. 
He who has the cash makes the rules. And with as much money as companies like mcdonalds have due to the meat industry, you could sue them for the cost of the national debt for all of their violations and they could just chalk it up to a bad fiscal quarter, and keep on trucking. Why? Because we give them that kind of power. We want little johnny son of a bitch to quit crying, so we cram some chicken nuggets down his throat. We are so busy and yet so lazy that we would rather buy some pre made burgers as opposed to learning how to cook for ourselves. Wanna point fingers? Point em directly at your own reflections. Just my two cents.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Bats aren't as intelligent as humans. They just do what their nature intends. That is not the case with humans, because we have the ability to overcome our flesh and reach further. It's not even in our nature to eat meat, we've just been doing it by choice.

You're ignoring the point here, which is based in fact: we do not need to use animal products. I'm tired of saying but it's a fact... Religion is subjective and speculative. Diet and health are exact sciences. We do not need to use animals. Period.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

You can keep acting like we're banging heads over a subjective issue, but in reality, you're sharing your feelings and I'm sharing facts. That's not an arrogant thing for me to say, and it's not condescension from the mind of an elitist. If you don't like the facts, I may feel bad sometime or something, but that doesn't change them.

I actually kind of feel retarded for having repeated myself so many times.


----------



## BigPhi84

Omnivore vs Vegan Who is Right?
The Straight Dope: Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature?
Are humans "naturally" herbivores? - Paleo Hacks.com
Jamie Oliver - Forums / Comparative Anatomy of Omnivores and Herbivores - beta

I don't want to get in the heated debate, but I want to say that I'm scared that some people accept that it is "scientific fact" that humans are herbivores.


----------



## tacotiklah

No I get your point. From a dietary standpoint, we do not need meat. My point is that cultural, societal, and industrial influences have decided otherwise. The same is true for the extraction of bear bile. I do not have a problem with its extraction, only with its methods. I say give the animal a quick, clean death and make sure that none of it goes to waste, and that there are regulations against overharvesting. Letting it sit in vile, abhorrent conditions is wrong to me, but killing it for human consumption is not. That is because of the society and culture I was raised in. and the impact it had in the forming of my personal ethics. Is it necessary to live? No. But the world we live in says meat is here to stay. We can go back and forth about the necessity of consuming animal products all the live long day, but it wont help or change anything. The only outcomes possible:
-We see eye to eye, pat each other on the back and go out for some burgers and fries
-We get hopelessly pissed and frustrated, we may end up banned over ridiculousness and in our time to ourselves we sit and weep over a bucket of chicken

My point there is that fast food is the staple of American comfort. When we want to celebrate, we further increase our euphoria by feeding off of dead cows. If we are pissed or upset, we cheer ourselves up with the byproducts of animals. (Ice Cream anyone?)

So my understanding of what you are saying is essentially the same point I am making, albeit we are reaching the same conclusion from two opposite, yet parallel paths. And that is that we essentially no better than the chinese. You are coming to that conclusion via a physical sense, whereas Im talking about the culture aspect of things. To many chinese citizens, bear bile is an integral part of healthy living. Yes there are better alternatives that work much better, but their way of doing things is far different from our own. Im sure that in eastern cultures where cows are considered sacred and worshipped, we are demonic blasphemers for eating them.


----------



## bostjan

Wow, I'm gone for a couple days and the thread about a tragedy involving pretty vulgar abuse of bears got turned into pro- vs. anti- dairy? 

I feel really sad for the bears in the story. It just broke my heart.


----------



## tacotiklah

BigPhi84 said:


> Omnivore vs Vegan Who is Right?
> The Straight Dope: Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature?
> Are humans "naturally" herbivores? - Paleo Hacks.com
> Jamie Oliver - Forums / Comparative Anatomy of Omnivores and Herbivores - beta
> 
> I don't want to get in the heated debate, but I want to say that I'm scared that some people accept that it is "scientific fact" that humans are herbivores.



I know this is kinda forward, but uh........


Please father our adopted children. I think I love you....... 



Seriously though, facts entered the thread for the first time.....


----------



## BigPhi84

_Brillat-Savarin- "Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."_






Do people actually eat douch-nozzles?  LOL. j/k


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Ghost: science doesn't consider cultural standards, and neither do I.

Phi: I'm not saying that we're herbivores, but science is not saying that we're omnivores. The facts I'm referring to is that we can survive, and in most cases even benefit from avoiding the use of animal products. Therefore, they're not necessary. Disagreeing with me by saying that you think it's alright to kill animals in a humane way is seriously slow. I'm starting to hate myself for saying that again 

This debate has reached the point of stupid.


----------



## BigPhi84

Adam Of Angels said:


> The facts I'm referring to is that we can survive, and in most cases even benefit from avoiding the use of animal products.




How so? I will say that I do believe that America has a big problem with huge portion sizes and meat/produce/grain ratios. But, none of my research has shown that moderate meat consumption harms the human body in ANY way.

"Moderation, moderation, in all things, moderation." Kinda my motto in life. (Except for ss.org. GAWD, I'm addicted!!!)




Adam Of Angels said:


> This debate has reached the point of stupid.




Well, that's what happens when you have two sides that are so firm in their beliefs that neither will budge.


----------



## tacotiklah

bostjan said:


> Wow, I'm gone for a couple days and the thread about a tragedy involving pretty vulgar abuse of bears got turned into pro- vs. anti- dairy?
> 
> I feel really sad for the bears in the story. It just broke my heart.



Another voice of reason! I tried to say the same thing to begin with. I think we got vegetrolled dude. 

¿¡Y u no realize internet is cereal bidness!?

But I still  you all, even the anonymous user that called me astonishingly ignorant. Can we kiss and have make up sex now? I heard an urban legend that chinese bear bile makes a great aphrodisiac.....


----------



## Adam Of Angels

BigPhi84 said:


> How so? I will say that I do believe that America has a big problem with huge portion sizes and meat/produce/grain ratios. But, none of my research has shown that moderate meat consumption harms the human body in ANY way.
> 
> "Moderation, moderation, in all things, moderation." Kinda my motto in life. (Except for ss.org. GAWD, I'm addicted!!!)



I said that in some cases, a person can benefit from not consuming animal products. The fact I mentioned is that we don't need animal products, and that science doesn't hold it as a fact that we're actually omnivores by necessity, just that we're able to digest meat.





BigPhi84 said:


> Well, that's what happens when you have two sides that are so firm in their beliefs that neither will budge.



Fucking Oy. Again, this has nothing to do with belief. Its not my belief that we don't need animal products, it's fact. Why is this so hard to address?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

ghstofperdition said:


> Another voice of reason! I tried to say the same thing to begin with. I think we got vegetrolled dude.
> 
> ¿¡Y u no realize internet is cereal bidness!?
> 
> But I still  you all, even the anonymous user that called me astonishingly ignorant. Can we kiss and have make up sex now? I heard an urban legend that chinese bear bile makes a great aphrodisiac.....





Again, no. There is every reason to have had the discussion we did. Why is that so hard to see? I'm not even a vegetarian, so this is not an example of vegan elitists taking advantage if a conversation. Unnecessary abuse or killing of animals takes place in bear bile production and family owned farms just the same, because nobody needs those products to live or even be happy. That is the point.


----------



## tacotiklah

Oy. You win. I will burn in hell with a 128oz porterhouse. Please pass the brimstone and A1 sauce.

Now back to: 
Those heartless bastards killed yogi!


----------



## BigPhi84

Adam Of Angels said:


> I said that in some cases, a person can benefit from not consuming animal products.




There are some people that benefit from consuming animal products consequently. Calcium deficiencies, Iron deficiencies, Wheat and Gluten Intolerances, Coeliac Desease. Meat and dairy can help in these cases, by supplementing vital nutrients. 




Adam Of Angels said:


> The fact I mentioned is that we don't need animal products, and that science doesn't hold it as a fact that we're actually omnivores by necessity, just that we're able to digest meat.



You're getting your terms confused, Adam (is the cleverest of ways, too.) By definition, no omnivores NEED to eat meat. What "omnivore" means is that the digestive tract is able to digest animal proteins, along with the plant material. Sure, you can feed your pet dog only vegetables and grains and he'll live a long life, albeit miserable  (Yeah, that's just my joking opinion)... but this leads into my next point. 

Trying to use only three terms of Carnivore, Omnivore, and Herbivore, to classify animals is ineffective. Dogs descended from Wolves, who are obviously carnivores. Over the years though, dogs developed the ability to digest fruits and vegetables, so if anything, we should call them "Omnivores with a Carnovore Bias." Technically, I guess you would call humans, "Omnivores with an Herbivore Bias (and a craving for sweet, sweet meat )." 





Adam Of Angels said:


> Fucking Oy. Again, this has nothing to do with belief. Its not my belief that we don't need animal products, it's fact. Why is this so hard to address?



"We don't need animal products" is a fact. "We shouldn't use animal products" is your belief. 

If this was just you beating us with facts, then, there wouldn't be much of a discussion, would there. But, if you've ever thought, "Man, the world would be a better place if everyone became Vegans" or "Man, humans would be much healthier if they didn't eat meat," "Dairy products are wrong", or "Humans that consume animal products are wrong", then you have beliefs, beliefs that are not based in Science. Rather, as you have admitted earlier in this thread, your views are rooted in Philosophy. The fact that you're getting angry (or atleast annoyed) shows that you have some vested interest.


I'm going to try to make this my last post in this thread (Damn you, Adam, for sucking me in, even though I didn't want any part!!!!! ). Just know, that I'll be continue reading this thread and analyzing all the logical fallacies on BOTH sides of this argument. (The Meat-eaters are guilty of this as well.)





EDIT: For once, I'd love it if highlordmugfug "liked" one of my posts in this thread.  Pretty-please???


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Okay, I've read the whole thread now, and I suddenly share momma bear's urge to  It's not anyone in particular, but right now I'm going to address Adam of Angels ('cuz hating on him seems like the hip and trendy thing to do for some reason ).

Adam, I'm going to try and summarize your argument. Feel free to correct me on anything I'm missing:

1) We have absolutely no need for animal products - in fact, we're better off without them in some cases.
2) We possess a higher-level intellect compared to other animals; therefore, we should not condone unnecessary suffering.
3) Harvesting animal products usually (always?) causes suffering to the animal we take them from.

If you agree with all of these premises, what logically follows is that veganism (or something close to it) is the *only* morally-defensible stance to take on this issue. Adam, you're confusing me because you put forth a similar argument, but then you say you're not even a vegetarian.

No one should be immune to the consequences of their own philosophy. What do you wish to accomplish by convincing us of your position, and how do you justify the fact that you consume meat products? Not trying to come off as a dick, but your actions don't make sense to me in light of your arguments.

***EDIT: See my next post.***


----------



## Sicarius

I believe he's said that he's not in a financial situation that would allow him to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.

I am also waiting to see this scientific facts that he's talked about. Just a simple website, that is neutral, that says that these facts are indeed facts.

that's not asking for much.


----------



## bostjan

Actually, dogs are classified taxonomically as carnivores, along with cats, bears, and otters.

Bears and wolves tend to be more willing to eat vegetable matter than cats and otters. Primates tend to prefer more vegetable matter in their diets than carnivora, but I think all primates have meat in their diets in their natural environments.

I happen to be a vegetarian, but I don't think that everyone should be totally vegetarian or vegan, unless they decide to do so themselves. It can be a fulfilling lifestyle for those who choose it.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Sicarius said:


> I believe he's said that he's not in a financial situation that would allow him to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.



Ahh okay, I must have missed that. I believe that is a fair exception.


----------



## Sicarius

I guess I underestimate the price of vegetables. I don't see how it's too hard, financially, to eat nothing but veggies. If anything it's what poor college kids could do instead of ramen and cheap Wal-Mart TV dinners :/


----------



## bostjan

A can of mixed veggies is, what, $0.49? The same amount of cheap hamburger is at least $0.89. Just FYI. Even high-protein beans are only about $0.69.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

I'll consider trying a vegetarian diet, because once I go back to college I won't have my family to offer me free delicious steaks.  Just gotta be sure to get my 8 non-manufacturable amino acids and plenty of protein for the crew season.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I actually never said I wasn't in a financial position to eat as a vegetarian, I said that I had temporary reasons for not doing so. Don't make stuff up because not everybody has the motivation to read the whole thread. I've been traveling for the better part of 6 months and haven't had the option of eating a strictly vegetarian diet. If I did, I'd go days without eating in some instances. I hate it, but I'll deal with my guilt. In the same way, I know I shouldnt drink, but I do drink once or twice a week lately. Anyway, even though I am not currently abiding by the rules of my own arguments, that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is not true. I'm just saying that it's stupid to say that I'm wrong by combating my objective position with your subjective position.

Anyway, as a rule of thumb, don't ask for a link to an informational website when a simple Google search will suffice. It will save me time, and you can perhaps sleep better tonight knowing that you gave up your own convenience for the sake of somebody else's. Just search for "do humans need meat?"


----------



## BigPhi84

TheHandOfStone said:


> Okay, I've read the whole thread now, and I suddenly share momma bear's urge to  It's not anyone in particular, but right now I'm going to address Adam of Angels ('cuz hating on him seems like the hip and trendy thing to do for some reason ).





TheHandOfStone, I know you were joking, but I just wanted to clarify and state that I do not hate Adam, in fact, it's very much the opposite. I really get along with him well, and his views and mine are eerily similar (except for this thread..... and maybe that one thread back in the day about Extraterrestrial life.  You didn't think that I remembered that thread, did ya? ) Take it as you will, but Adam is one of the only SS.org people that I allowed on my facebook friends list.


----------



## BigPhi84

bostjan said:


> Actually, dogs are classified taxonomically as carnivores, along with cats, bears, and otters.
> 
> Bears and wolves tend to be more willing to eat vegetable matter than cats and otters. Primates tend to prefer more vegetable matter in their diets than carnivora, but I think all primates have meat in their diets in their natural environments.




The problem becomes, "Where do you draw the line" when it comes to defining an omnivore then? Unlike herbivores and carnivores, omnivores don't have a distinct set of common features that can be used to classify the "group", unlike the other two categories. That's why I don't like the 3-category system. There's way too much grey area.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Phi: There's not a disorder on the planet that absolutely requires somebody to eat meat. There are ways around it in every instance. This is the only position I'm defending. I don't actually have a super duper problem with people that eat meat. I don't completely condone it, but after all, I do eat fish and poultry at times.

For the record, I have NO personal issue with a single person on this board... Well, there's a few, but they know what they've done, and those issues are strictly circumstantial. These discussions are nothing more than debates to me and I would never allow them to create enemies.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> I actually never said I wasn't in a financial position to eat as a vegetarian, I said that I had temporary reasons for not doing so. Don't make stuff up because not everybody has the motivation to read the whole thread. I've been traveling for the better part of 6 months and haven't had the option of eating a strictly vegetarian diet. If I did, I'd go days without eating in some instances. I hate it, but I'll deal with my guilt. In the same way, I know I shouldnt drink, but I do drink once or twice a week lately. Anyway, even though I am not currently abiding by the rules of my own arguments, that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is not true. I'm just saying that it's stupid to say that I'm wrong by combating my objective position with your subjective position.
> 
> Anyway, as a rule of thumb, don't ask for a link to an informational website when a simple Google search will suffice. It will save me time, and you can perhaps sleep better tonight knowing that you gave up your own convenience for the sake of somebody else's. Just search for "do humans need meat?"



"I think he said" != "I know he said"

just saying bro.

But why should I waste my own time? It's your argument that you've constantly brought up. I don't have to do it for you, nor will I.

If you can't even provide a link to it, then it's obviously not important, and can be disregarded.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

If you won't even open up an Internet browser and search Google, then you don't care, so don't ask me for a link. Nobody else is defending their emotions with links, so why should I defend my assertions with one? It's not like I'm claiming something that lays beyond the boundaries of common knowledge. If I said "Pumpkins are orange", what you require a link from me to support that notion?


----------



## Sicarius

Of course I don't care, lol. It's not my argument I'm trying to support.

I had no idea that asking you to provide 1 link to an unbiased source that supported your argument of "factual" evidence, was requiring you to defend your emotions with web links.

I'm not going to go out of my way, just so I don't have to inconvenience you of doing the exact same simple task.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I didn't say I was defending my emotions by providing a link, I was implying that the arguments against my own are nothing more than emotional responses.

T


----------



## Adam Of Angels

If you don't care, get out of the thread. What I argued is common knowledge, not something that needs to be referenced.


----------



## Sicarius

So, what you're saying is that because the opponent of your argument is using emotion to respond to your "factual" claim, that you don't have to support it with evidence?

You see, I live in an environment, that is dominated by meat eaters, and either in my lack of interest in Veganism/Vegetarianism or simple apathy to most things, this "factual common knowledge" isn't so for me. I've never heard these claims before.

I merely asked that you provide a link, and you can't/ won't do it.

I care about the bear, bro, not about you, your cause, or your argument.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

No, I'm saying that they're arguing against my claim with emotion and belief instead of facts, and that my position is based on common knowledge facts and therefore you don't need a link. Without me posting a link do you think humans NEED to eat meat?


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> No, I'm saying that they're arguing against my claim with emotion and belief instead of facts, and that my position is based on common knowledge facts and therefore you don't need a link. Without me posting a link do you think humans NEED to eat meat?



Until you prove otherwise, yes, sure.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Anybody else need a link because they're uneducated and barbaric?


----------



## Sicarius

I don't believe I've been _that _rude and condescending to you, Adam.

I was unaware that an unbiased source was so hard to manifest. :/


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Here you go, guys.


----------



## sol niger 333

Adam Of Angels said:


> You can keep acting like we're banging heads over a subjective issue, but in reality, you're sharing your feelings and I'm sharing facts. That's not an arrogant thing for me to say, and it's not condescension from the mind of an elitist. If you don't like the facts, I may feel bad sometime or something, but that doesn't change them.
> 
> I actually kind of feel retarded for having repeated myself so many times.




Na you sound intelligent and on the mark actually, throwing info at brick walls aside  


I'm not vegan. I NEVER argue with or disrespect veganism. The fact is they are far more compassionate than us meat eaters it's as simple as that. It's also a fact that meat eating and consumption of animal products is a harmful yet arguably enjoyable ADDICTION brought about by learned behaviour, NOT necessity. Vegans are just less selfish. My family is riddled with cancer and heart disease. We are ALL meat eaters. I've stopped eating mammals entirely and am a free range advocate but nowhere near as caring as vegans. I still feel guilt in regards to free range chicken and fish consumption but my selfishness and taste buds outweigh my compassion at this point in time. Check this video out if you want to understand veganism a little better and stop being so mis-informed

If you can happily listen to this guy speak without being affected, bear bile farming shouldn't be an outrage to you either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4

Einstein himself backs the entire vegan way of life. I wouldn't argue with him


----------



## Nimgoble

To anyone holding this position:

Okay, so: I'll give you that humans don't NEED to eat meat. What's your point?


----------



## Sicarius

I don't want to. 

There's a difference between being passionate about a lifestyle and telling people how terrible and wrong they are for not doing the same thing.

Those Vegans can go fuck themselves.

I have no problem with Vegetarians or Vegans, so long as they don't jump on their Potato box.


----------



## sol niger 333

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy that is rife in this thread. 

Albeit born of mis-information I just notice a lot of people huffing and puffing over bear bile farming while they are likely happy to tuck into a bacon sandwich for example. 

Non free range pigs are TORTURED, there is no argument on this FACT. They cant move, lie down or see the light of day, they go insane in their own shit and blood, often biting away at their own flesh in their misery. Most of the bacon we eat is NOT free range. Pigs are smarter than dogs yet they get a living HELL for a life. 

But because you don't hear about it on the news means there is no outrage and you go and have your bacon and eggs with a smile on your face.


----------



## highlordmugfug

sol niger 333 said:


> I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy that is rife in this thread. Albeit born of mis-information I just notice a lot of people huffing and puffing over bear bile farming while likely happy to tuck into a bacon sandwich for example. Non free range pigs are TORTURED, they cant move, lie down or see the light of day, they go insane. Most of the bacon we eat is not free range. Pigs are smarter than dogs yet they get a living HELL for a life. Just because you don't hear about it on the news means there is no outrage.


You are so late to the party, bro.


----------



## Sicarius

then go free some. I don't eat pork, so I don't give a shit.


----------



## sol niger 333

Sicarius said:


> then go free some. I don't eat pork, so I don't give a shit.




I have freed some, same way you have.


----------



## Sicarius

nope, someone else just eats the ones we don't.

You may not be a Vegan/Vegetarian, but you sure as shit preach like one.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> then go free some. I don't eat pork, so I don't give a shit.


He doesn't want animals to suffer, so he has to go free some.

You like to eat meat, do you have to become a farmer? 



You don't eat pigs so you don't care about them... do you eat bears? Is that why you care? 

It's impossible to argue with you, because you're as inconsistent as one could possibly be. 
That misspelled neg rep mad me giggle hard by the way, I honestly do appreciate it. 

And BigPhi84, check yo stuff.


----------



## sol niger 333

Sicarius said:


> nope, someone else just eats the ones we don't.
> 
> You may not be a Vegan/Vegetarian, but you sure as shit preach like one.




The fact that you have such reactionary vitriol is a sure sign of subconscious guilt if you don't mind me saying, and it's just my opinion that it would actually affect you more than you think if slaughterhouses had glass walls. 

If you really felt guilt free you simply wouldn't give a shit about the facts brought up in this thread so I'm glad you are lashing out!

I'm working towards being a more conscious citizen of the world that's all, I'm far from perfect. I just noticed some hypocrisy so felt obliged to point it out. End of story


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> He doesn't want animals to suffer, so he has to go free some.
> 
> You like to eat meat, do you have to become a farmer?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't eat pigs so you don't care about them... do you eat bears? Is that why you care?
> 
> It's impossible to argue with you, because you're as inconsistent as one could possibly be.
> That misspelled neg rep mad me giggle hard by the way, I honestly do appreciate it.
> 
> And BigPhi84, check yo stuff.


Farmers are for vegetables, Ranchers are for animals, more mainly cattle. Like my uncle, and my dad.

I don't eat bears because I can't eat one. But if I had the chance to, sure, why not? 

I'm not impossible at all, I have my point of view, that is not going to change, and you have yours, that's not budging at all.

Yeah, firefox didn't show it needed to be corrected. So you're very welcome. I'm glad a small spelling error, made you laugh.


sol niger 333 said:


> The fact that you have such reactionary vitriol is a sure sign of subconscious guilt if you don't mind me saying, and it's just my opinion that it would actually affect you more than you think if slaughterhouses had glass walls.
> 
> If you really felt guilt free you simply wouldn't give a shit about the facts brought up in this thread so I'm glad you are lashing out!
> 
> I'm working towards being a more conscious citizen of the world that's all, I'm far from perfect. I just noticed some hypocrisy so felt obliged to point it out. End of story


It wasn't reactionary at all, it was my observation of you. I don't have guilt at all for eating meat.

I don't care about the facts here, it hasn't changed me at all. I'm lashing out at people telling me how I should feel and act due to my diet. which is ludicrous.


----------



## Sicarius

I'm not kidding. I'd eat a bear if I could, and if I liked it, I'm sure my opinion would have changed from:

"I feel compassion towards the bear"
to
"man, I wish I could've eaten it."


/sarcasm


----------



## sol niger 333

Sicarius said:


> Farmers are for vegetables, Ranchers are for animals, more mainly cattle. Like my uncle, and my dad.
> 
> I don't eat bears because I can't eat one. But if I had the chance to, sure, why not?
> 
> I'm not impossible at all, I have my point of view, that is not going to change, and you have yours, that's not budging at all.
> 
> Yeah, firefox didn't show it needed to be corrected. So you're very welcome. I'm glad a small spelling error, made you laugh.
> 
> It wasn't reactionary at all, it was my observation of you. I don't have guilt at all for eating meat.
> 
> I don't care about the facts here, it hasn't changed me at all. I'm lashing out at people telling me how I should feel and act due to my diet. which is ludicrous.



I never used to have guilt either. Until I saw some footage of sows in crates and typical slaughterhouse footage of young cows being killed. I'm not telling you how to feel or act. People can live however they want. 

I just feel it's hypocritical to be outraged at bear bile farming but ok with, for example, non free range pork farming. 

Do you not see the correlation dude?


----------



## Sicarius

So long as I see the difference, that's all that really matters.

You see, I know that not every non-free range pork farm is as you described. That goes both ways.

I'm not naive to the conditions, but I'm not narrow minded enough to think that every farm is that way.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> I have my point of view, that is not going to change



Yeah, you know, it's this mentality that holds the rest of us back. Congratulations.



Sicarius said:


> I don't care about the facts here, it hasn't changed me at all.



.....yeah, same deal - the facts, no matter what subject you're considering, should definitely have some bearing over how you approach that subject 




Sicarius said:


> I'm lashing out at people telling me how I should feel and act due to my diet. which is ludicrous.



Who's telling you how to feel and act? I certainly didn't do that. I presented a fact, and you admitted to not caring about the fact. You admitted to holding your feelings and disposition in higher regard than facts. That means you don't have a place in an intelligent debate. That's not criticism, that's just how it goes.

Again


----------



## wlfers

Here we go, let the shitfest begin:

Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter : NPR


----------



## sol niger 333

Sicarius said:


> So long as I see the difference, that's all that really matters.
> 
> You see, I know that not every non-free range pork farm is as you described. That goes both ways.
> 
> I'm not naive to the conditions, but I'm not narrow minded enough to think that every farm is that way.



You are speculating to try and save face. The government required size of a sow crate in New Zealand COMPLETELY prevents the ability to turn around or even lie down properly. I've seen footage of 3 different industrial pig farms and it's hell. The look in their eyes will never leave my mind. We supposedly have higher standards of animal welfare than most countries too, another example of propaganda swaying general public consensus. I'd be willing to bet the dimensions would be even smaller in your country. Like I said I'm not trying to tell you how to live. Just to recognize the hypocrisy. 

I don't need to post anything more. I really feel for the vegans having this argument every freaking day


----------



## Adam Of Angels

athawulf said:


> Here we go, let the shitfest begin:
> 
> Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter : NPR





For starters, that's hardly a scientifically perfect article... But for the record, I agree with a lot of what's being said there. However, cavemen were effectively retarded in comparison to modern men, and it's NOW that we're intelligent enough to realize that we can get just a many calories and nutrients from a non-meat diet. So thank you for the article, but it changes nothing for our purposes here in this debate.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> Yeah, you know, it's this mentality that holds the rest of us back. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> .....yeah, same deal - the facts, no matter what subject you're considering, should definitely have some bearing over how you approach that subject
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's telling you how to feel and act? I certainly didn't do that. I presented a fact, and you admitted to not caring about the fact. You admitted to holding your feelings and disposition in higher regard than facts. That means you don't have a place in an intelligent debate. That's not criticism, that's just how it goes.
> 
> Again



No, actually, it isn't. What holds us back as a people is killing each other due to petty differences. An argument over what we should and shouldn't eat has no bearing on us as a people.

If that's how you see it then fine. I obviously see it differently. 

There were several people telling those of us "meat eaters" that we shouldn't feel bad for the bear. Because we eat meat. That's wrong, and telling people how to feel because of their diet.

I never said that my feelings were more important than fact. I only asked that you show an unbiased article that supported your argument. Though I do feel strongly about my feelings. I'm quite sure you feel the same about yours. 

See, You may feel like I have no place in an "intelligent debate", but being that this is the internet, I can go and participate as I please. 



Adam Of Angels said:


> For starters, that's hardly a scientifically perfect article... But for the record, I agree with a lot of what's being said there. However, cavemen were effectively retarded in comparison to modern men, and it's NOW that we're intelligent enough to realize that we can get just a many calories and nutrients from a non-meat diet. So thank you for the article, but it changes nothing for our purposes here in this debate.



So, where meat helped primitive man become more intelligent, you feel we're intelligent enough as a species to stop eating meat and completely convert our diet to vegetables?

At least this is an article that was posted which is far more than you've produced.


----------



## sol niger 333

athawulf said:


> Here we go, let the shitfest begin:
> 
> Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter : NPR



I actually read up on this. Concentration of protein in our diet could be responsible for increased brain tissue growth. Valid point. However, look at Einstein for an example of vege powered thought albeit in the later half of his life so thats speculative at best. 

I'm of the belief that consumption of hallucinogenic plants was the turning point in our mental evolution from primates. 

However there is no solid proof of either theory


----------



## Sicarius

sol niger 333 said:


> You are speculating to try and save face. The government required size of a sow crate in New Zealand COMPLETELY prevents the ability to turn around or even lie down properly. I've seen footage of 3 different industrial pig farms and it's hell. The look in their eyes will never leave my mind. We supposedly have higher standards of animal welfare than most countries too, another example of propaganda swaying general public consensus. I'd be willing to bet the dimensions would be even smaller in your country. Like I said I'm not trying to tell you how to live. Just to recognize the hypocrisy.
> 
> I don't need to post anything more. I really feel for the vegans having this argument every freaking day



The regulations you have in New Zealand are different than what we have here in the States. It's all about perspective and the area that you live in.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> No, actually, it isn't. What holds us back as a people is killing each other due to petty differences. An argument over what we should and shouldn't eat has no bearing on us as a people.
> 
> If that's how you see it then fine. I obviously see it differently.
> 
> There were several people telling those of us "meat eaters" that we shouldn't feel bad for the bear. Because we eat meat. That's wrong, and telling people how to feel because of their diet.
> 
> I never said that my feelings were more important than fact. I only asked that you show an unbiased article that supported your argument. Though I do feel strongly about my feelings. I'm quite sure you feel the same about yours.
> 
> See, You may feel like I have no place in an "intelligent debate", but being that this is the internet, I can go and participate as I please.



When people adopt the philosophy that they hold a certain position and nothing will change it, that's detrimental. That's what creates a lot of fighting.

You absolutely DID say that your feelings were more important than fact. You said that you didn't care about the facts, and that they haven't changed you at all. I'm not saying that you are that way across the board, but in this discussion, you are admittedly so.

Again, posting an article that supports the exclusion of animal products amongst human necessities is the same as posting an article that supports the describing of pumpkins as orange. Its not controversial, subjective bias, it's simple, logical fact that most people know. You brought up my feelings, but my feelings have had nothing to do with my position in this debate. I'm simply defending fact, because that's what debates consist of.


----------



## sol niger 333

Sicarius said:


> The regulations you have in New Zealand are different than what we have here in the States. It's all about perspective and the area that you live in.



Yes ours were probably larger  it also looks like legislation is in the works to abolish sow crates entirely in New Zealand but I'll believe it when I see it


----------



## sol niger 333

Adam Of Angels said:


> When people adopt the philosophy that they hold a certain position and nothing will change it, that's detrimental. That's what creates a lot of fighting.
> 
> You absolutely DID say that your feelings were more important than fact. You said that you didn't care about the facts, and that they haven't changed you at all. I'm not saying that you are that way across the board, but in this discussion, you are admittedly so.
> 
> Again, posting an article that supports the exclusion of animal products amongst human necessities is the same as posting an article that supports the describing of pumpkins as orange. Its not controversial, subjective bias, it's simple, logical fact that most people know. You brought up my feelings, but my feelings have had nothing to do with my position in this debate. I'm simply defending fact, because that's what debates consist of.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> When people adopt the philosophy that they hold a certain position and nothing will change it, that's detrimental. That's what creates a lot of fighting.
> 
> You absolutely DID say that your feelings were more important than fact. You said that you didn't care about the facts, and that they haven't changed you at all. I'm not saying that you are that way across the board, but in this discussion, you are admittedly so.
> 
> Again, posting an article that supports the exclusion of animal products amongst human necessities is the same as posting an article that supports the describing of pumpkins as orange. Its not controversial, subjective bias, it's simple, logical fact that most people know. You brought up my feelings, but my feelings have had nothing to do with my position in this debate. I'm simply defending fact, because that's what debates consist of.


But like I said, I don't believe you.

I say we do need meat, and that Vegans and Vegetarians are missing out on vital nutrients, that eating nothing but vegetable can not equally provide.

I like my point of view, it's come from my decisions and actions as an adult. It's how most people are, I am open to any and all opinions, but there's no need to get upset that I don't change who I am because I don't accept your opinions to be helpful to me.

If I found them to be helpful to me, or affect me positively, then maybe you could have had some kind of impact. But you didn't, and my opinion, and stance remain unchanged.

There's no need to get mad, or insulting about it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> But like I said, I don't believe you.
> 
> I say we do need meat, and that Vegans and Vegetarians are missing out on vital nutrients, that eating nothing but vegetable can not equally provide.
> 
> I like my point of view, it's come from my decisions and actions as an adult. It's how most people are, I am open to any and all opinions, but there's no need to get upset that I don't change who I am because I don't accept your opinions to be helpful to me.
> 
> If I found them to be helpful to me, or affect me positively, then maybe you could have had some kind of impact. But you didn't, and my opinion, and stance remain unchanged.
> 
> There's no need to get mad, or insulting about it.



You don't believe me?  Well that's funny. If I told you that water puts out fires in large enough quantities, your disbelief doesn't mean I was giving you my opinion. 

If I were presenting a controversial idea, I think more people would be speaking up about the necessity of evidence/support to back up my claims. As you've seen here, not many people are even disagreeing with my assertions, let alone requesting additional proof. Sorry bud. 

If I tell you that Dinosaur bones were dug up out of the ground, and that's how we have them in our museums, would you ask for an article to support it? It's just goofy. I find it nearly unbelievable that you were brought up into adulthood without learning that there are many ways to be perfectly healthy without the use of animal products.


And to be clear, I've not insulted you or gotten angry in any instance without it having been a joke. You taking offense and being sensitive is the issue, not my being a dick.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> But like I said, I don't believe you.
> 
> I say we do need meat, and that Vegans and Vegetarians are missing out on vital nutrients, and eating nothing but vegetable can not equally provide.
> 
> I like my point of view, it's come from my decisions and actions as an adult. It's how most people are, I am open to any and all opinions, but there's no need to get upset that I don't change who I am because I don't accept your opinions to be helpful to me.
> 
> If I found them to be helpful to me, or affect me positively, then maybe you could have had some kind of impact. But you didn't, and my opinion, and stance remain unchanged.
> 
> There's no need to get mad, or insulting about it.


You do realize that if someone only ate vegetables they wouldn't be healthy, but that that isn't all that vegetarians or vegans eat. They eat everything that you do, only no cows, no pigs, no birds, no fish, no milk, and no eggs. Everything else is on the table.

The only thing that's 'difficult' to get is vitamin B12, but there are plenty of vegan and vegetarian sources of that, so you saying that they don't get 'vital nutrients' is based on... nothing.


Also, stop calling them opinions. You're arguing opinions, Adam is presenting facts.

Animal products aren't necessary to survive, the millions of people who've lived without them for long long periods of time are proof of that, and no they didn't all barely survive, and they weren't all weak and withered, or devoid of 'vital nutrients'. That's a fact. You can't argue with it, it's completely proven, undebatable.

Choosing to continue to eat/use animal products is a completely different matter. Do I care if someone eats meat: not in the slightest. Do I care if they support huge agribusinesses that fuck up the planet and torture millions of animals while they do it: yes I do. Because the acts of the huge corporations effect me, people eating animals doesn't.




Once again, the reason I first brought up the similarity between the two was just so people would realize that there is a similarity. It's annoying as fuck that people act like like I'm trying to make them stop eating meat simply by bringing up facts that they don't like.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> You don't believe me?  Well that's funny. If I told you that water puts out fires in large enough quantities, your disbelief doesn't mean I was giving you my opinion.
> 
> If I were presenting a controversial idea, I think more people would be speaking up about the necessity of evidence/support to back up my claims. As you've seen here, not many people are even disagreeing with my assertions, let alone requesting additional proof. Sorry bud.
> 
> If I tell you that Dinosaur bones were dug up out of the ground, and that's how we have them in our museums, would you ask for an article to support it? It's just goofy. I find it nearly unbelievable that you were brought up into adulthood without learning that there are many ways to be perfectly healthy without the use of animal products.
> 
> 
> And to be clear, I've not insulted you or gotten angry in any instance without it having been a joke. You taking offense and being sensitive is the issue, not my being a dick.



You have, actually, insulted me.

You have said on multiple counts that I'm not intelligent. And have called me barbaric. I'm telling you how I have read your argument, and that I found it to be rude and insulting. 

See, I know how fires are put out, because I've seen them be put out, and I've had to put them out. 

As a child, on a trip to the museum, I asked my teacher how the fossils got to there. 

Others didn't ask because they knew or didn't care. I didn't know, so I asked for a source. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm not about to just go about trusting some random person on the internet about a subject I don't know about. I told you before, that I've never heard that "People can live completely with out meat and be healthy." Quite, the contrary, actually. I've been taught and raised that eating nothing but vegetables isn't the best for you. 

When being given a differing opinion on the matter, and one that someone is touting as fact, I was only asking for some proof.

I don't see why you have a problem with it.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> When being given a differing opinion on the matter, and one that someone is touting as fact, I was only asking for some proof.
> 
> I don't see why you have a problem with it.


Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness
Robert Cheeke, a vegan body builder.

Donald Watson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Donald Watson, vegan for 60 years, vegetarian for 80.

Donald Watson - Vegan Society Founder
Another source on Watson, in case wikipedia isn't fully factual.


----------



## Sicarius

I asked several times for unbiased sources :/

being that these are from Vegan funded sites, I can't trust them.


----------



## highlordmugfug

BLABBERMOUTH.NET - GEEZER BUTLER: Why I'm A Vegan

Geezer Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geezer Butler is a vegan, though I'm not sure for how long, I've seen interviews where he stated that he stopped eating meat as a child.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> I asked several times for unbiased sources :/
> 
> being that these are from Vegan funded sites, I can't trust them.


You find me articles about Vegans from sites that have nothing to do with veganism. 

Do you think they used voodoo magic to make them live longer?
EDIT: Or did they use voodoo magic to make Robert Cheeke's muscles bigger?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> You have, actually, insulted me.
> 
> You have said on multiple counts that I'm not intelligent. And have called me barbaric. I'm telling you how I have read your argument, and that I found it to be rude and insulting.
> 
> See, I know how fires are put out, because I've seen them be put out, and I've had to put them out.
> 
> As a child, on a trip to the museum, I asked my teacher how the fossils got to there.
> 
> Others didn't ask because they knew or didn't care. I didn't know, so I asked for a source. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm not about to just go about trusting some random person on the internet about a subject I don't know about. I told you before, that I've never heard that "People can live completely with out meat and be healthy." Quite, the contrary, actually. I've been taught and raised that eating nothing but vegetables isn't the best for you.
> 
> When being given a differing opinion on the matter, and one that someone is touting as fact, I was only asking for some proof.
> 
> I don't see why you have a problem with it.



I'm sorry if you felt insulted. While I'm tempted to just write you off as overly sensitive, I have too big of a heart for that, and am instead offering a genuine apology.

So, let's get this straight.... You've seen a fire put out by water, so you know it works. Should I make a documentary of my life while I eat a vegan diet to prove my points here? How were you satisfied when your teacher simply told you where the dinosaur bones came from? Why not ask for an article? What if I give you an article and the article just seems unbiased, but is actually just subjective information written in a very matter-of-fact sort of way? This is why I suggested that you just do a simple google search. Almost everybody else here knows that animal products aren't necessary for survival, which makes you the oddball out. I haven't posted a link based in that, for the most part. Additionally, I'm on an iPad, not a computer. It's a lot easier for you to look up links with a few clicks than it is for me to copy and paste a few for you to read. Lastly, you said you don't care about this, so I'm lead to believe that you're simply BS'ing and essentially bullying me into posting a link for the sake of playing devil's advocate. To that, I said "eh".


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Oh, and of course a purely vegetable based diet would be unhealthy. That's not what a vegan diet is. There's more food sources other than meat and vegetables. You can drop that one.


----------



## highlordmugfug

I've been vegan for 3 years, and I'm having no health issues. I'm perfectly healthy, I'm active, and I've got no deficiencies that I know of.

Or am I biased because I'm vegan. 

Voodoo health, ftw.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm sorry if you felt insulted. While I'm tempted to just write you off as overly sensitive, I have too big of a heart for that, and am instead offering a genuine apology.
> 
> So, let's get this straight.... You've seen a fire put out by water, so you know it works. Should I make a documentary of my life while I eat a vegan diet to prove my points here? How were you satisfied when your teacher simply told you where the dinosaur bones came from? Why not ask for an article? What if I give you an article and the article just seems unbiased, but is actually just subjective information written in a very matter-of-fact sort of way? This is why I suggested that you just do a simple google search. Almost everybody else here knows that animal products aren't necessary for survival, which makes you the oddball out. I haven't posted a link based in that, for the most part. Additionally, I'm on an iPad, not a computer. It's a lot easier for you to look up links with a few clicks than it is for me to copy and paste a few for you to read. Lastly, you said you don't care about this, so I'm lead to believe that you're simply BS'ing and essentially bullying me into posting a link for the sake of playing devil's advocate. To that, I said "eh".



You do what you want to do, man. I won't watch it. Like I said, I have no problem with what you eat, only that you don't tell me how I should feel because of my diet.

What you think is a fact, isn't always a fact for everyone else. 

Just look at religion. No, it's not the same thing, but what a religious person thinks is a fact, is for them, but not for me, or people that think along the same lines that I do.

I'm the oddball out here, for sure, but where I live, I'm not.

I lump fruits, vegetables, and grains into one category, so you can drop that one.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> You do what you want to do, man. I won't watch it. Like I said, I have no problem with what you eat, only that you don't tell me how I should feel because of my diet.
> 
> *What you think is a fact, isn't always a fact for everyone else.
> 
> Just look at religion. No, it's not the same thing, but what a religious person thinks is a fact, is for them, but not for me, or people that think along the same lines that I do.*
> 
> I'm the oddball out here, for sure, but where I live, I'm not.


No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. @ bolded. If it's "a fact for them, but not for me" then it's an opinion. 


" I have no problem with what you eat, only that you don't tell me how I should feel because of my diet."
So... us saying that we can live without animal products is bad, but you saying we can't live and are deficient in nutrients isn't? 
And I do realize that Daemonbbq (or whatever the name is) was a bit... 'aggressive'  but saying that animal products aren't necessary to stay alive while being proof that they aren't, is much less offensive it seems than calling all vegans and vegetarians nutrient deficient based on... what everyone else where you live thinks apparently.


----------



## Sicarius

That's my point, your "facts" are opinions to me. That's what they'll stay.


I never said deficient, just that you weren't getting an equal amount.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> You do what you want to do, man. I won't watch it. Like I said, I have no problem with what you eat, only that you don't tell me how I should feel because of my diet.
> 
> What you think is a fact, isn't always a fact for everyone else.
> 
> Just look at religion. No, it's not the same thing, but what a religious person thinks is a fact, is for them, but not for me, or people that think along the same lines that I do.
> 
> I'm the oddball out here, for sure, but where I live, I'm not.
> 
> I lump fruits, vegetables, and grains into one category, so you can drop that one.




Ummm... Do you know what a fact is?

.....and to give you an example of that word used in a sentence: "It is a fact that fruit, vegetables and grains are different things."


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> That's my point, your "facts" are opinions to me. That's what they'll stay.
> 
> 
> I never said deficient, just that you weren't getting an equal amount.


The FACT that Donald Watson ate a vegetarian diet for ~80 years and a vegan one for ~60 is NOT an opinion.

The FACT that Robert Cheeke is a vegan bodybuilder and is muscular as hell is NOT an opinion.

The FACT that I've had no problems due to my vegan diet of 3 years is NOT an opinion.


Sicarius said:


> I say we do need meat, and that Vegans and Vegetarians are *missing out on vital nutrients*, that eating nothing but vegetable can not equally provide.


Eh, semantics. Missing out on nutrients = nutrient deficiency.


----------



## Sicarius

I'm well aware of what the food pyramid consists of.

I'm also aware that the vegan/vegetarian diet is grains, vegetables, and fruits.

hence why I lumped them together.

You guys aren't gonna give up, and neither am I. So we're at a deadlock.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Do you know what a fact is?


----------



## Sicarius

Yes, but your opinion on the matter is an astounding, "No".


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Explain to me what a fact is.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Adam Of Angels said:


> Do you know what a fact is?


No, no he does not. 


It's only a deadlock because you refuse to accept any proof contrary to what you already believe. You refuse to even acknowledge that it's possible to live without meat, having been given just in this thread 4 examples of people doing so.

It's called willful ignorance, or the True Believer syndrome, look it up.


----------



## Sicarius

I thought this was about a bear?

Or was it Vegans Vs Meat...

or maybe... Why it's we don't have to eat meat anymore.

I get so confused sometimes.

I don't really care what you say about me. I've accepted that you're okay with insulting me, and see it as only further proof that Vegans/Vegetarians are condescending asses, who look down on people.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Explain to me what a fact is.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> I thought this was about a bear?
> 
> Or was it Vegans Vs Meat...
> 
> or maybe... Why it's we don't have to eat meat anymore.
> 
> I get so confused sometimes.


Apparently it's about ignoring evidence, not knowing the definition of basic words ('similar' and 'fact' in particular) and playing the victim card.


Sicarius said:


> I don't really care what you say about me. I've accepted that you're okay with insulting me, and see it as only further proof that Vegans/Vegetarians are condescending asses, who look down on people.


Adam isn't vegetarian, and I've got no beef with meat eaters, just willfully ignorant people.


----------



## Sicarius

Something that has been proven, beyond the shadow of doubt is fact.

From a google search: 
1. A thing that is indisputably the case.
2. Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article

from Dictionary.com ( Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com)
*fact* 

[fakt]  

 &#8194; Origin Like this word? 
*fact* 

&#8194; &#8194;[fakt]  

 Show IPA 
 noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 

2.  something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.  

4. something said to be  true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 

5. Law . Often, facts. an  actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. 


Idioms 6. after the fact, Law . after the  commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact. 

7. before the fact, Law . prior to the  commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact. 

8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it  was a wonder that anyone survived.

from Answers.com: ( fact: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com)
_n._ 

 Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: _an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy._

 Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: _Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact._
 A real occurrence; an event: _had to prove the facts of the case._
 Something believed to be true or real: _a document laced with mistaken facts._
 
 A thing that has been done, especially a crime: _an accessory before the fact._
_Law_. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: _The jury made a finding of fact._
Complete with several sources, starting with my own definition of the word.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> I don't really care what you say about me. I've accepted that you're okay with insulting me, and see it as only further proof that Vegans/Vegetarians are condescending asses, who look down on people.



I apologized for the insults, so I'm not ok with insulting. 

I'm not a vegan, so I'm not included in your accusation, but vegans are people who don't use animal products, not condescending asses that look down on people.


----------



## highlordmugfug

^^Copy pasting =/= understanding.

EDIT: I see that you have some of your own words in there, my mistake.

And anyway, having seen without a shadow of a doubt that I'm not dead, you'd have to admit that it's a fact that people can live without animal products. So, by your own definition, are you going to ignore that fact?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Ah, ok, there you go. Now, since you know what a fact is, I'll reiterate: it is a Fact that humans do not need animal products to lead a healthy, balanced life. Real fact right there. Go ahead and use google to verify it, since you are now obviously capable of doing so.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> ^^Copy pasting =/= understanding.


See, that's what I thought you'd say. That's why I started it off with how I understand what a fact is.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Ah, ok, there you go. Now, since you know what a fact is, I'll reiterate: it is a Fact that humans do not need animal products to lead a healthy, balanced life. Real fact right there. Go ahead and use google to verify it, since you are now obviously capable of doing so.



As I told you before, I'm not going to do your job for you.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> See, that's what I thought you'd say. That's why I started it off with how I understand what a fact is.


Check my edit and respond.
EDIT:


Sicarius said:


> As I told you before, I'm not going to do your job for you.


As he already said, not his job to educate you.
And further more: willfully ignorant.


You already refused to acknowledge factual proof when I did supply it, Adam was smart to not link you since you were just going to deny, apparently, that 3 people that obviously were vegan, and obviously lived.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> As I told you before, I'm not going to do your job for you.



Its not my job to educate you, buddy. Now move along.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> Check my edit and respond.


By your own admission, you've only been in the lifestyle for 3 years.

So, I'm unchanged.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Its not my job to educate you, buddy. Now move along.



Funny because that's exactly what you've been trying to do.

So, move along.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Adam Of Angels said:


> Its not my job to educate you, buddy. Now move along.


 
I wish I could've put that on the works cited page for my college papers .


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> By your own admission, you've only been in the lifestyle for 3 years.
> 
> So, I'm unchanged.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny because that's exactly what you've been trying to do.
> 
> So, move along.


So how long do I have to not die to be considered proof?

Also, Donald Watson: 80 total years without meat.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> So how long do I have to not die to be considered proof?
> 
> Also, Donald Watson: 80 total years without meat.


We'll see how it's going by then.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> We'll see how it's going by then.


The fact that it's already happened is proof enough.


----------



## Sicarius

not for me, bro.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> not for me, bro.


Then you're being willfully ignorant, and ignoring your own definition of a fact.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Man, don't you miss cheese? I think I could do well enough without meat, but no cheese? Cheese is awesome.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> By your own admission, you've only been in the lifestyle for 3 years.
> 
> So, I'm unchanged.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny because that's exactly what you've been trying to do.
> 
> So, move along.



Wait, you think this whole debate has been me trying to educate you? Aye, we really are dealing with a winner here. That's not what a debate is. If I were trying to educate you, I'd have busted out every resource imaginable. If I hadn't been traveling all day with nothing to do, I probably wouldn't have being 'ing all day, but trust me, my intentions are not to educate you. It's wild to observe how the brain defends beloved beliefs by using emotional responses to misinterpret adverse information.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> Then you're being willfully ignorant, and ignoring your own definition of a fact.


No, we'll see how you've been going. If you've falled off the bandwagon, or kept to it.

If you can do it, and be on a strict diet, and live to 90, then sure, you'll prove me right.

til then, lolnope.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I wish I could've put that on the works cited page for my college papers .



Would have been awesome 

On a real note, though, this isn't a dissertation. It's a fucking simple debate.


----------



## Sicarius

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Man, don't you miss cheese? I think I could do well enough without meat, but no cheese? Cheese is awesome.


Cheese makes everything so much better...


----------



## highlordmugfug

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Man, don't you miss cheese? I think I could do well enough without meat, but no cheese? Cheese is awesome.


Not really actually. There are really good vegan cheeses out there that I can eat anytime I want 'cheese' pizza or anything, but as a whole I don't really miss it.

The fact that I used to have really awful seasonal allergies and that milk and cheese helps along mucous production is another reason I'll never knowingly eat cheese or milk. 18 years of horrible sinus drainage is enough.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> Would have been awesome
> 
> On a real note, though, this isn't a dissertation. It's a fucking simple debate.


Simple debates don't involve insults and condescension.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> No, we'll see how you've been going. If you've falled off the bandwagon, or kept to it.
> 
> If you can do it, and be on a strict diet, and live to 90, then sure, you'll prove me right.
> 
> til then, lolnope.



Like, there's seriously been millions and millions of people that have never eaten meat, and also lived Full, normal, healthy lives. Like........


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

To be fair, he apologized.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> No, we'll see how you've been going. If you've falled off the bandwagon, or kept to it.
> 
> If you can do it, and be on a strict diet, and live to 90, then sure, you'll prove me right.
> 
> til then, lolnope.


There's not a snowballs chance in hell that I'll continue to talk to you until I'm 90. 

Also, there's nothing strict about my diet. I don't eat animal parts, I don't eat eggs, and I don't eat cheese. That's it.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Simple debates don't involve insults and condescension.


They do involve admitting to provable facts though, so yeah, *you *aren't debating.


----------



## Sicarius

Grand Moff Tim said:


> To be fair, he apologized.


It still hurt 


highlordmugfug said:


> They do involve admitting to provable facts though, so yeah, *you *aren't debating.


I never said I was debating.


highlordmugfug said:


> There's not a snowballs chance in hell that I'll continue to talk to you until I'm 90.
> 
> Also, there's nothing strict about my diet. I don't eat animal parts, I don't eat eggs, and I don't eat cheese. That's it.


Exactly. Let's start now!


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> Simple debates don't involve insults and condescension.



They sure do - that's not in the rules. However, I apologized, so stop being a girl. A couple of insults don't change the points being made, so don't hide behind victimhood. I don't think anybody is going to cry about it. Besides, Describing somebody who thinks eating meat is a necessity as barbaric and uneducated is not insulting... It's literal. That's how I meant it.


----------



## wlfers

Adam Of Angels said:


> For starters, that's hardly a scientifically perfect article... But for the record, I agree with a lot of what's being said there. However, cavemen were effectively retarded in comparison to modern men, and it's NOW that we're intelligent enough to realize that we can get just a many calories and nutrients from a non-meat diet. So thank you for the article, but it changes nothing for our purposes here in this debate.



It's funny you're talking about scientific perfection when your assumption about cavemen being retarded is very wrong. Actually, in recent times has been the first actual drop in the human encephalization quotient (if you care to equate that to intelligence, anyway) in our steep ascension throughout our evolution. We are just supported on the shoulders of our ancestors with knowledge that has been passed down. 

Meat is fantastic, it will always be a part of my diet as will fruits and the rest of.. wait they got rid of the food pyramid right? I'll respect anyone's diet choices as long as it doesn't entail lecturing others about it!


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> They sure do - that's not in the rules. However, I apologized, so stop being a girl. A couple of insults don't change the points being made, so don't hide behind victimhood. I don't think anybody is going to cry about it. Besides, Describing somebody who thinks eating meat is a necessity as barbaric and uneducated is not insulting... It's literal. That's how I meant it.


It's not barbaric, or uneducated. You're just being an ass.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Exactly. Let's start now!


As long as I see stupid I'll try and respond to it and let it know just how wrong it is and what it can do to fix its errors in logic.

If you really want me to stop talking to you sooner, stop sucking at logic.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> As long as I see stupid I'll try and respond to it and let it know just how wrong it is and what it can do to fix its errors in logic.
> 
> If you really want me to stop talking to you sooner, stop sucking at logic.


Or you could not care about it.

but obviously you think you're better, so please, if you feel you must fix things, due to some superiority complex, then by all means, do continue.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

athawulf said:


> It's funny you're talking about scientific perfection when your assumption about cavemen being retarded is very wrong. Actually, in recent times has been the first actual drop in the human encephalization quotient (if you care to equate that to intelligence, anyway) in our steep ascension throughout our evolution. We are just supported on the shoulders of our ancestors with knowledge that has been passed down.
> 
> Meat is fantastic, it will always be a part of my diet as will fruits and the rest of.. wait they got rid of the food pyramid right? I'll respect anyone's diet choices as long as it doesn't entail lecturing others about it!



Nobody is lecturing anybody about their diet, so let's lay that one to rest. If you feel that you're being lectured, it's because your brain is wired to defend your behavior, and your behavior includes eating meat. Any idea contrary to that behavior is threatening, and thus, you feel lectured by it. Nobody is lecturing anybody about their diet, though.

...and are you saying that pre-modern humans were just as cognitively developed as modern humans?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> It's not barbaric, or uneducated. You're just being an ass.




Hmmmm.... If you don't know the facts about a given subject, you are uneducated in regard to it. If you would rather have a living being killed for your gain, you are more barbaric than somebody who would not. Simple logic.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Or you could not care about it.
> 
> but obviously you think you're better, so please, if you feel you must fix things, due to some superiority complex, then by all means, do continue.


No matter how many times you play the victim card, I will not apologize to you for telling you you're ignoring facts and evidence when you are.


----------



## Sicarius

He meant that cavemen weren't as retarded as you said they were.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Hmmmm.... If you don't know the facts about a given subject, you are uneducated in regard to it. If you would rather have a living being killed for your gain, you are more barbaric than somebody who would not. Simple logic.



That's not what you were saying at all.

You said that eating meat is a Barbaric and uneducated thing.

Meaning that if you're eating a vegetarian diet you're educated, and modern.

There's no other way to interpret what you said. I'm stupid for eating meat, but you're not because you eat a vegetarian diet. Or would if you weren't traveling. Until then you're living in guilt and sadness.


----------



## wlfers

sol niger 333 said:


> I actually read up on this. Concentration of protein in our diet could be responsible for increased brain tissue growth. Valid point. However, look at Einstein for an example of vege powered thought albeit in the later half of his life so thats speculative at best.
> 
> I'm of the belief that consumption of hallucinogenic plants was the turning point in our mental evolution from primates.
> 
> However there is no solid proof of either theory



I'm not saying that you need meat to be smart . Though the brain uses something like 20-25% of our metabolic output so starve yourself of anything and you will be stupid haha.

Also that's a difference of an individuals lifespan vs a much larger scale.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> He meant that cavemen weren't as retarded as you said they were.




I said that the were retarded compared to modern man. The modern human is cognitively superior to pre-modern humans.... Like, that's literally how we distinguish between the two.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> He meant that cavemen weren't as retarded as you said they were.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you were saying at all.
> 
> You said that eating meat is a Barbaric and uneducated thing.
> 
> Meaning that if you're eating a vegetarian diet you're educated, and modern.
> 
> There's no other way to interpret what you said. I'm stupid for eating meat, but you're not because you eat a vegetarian diet. Or would if you weren't traveling. Until then you're living in guilt and sadness.




Dude... Just no. That's clearly not at all what I was saying. You might need sleep or something, but you pulled that shit out of your ass.

You said that you didn't know that humans don't need animal products to survive. I said it was a fact that they don't. You prompted me to provide a link to prove my point. I referred to you as being uneducated and barbaric because you needed proof that humans did not need animal products to survive. This is exactly how it happened, and any one of us village idiots can go back a few pages and see that


----------



## Sicarius

you can't call them retarded, as it's an unfair comparison to make.

given their environment they were incredibly intelligent, and made it work to their advantage.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> you can't call them retarded, as it's an unfair comparison to make.
> 
> given their environment they were incredibly intelligent, and made it work to their advantage.


Their environment and how they fared in it is irrelevant: We have more brain computing/processing power than they did, that's how we're distinguished from them. Compared to us and average brainpower today, they would be considered something close to retarded. That's a fact.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> Dude... Just no. That's clearly not at all what I was saying. You might need sleep or something, but you pulled that shit out of your ass.
> 
> You said that you didn't know that humans don't need animal products to survive. I said it was a fact that they don't. You prompted me to provide a link to prove my point. I referred to you as being uneducated and barbaric because you needed proof that humans did not need animal products to survive. This is exactly how it happened, and any one of us village idiots can go back a few pages and see that


 
Except, see I have this little tidbit.


Adam Of Angels said:


> Describing somebody who thinks eating meat is a necessity as barbaric and uneducated is not insulting... It's literal. That's how I meant it.



Which is exactly what you said, just a few posts ago.

Literally, the word you used, Eating meat is a barbaric and uneducated habit.

Meaning if I didn't do it, I'd be educated, and modern.


----------



## wlfers

Adam Of Angels said:


> Nobody is lecturing anybody about their diet, so let's lay that one to rest. If you feel that you're being lectured, it's because your brain is wired to defend your behavior, and your behavior includes eating meat. Any idea contrary to that behavior is threatening, and thus, you feel lectured by it. Nobody is lecturing anybody about their diet, though.
> 
> ...and are you saying that pre-modern humans were just as cognitively developed as modern humans?



My brain is wired to defend my behavior? So the guy trying to talk about science here is giving the most simplistic and unimaginative explanation almost to a degree of insulting the human brain to analyze my saying to what length I can respect peoples dietary opinions?

And what do you mean by "modern humans". You said "cavemen", and if you knew anything about what you're talking about they are considered pretty "modern". Do you mean humans since civilization? Please look up anatomically modern humans vs modern humans to understand.

And yes, cave-men were just as cognitively developed as modern humans. (because they are... humans) Just as a short example even neanderthal graves have been found with a red "paint" substance. So first of all they're burying their dead, and ritualizing it, whether the red substance is to signify blood, the womb, or just a pretty color they liked we'll never know. But they sure had a cognitive grasp of life and the understanding of the possible unknown. And as I said in my last post, earlier humans actually had larger brains than we do now. 

Also, cognitive thinking is different from book smart.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Except, see I have this little tidbit.
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you said, just a few posts ago.
> 
> Literally, the word you used, Eating meat is a barbaric and uneducated habit.
> 
> Meaning if I didn't do it, I'd be educated, and modern.


You're creating a false dichotomy.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

NItpicking here, but he said that thinking eating it is a necessity is barbaric, not the act of eating it.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> Their environment and how they fared in it is irrelevant: We have more brain computing/processing power than they did, that's how we're distinguished from them. Compared to us and average brainpower today, they would be considered something close to retarded. That's a fact.


How is that irrelevant? If they didn't have the intelligence enough to survive in it, we wouldn't be here.

The fact of the matter is that as times progressed, and as man evolved, they became more intelligent. It's unfair to take a cave-man and compare them to a modern person. 

Our environments are different. We, for all of our technological advances, couldn't survive in that environment.

Of course we're smarter than they are. We're not even the same species anymore.


----------



## Sicarius

Grand Moff Tim said:


> NItpicking here, but he said that thinking eating it is a necessity is barbaric, not the act of eating it.


Isn't thinking it's a necessity directly connected to the act of eating it?

If you think you need it, it's because you eat it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> Except, see I have this little tidbit.
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you said, just a few posts ago.
> 
> Literally, the word you used, Eating meat is a barbaric and uneducated habit.
> 
> Meaning if I didn't do it, I'd be educated, and modern.



No, i said that if you think eating meat is a necessity, you're barbaric. Meaning, if you think that eating neat is a necessity, you're barbaric. Completely different point.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> How is that irrelevant? If they didn't have the intelligence enough to survive in it, we wouldn't be here.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that as times progressed, and as man evolved, they became more intelligent. It's unfair to take a cave-man and compare them to a modern person.
> 
> Our environments are different. We, for all of our technological advances, couldn't survive in that environment.
> 
> Of course we're smarter than they are. *We're not even the same species anymore.*


Because being smart enough to stay alive =/= total processing power are relevant. Computer in 1992 were good enough for their purposes then, but they aren't really worth a damn for our purposes now.

Then why is it fair to bring up them eating meat?

I don't think that's true, survivor shows are enough proof of that .

Which is why "eating meat made them smart" is irrelevant. I'm glad we agree.


----------



## Sicarius

Adam Of Angels said:


> No, i said that if you think eating meat is a necessity, you're barbaric. Meaning, if you think that eating neat is a necessity, you're barbaric. Completely different point.


As I said, the thinking there's a need comes from eating it.

it's the same point.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> Isn't thinking it's a necessity directly connected to the act of eating it?
> 
> If you think you need it, it's because you eat it.





Sicarius said:


> As I said, the thinking there's a need comes from eating it.
> 
> it's the same point.


No. Thinking you have to eat it, and simply eating it because you want to are not the same at all.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> Because being smart enough to stay alive =/= total processing power are relevant. Computer in 1992 were good enough for their purposes then, but they aren't really worth a damn for our purposes now.
> 
> Then why is it fair to bring up them eating meat?
> 
> I don't think that's true, survivor shows are enough proof of that .
> 
> Which is why "eating meat made them smart" is irrelevant. I'm glad we agree.



and primitive man updated their tools as need and intelligence and environment changed.

Environment, being able to provide a diet suitable for the survival of a species helps with providing a basic understanding. Increases intelligence as tribes discover the ability to hunt and farm.

adaption and evolution increase intelligence, and ability to learn.

with out these, including diet, we'd be no where.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> and primitive man updated their tools as need and intelligence and environment changed.


Our intelligence, technological advancements and environment have enabled use to easily live without any meat.  Every time you get something right, it just serves to disprove your original hypothesis.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Sicarius said:


> you can't call them retarded, as it's an unfair comparison to make.
> 
> given their environment they were incredibly intelligent, and made it work to their advantage.



Retarded, in regards to cognitive ability, means Underdeveloped. Compared to modern man, pre-modern man is retarded. That's how I stated it because that's how I meant it. I'm not considering environment or proportionality, I'm simply comparing the two. It has nothing to do with being fair, it's just a comparison.


----------



## wlfers

highlordmugfug said:


> Their environment and how they fared in it is irrelevant: We have more brain computing/processing power than they did, that's how we're distinguished from them. Compared to us and average brainpower today, they would be considered something close to retarded. That's a fact.



I feel a bruise worthy facepalm coming on.  That's not a fact. I know its hard to believe that you aren't the golden star of an evolutionary ladder.

Evolution isn't a ladder, you're not the golden star. Chimps are just as evolved as you, they do perfectly fine in their environment. Maybe it's too hurtful for you to accept that less civilized and less classical humans had larger brains than we do now. So no, we do not have more "computing/processing power". Look up how much of the brain is actually even used please.


----------



## Sicarius

highlordmugfug said:


> Our intelligence, technological advancements and environment have enabled use to easily live without any meat.  Every time you get something right, it just serves to disprove your original hypothesis.



If that's the way you interpret it.

you two are just jerking each other off, and ignoring, and misreading what anyone else has posted. You're just as stuck to your opinions on the matter and "facts", as I am, that you're changing meanings upon critique, and instead relying on being condescending, and rude, and riding your high-horse of vegetarianism.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

athawulf said:


> My brain is wired to defend my behavior? So the guy trying to talk about science here is giving the most simplistic and unimaginative explanation almost to a degree of insulting the human brain to analyze my saying to what length I can respect peoples dietary opinions?



What's with you guys completely misreading and exaggerating what is being said? You said that we're lecturing you about what to eat... I said that nobody here is doing that, so I proposed what is one of the only explanations for you interpreting this discussion in such a way: the human brain reacts to new/conflicting ideas in the same way that it reacts to threatening/fight-or-flight situations. This is fact. So, my assumption was that you took my mentioning that animal products aren't necessary for human survival as a lecture on how you should manage your diet.. Which would have been a misinterpretation of what's going on here. Make sense?



athawulf said:


> And what do you mean by "modern humans". You said "cavemen", and if you knew anything about what you're talking about they are considered pretty "modern". Do you mean humans since civilization? Please look up anatomically modern humans vs modern humans to understand.
> 
> And yes, cave-men were just as cognitively developed as modern humans. (because they are... humans) Just as a short example even neanderthal graves have been found with a red "paint" substance. So first of all they're burying their dead, and ritualizing it, whether the red substance is to signify blood, the womb, or just a pretty color they liked we'll never know. But they sure had a cognitive grasp of life and the understanding of the possible unknown. And as I said in my last post, earlier humans actually had larger brains than we do now.
> 
> Also, cognitive thinking is different from book smart.



My apologies - I used the word "caveman", which is not a scientific term in the least. I'm referring to the article you linked us to. The article is talking about the point in time/our evolution when we became smarter/more cognitively developed. Before that happened, we were less cognitively developed. We had to be less cognitively developed at one point in order to get to the point where we were more cognitively developed..... Right? I mean, you're the one that posted the article, dude. So by what logic can you say that I'm wrong in saying that the human ancestors mentioned in that article were essentially retarded when compared to modern humans?


----------



## Sicarius

This has been the entirety of the thread.

both sides hitting the same wall, just on different sides.

No one is winning.

no one is losing.

We can let it stop, or we can keep on headbutting a wall.

I'm for either option.


----------



## highlordmugfug

athawulf said:


> I feel a bruise worthy facepalm coming on.  That's not a fact. I know its hard to believe that you aren't the golden star of an evolutionary ladder.
> 
> Evolution isn't a ladder, you're not the golden star. Chimps are just as evolved as you, they do perfectly fine in their environment. Maybe it's too hurtful for you to accept that less civilized and less classical humans had larger brains than we do now. So no, we do not have more "computing/processing power". Look up how much of the brain is actually even used please.


Never said we were objectively better or anything to the order of "MODERN HUMANS FTW"

And since there's no specified period of time that we agreed on, it depends on how far back you want to go to see how the brain sizes/cognitive abilities differ.

Early Human Evolution:. Homo ergaster and erectus
_"Homo erectus_ heads were strikingly different from ours in shape. They had relatively strong muscles on the back of their necks. Their foreheads were shallow, sloping back from very prominent bony brow ridges (i.e., *supraorbital tori* 

). Compared to modern humans, the _Homo erectus_ brain case was more elongated from front to back and less spherical. *As a consequence, the frontal and temporal lobes of their brains were narrower, suggesting that they would have had somewhat lower mental ability."


EDIT:
*


Sicarius said:


> If that's the way you interpret it.


That's not the way I interpret it: people can live without meat. There's no interpretation needed. People do it all the time, there's plenty of examples that've already been presented. If you want to continue to ignore facts, go on ahead and be as wrong and ignorant as you please.


----------



## BigPhi84

Arrrggghhh, I have to get back into this debate!!!! ulls hair out:

FACT: Humans do not need to consume meat or animal products. B1 and B12 are the only vitamin that is hard to get in a Vegan diet, and there are supplements that you can buy that can "supplement" said diet. 

FACT: In uber-commercial farms, a lot of animal treatment is cruel and tortuous.

Everything else that you've stated, Adam, is Belief. Now, I'm glad that you base you beliefs on facts (sure beats the alternative.) You feel that eating meat is wrong and I accept that. What I don't accept is the fact that you are touting your beliefs as fact. The great thing about being omnivores is we have the ability to choose to eat meat (like Sicarius) or to not eat meat (like highlordmugfug). The freedom of choice is one thing that separates us from the herbivores and carnivores. 

If I ate one portion of meat every day for 50 years, I would not be less healthy than you. The problem with our culture is that we overeat meat (because the umami flavors of amino acids taste so good!) In history, having meat at the table was a sign of wealth, and as Americans, we like to feel like we have monies! For instance, there's no reason that Porterhouses should be served on a plate to one person. Nobody can eat 23 ounces of steak by themselves and have it digest properly and affect us in a positive way. I call it the "Thanksgiving-everyday" syndrome. Americans love that heavy-stuffed feeling.

Growing up in an Asian American household, I was used to seeing a lot of rice, sauteed vegetables, tofu, salads, and a small portion of meat. The small portion of meat was shared between the entire family. It wasn't till I was older that I realized that Americans over-ate, especially when it comes to meat. I mean, the Monster burger (while tasty) is the epitome of America's obsession with meat. 2/3lb patty, 1410 calories, and 107 grams of fat, most of which is saturated fat. 



On a side note, I want to say that I respect vegetarians, vegans (like highlordmugfug), and pescatarians (sorta what you are right now, Adam) immensely. In my uber-religious days, I participated in a Daniel Fast. If you don't know what that is, it's 3 days of of complete fasting (you can drink water), followed by 24 days of eating only fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, brown rice, whole grain breads, seeds, and that's pretty much it. Refined sugars, meat, milk and milk products, white rice/bread, sodas, teas, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, etc. were off the table (literally ). 

I felt GREAT! I lost 16 pounds of weight (mainly b/c I'm a Dr. Pepper addict), I could go to sleep early and wake up early refreshed (b/c of the no caffeine dealie), and my mind was more focused because I wasn't always thinking about what I was going to eat next. Since I'm a big fast food eater, I had to learn how to cook at home as no restaurants around here really offer Vegan options, which essentially coincides with the Daniel Fast requirements. Most of all, it gave me a time to realize how addicted Americans are to food and drinks. Why does somebody need to drink a cup of coffee every day to "wake up"? Why do I get headaches if I don't have my soft-drink? Why does everything taste better with butter? 

It was an eye-opening experience. I felt like I could understand why Vegans choose their lifestyle, and from then on, I never made fun of those tree-huggers again.  Sure, after the Daniel Fast was over, I didn't stick to the diet since I'm lazy and poor (organic stuff costs a lot!!!!) and the convenience and time-saving benefits of "eating out" won, but I still keep a lot of what I learned on that Fast with me, especially the opinion that Hummus and Pita chips are an amazing combination!!!  Also, toasted pita pockets with organic peanut butter kicks a regular PB&J in the nuts. 



I don't know why I shared all that with you. Maybe, it was to show that I can relate to both sides. Or maybe, it's because I can't sleep.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

BigPhi84 said:


> Everything else that you've stated, Adam, is Belief. Now, I'm glad that you base you beliefs on facts (sure beats the alternative.) You feel that eating meat is wrong and I accept that. What I don't accept is the fact that you are touting your beliefs as fact.



What beliefs are you referring to? I'm really not sharing any beliefs, as they're irrelevant.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Not to be nit picky Phi,  but I'm pretty sure that B1 can be gotten in adequate amounts through legumes and grains. It's just B12 that I know is a tricky little bugger.

Also, excellent post.


----------



## Sicarius

I've never been able to figure out where the high cost of organic foods comes from :/

well said, Phi.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> I've never been able to figure out where the high cost of organic foods comes from :/
> 
> well said, Phi.


I can actually explain that one!

It's because of food subsidies that favor cheap and wide-use foods like corn, soybeans, potatoes and such. If you're really interested there's a lot of information about it out there, but basically it's because the 'unhealthy' foods are favored, while the healthier alternatives like fruits and vegetables aren't, hence the market costs for them are higher in most cases.

EDIT: That's in the USA at least, I don't know much about the food production for the entire world.


----------



## Sicarius

It just seems with the big trend being organic food, that it would negate that.

Like, a regular carrot, one that's grown on a farm that uses pesticides is cheaper than an Organic carrot.

it's still a carrot, but because one's labeled as organic it's more expensive.

Is that trend riding, or favoring "cheaper" goods?


----------



## highlordmugfug

Sicarius said:


> It just seems with the big trend being organic food, that it would negate that.


'Organic food' has gotten really popular and buzz-worthy lately, but such a huge amount of time and money has been invested to make the food production system the way it is now that it will/would take a hell of a lot longer than the few years the organic label has been rising in popularity to change the way it's set up currently.


Sicarius said:


> Like, a regular carrot, one that's grown on a farm that uses pesticides is cheaper than an Organic carrot.
> 
> it's still a carrot, but because one's labeled as organic it's more expensive.
> 
> Is that trend riding, or favoring "cheaper" goods?


Most likely that has to do with the monopolization (for lack of a better word) of the food industry and the want to keep the status quo.
Most of the worlds food comes from a pretty small percentage of farms/owners/businesses (compared to the way things used to be in the past). 

My guess is, it's "easier" for the businesses to keep doing things the way they are, and by making organicly labeled foods from the bigger companies more expensive, they both raise profits and keep people believing that organic foods are too expensive to be viable so they won't have to change what they're doing on a large scale.


It's a tad conspiracy theory-esque, but it's very probably.

EDIT: And the relative high cost of most organic foods, vs fruits and vegetables being more expensive than chips and sodas and such are really 2 different issues. They're vaguely related, but they have different reasons behind them.


----------



## Sicarius

So, I can blame the hipsters?


----------



## wlfers

Adam Of Angels said:


> What's with you guys completely misreading and exaggerating what is being said? You said that we're lecturing you about what to eat... I said that nobody here is doing that, so I proposed what is one of the only explanations for you interpreting this discussion in such a way: the human brain reacts to new/conflicting ideas in the same way that it reacts to threatening/fight-or-flight situations. This is fact. So, my assumption was that you took my mentioning that animal products aren't necessary for human survival as a lecture on how you should manage your diet.. Which would have been a misinterpretation of what's going on here. Make sense?
> 
> 
> My apologies - I used the word "caveman", which is not a scientific term in the least. I'm referring to the article you linked us to. The article is talking about the point in time/our evolution when we became smarter/more cognitively developed. Before that happened, we were less cognitively developed. We had to be less cognitively developed at one point in order to get to the point where we were more cognitively developed..... Right? I mean, you're the one that posted the article, dude. So by what logic can you say that I'm wrong in saying that the human ancestors mentioned in that article were essentially retarded when compared to modern humans?



The misunderstanding came in when you assumed I was accusing you of lecturing me. All my statement was, was that I respect all dietary opinions unless it entails lecturing me. I never said adam, or any sort of pronoun that would have hinted at you. 

You can try and pass it off as "dude it was your article"- and even as you said the article isn't explained academically. The part that doesn't add up is you're clearly arguing about how the caveman, after experiencing his steep period of encephalization (maybe even thanks to meat) isn't as smart as we are now, because if he was as smart he could get all his nutrients from other sources. So you weren't saying at all 



Adam Of Angels said:


> So by what logic can you say that I'm wrong in saying that the human ancestors mentioned in that article were essentially retarded when compared to modern humans?



You were trying to challenge the smartest period of their "retardation" which was obviously after their evolutionary change. Nice try though.



highlordmugfug said:


> Never said we were objectively better or anything to the order of "MODERN HUMANS FTW"
> 
> And since there's no specified period of time that we agreed on, it depends on how far back you want to go to see how the brain sizes/cognitive abilities differ.
> 
> Early Human Evolution:. Homo ergaster and erectus
> _"Homo erectus_ heads were strikingly different from ours in shape. They had relatively strong muscles on the back of their necks. Their foreheads were shallow, sloping back from very prominent bony brow ridges (i.e., *supraorbital tori*
> 
> ). Compared to modern humans, the _Homo erectus_ brain case was more elongated from front to back and less spherical. *As a consequence, the frontal and temporal lobes of their brains were narrower, suggesting that they would have had somewhat lower mental ability."
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> *
> That's not the way I interpret it: people can live without meat. There's no interpretation needed. People do it all the time, there's plenty of examples that've already been presented. If you want to continue to ignore facts, go on ahead and be as wrong and ignorant as you please.



The problem with this is that Erectus and Ergaster are not the same species we are, and in fact earlier. Anatomically modern humans (those latest specimens running around in caves) etc, so forth, are the same species we are: Homo Sapiens. You cant just copy and paste what you found from the internet- it's actually highly irrelevant.


Anyway my main point (lol) is if you're going to come in here posing as the champion of scientific truth and knowledge, please actually be consistent with your application. Whether it is about diets, or human evolution and intelligence.


----------



## wlfers

Looks like PHI cleared things up with some objective material, my work derailing this thread to a more physical anthropology topic seems to be over!


----------



## wlfers

highlordmugfug said:


> 'Organic food' has gotten really popular and buzz-worthy lately, but such a huge amount of time and money has been invested to make the food production system the way it is now that it will/would take a hell of a lot longer than the few years the organic label has been rising in popularity to change the way it's set up currently.
> 
> Most likely that has to do with the monopolization (for lack of a better word) of the food industry and the want to keep the status quo.
> Most of the worlds food comes from a pretty small percentage of farms/owners/businesses (compared to the way things used to be in the past).
> 
> My guess is, it's "easier" for the businesses to keep doing things the way they are, and by making organicly labeled foods from the bigger companies more expensive, they both raise profits and keep people believing that organic foods are too expensive to be viable so they won't have to change what they're doing on a large scale.
> 
> 
> It's a tad conspiracy theory-esque, but it's very probably.
> 
> EDIT: And the relative high cost of most organic foods, vs fruits and vegetables are more expensive than chips and sodas and such are really 2 different issues. They're vaguely related, but they have different reasons behind them.



Is it true that there is no actual guideline for what organic exactly is/means? In any given circumstance I will always try to buy the item with less preservatives and crap in it, but sometimes I wonder if they're exaggerating a bit haha.


edit to add on:


BigPhi84 said:


> If I ate one portion of meat every day for 50 years, I would not be less healthy than you. * The problem with our culture is that we overeat meat (because the umami flavors of amino acids taste so good!)*



Ok one last slightly off topic thing, we crave meat, sweets, fats so much because at one point in time it was a rarity to come across. The fruit is in season, a lucky animal kill, holy crap that other guy didn't find this treasure trove of sugar first etc. So our natural instinct is to gorge ourselves on it because it is a resource that could have been soon gone. Here evolution didn't catch up to modern convenience, and we still cant fight the urge sometimes to hold back.


----------



## highlordmugfug

athawulf said:


> The problem with this is that Erectus and Ergaster are not the same species we are, and in fact earlier. Anatomically modern humans (those latest specimens running around in caves) etc, so forth, are the same species we are: Homo Sapiens. You cant just copy and paste what you found from the internet- it's actually highly irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Anyway my main point (lol) is if you're going to come in here posing as the champion of scientific truth and knowledge, please actually be consistent with your application. Whether it is about diets, or human evolution and intelligence.


Fair enough. 

I know a lot more about food and various related topics than I do about early humans. I love cooking and I love eating to a very high degree, but I have only a passing fancy for early humanity. 


athawulf said:


> Looks like PHI cleared things up with some objective material, m*y work derailing this thread to a more physical anthropology topic seems to be over!*


----------



## BigPhi84

highlordmugfug said:


> I can actually explain that one!
> 
> It's because of food subsidies that favor cheap and wide-use foods like corn, soybeans, potatoes and such. If you're really interested there's a lot of information about it out there, but basically it's because the 'unhealthy' foods are favored, while the healthier alternatives like fruits and vegetables aren't, hence the market costs for them are higher in most cases.
> 
> EDIT: That's in the USA at least, I don't know much about the food production for the entire world.




Ninja'd  by highlordmugfug. BTW, what's your real name? I'm tired of typing highlordmugfug every time I want to address you, and highlord or mugfug just don't do you justice. 

Also, the very fact that organic fruits and vegetables, by law, can't use chemical fertilizers which means less spectacular growth, and no chemical pesticides means that more bugs and predators can attack and damage the produce, thereby a smaller yield being brought to the market (as compared to a non-organic farmer). I bring 100 organic apples to market, you bring 1,000 regular apples to market. Sure, you have to pay more for chemicals, but ultimately, our cost to produce our crops yields is the same, so I have to charge more for my organic apples. Same reason that small guitar manufacturers have to charge a lot more for their guitars than, lets say, Ibanez.

Couple that with the fact that the U.S. subsidizes a lot of crops. Lets say an ear of corn costs a regular farmer $0.40 cents to produce, with a markup of $0.10 cents for profit. The US pays the farmer $0.15 cents to produce that ear of corn so that the farmer can charge only $0.35 cents to the market, thus "fixing" the market price. (This is done with milk and flour too, BTW.) Imagine the organic farmers plight when he has to try to sell an ear of corn for $0.90 cents to make the math add up right. The average American has the Walmart syndrome..."Why buy this here, when I can buy that over there for cheaper?!?" And the final kabash: Organic farms have to be "certified" by the USDA. What that means is that the farms have to be inspected every so often to make sure that they're actually playing by the rules. These inspections cost money, which is then passed on to the consumer. Hopefully, you can see why it's so difficult for the "organic" industry has a hard time trying to break into the American market.


----------



## wlfers

highlordmugfug said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I know a lot more about food and various related topics than I do about early humans. I love cooking and I love eating to a very high degree, but I have only a passing fancy for early humanity.



No problem, I actually don't know much about food ...


----------



## highlordmugfug

athawulf said:


> Is it true that there is no actual guideline for what organic exactly is/means? In any given circumstance I will always try to buy the item with less preservatives and crap in it, but sometimes I wonder if they're exaggerating a bit haha.


Organic Certification

Well, there's a difference between something that's certified organic, and "all natural" and stuff like that. And a lot of packaging tries to tie stuff like organic and all natural together to confuse the issue.
Questions and Answers About Organic - Organic Trade Association

I'm fairly certain (though not 100% and I am getting really sleepy right now) that Organic in relation to produce just means grown without pesticides. I'd like to think that it also means non-GMO, but I'm not certain on that.

from: What does organic mean?
* What is organic food?

* Organic food is produced by farmers who avoid the use of bio-persistent nonselective chemical pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers. Farmers emphasize the use of renewable (or sustainable) resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. 
The USDA says:
Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled organic, a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too. Consumer Brochure, USDA National Organic Program
The specifics vary depending upon the type of food and its method of production. For example, Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic fruits and vegetables are grown without using most conventional pesticides, fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineer seed or plants; or ionizing radiation. 
Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.


----------



## BigPhi84

Adam Of Angels said:


> What beliefs are you referring to? I'm really not sharing any beliefs, as they're irrelevant.



Are you not saying that "humans shouldn't eat meat"?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

athawulf said:


> The misunderstanding came in when you assumed I was accusing you of lecturing me. All my statement was, was that I respect all dietary opinions unless it entails lecturing me. I never said adam, or any sort of pronoun that would have hinted at you.



I don't see why you would have mentioned it if it weren't a problem.



athawulf said:


> You can try and pass it off as "dude it was your article"- and even as you said the article isn't explained academically. The part that doesn't add up is you're clearly arguing about how the caveman, after experiencing his steep period of encephalization (maybe even thanks to meat) isn't as smart as we are now, because if he was as smart he could get all his nutrients from other sources. So you weren't saying at all



For starters, I will once again reiterate that pre-modern man (or rather, our ancestors from before 2.3 million years in the past) were less cognitively developed than we are. You posted the article, and I point that out because if you didn't subscribe to this idea, you wouldn't have posted the article. I also subscribe to the idea. 

My original point in response to the posting of that article is that Modern humans are intelligent enough to know that we don't need animal products to survive, and that our ancient ancestors (those mentioned in the article) were not necessarily intelligent enough to know that we don't need animal products to survive. The bottom line is that they were effectively retarded compared to us, and its therefore slly to imply that we need meat because our less-cognitively-developed ancestors benefited from consuming it. That's all.





athawulf said:


> You were trying to challenge the smartest period of their "retardation" which was obviously after their evolutionary change. Nice try though.



I actually have no idea what you're saying here, but I explained myself previously... Even though my point was originally clear enough to understand.


----------



## highlordmugfug

BigPhi84 said:


> Are you not saying that "humans shouldn't eat meat"?


I think (though I can't speak for him) what he's saying is that not eating meat is more compassionate, that it's not necessary to eat meat, and that he personally believes that we shouldn't, but not that he's trying to make people not.


And it's Kent.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

BigPhi84 said:


> Are you not saying that "humans shouldn't eat meat"?



I never said that in this thread. I said they don't have to. I might have said that they shouldn't eat meat if they want to be morally sound, but I don't even think I said that.


----------



## Daemoniac

I've been tossing up posting in here since I read through the first couple of pages on Friday night, and basically only have this to say; 

Fuck the people who do this and fuck the culture that is so backwards it still supports it. This is blatant cruelty for no purpose other than as an utterly obsolete custom with no actual effects that should have died out in the god damn dark ages.


----------



## Sicarius

I could seriously go for some processed chicken nuggets right now.

and some buffalo sauce.

damn.


----------



## wlfers

Adam Of Angels said:


> For starters, I will once again reiterate that pre-modern man (or rather, our ancestors from before 2.3 million years in the past) were less cognitively developed than we are. You posted the article, and I point that out because if you didn't subscribe to this idea, you wouldn't have posted the article. I also subscribe to the idea.
> 
> My original point in response to the posting of that article is that Modern humans are intelligent enough to know that we don't need animal products to survive, and that our ancient ancestors (those mentioned in the article) were not necessarily intelligent enough to know that we don't need animal products to survive. The bottom line is that they were effectively retarded compared to us, and its therefore slly to imply that we need meat because our less-cognitively-developed ancestors benefited from consuming it. That's all.




Actually, you said this.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Retarded, in regards to cognitive ability, means Underdeveloped. Compared to modern man, pre-modern man is retarded. That's how I stated it because that's how I meant it. I'm not considering environment or proportionality, I'm simply comparing the two. It has nothing to do with being fair, it's just a comparison.


 
It's merely that you don't know about human evolution, and that's ok, I'm here to tell you about it. There are modern humans, and there are even creatures of the exact same species called anatomically modern humans because they are physically the same! 
​ And once again you're missing the point. Pre-modern humans were intelligent enough to understand that meat and the nutrients it contains can be found elsewhere. I just don't think you understand the difference between cognitive ability and available knowledge.

And for the record, I never said humans need meat. So learn about human evolution, and make a distinction between cognitive capabilities and available knowledge and this discussion can finally go back on topic 
​ ​


----------



## wlfers

Daemoniac said:


> I've been tossing up posting in here since I read through the first couple of pages on Friday night, and basically only have this to say;
> 
> Fuck the people who do this and fuck the culture that is so backwards it still supports it. This is blatant cruelty for no purpose other than as an utterly obsolete custom with no actual effects that should have died out in the god damn dark ages.



Agreed. This trash is unacceptable. But I'm tempted to now derail this into a history lesson after mentioning the dark ages 

jkjk.

No but really, that shit is fucking disgusting and wrong.


----------



## BigPhi84

highlordmugfug said:


> Animal products aren't necessary to survive, the millions of people who've lived without them for long long periods of time are proof of that, and no they didn't all barely survive, and they weren't all weak and withered, or devoid of 'vital nutrients'. That's a fact. You can't argue with it, it's completely proven, undebatable.




Check these out:
Beriberi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pellagra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that, in our modern culture with an understanding of nutritional requirements, this wouldn't happen again, but it DID happen at one point in our history.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

athawulf said:


> Actually, you said this.
> 
> 
> 
> It's merely that you don't know about human evolution, and that's ok, I'm here to tell you about it. There are modern humans, and there are even creatures of the exact same species called anatomically modern humans because they are physically the same!
> ​ And once again you're missing the point. Pre-modern humans were intelligent enough to understand that meat and the nutrients it contains can be found elsewhere. I just don't think you understand the difference between cognitive ability and available knowledge.
> 
> And for the record, I never said humans need meat. So learn about human evolution, and make a distinction between cognitive capabilities and available knowledge and this discussion can finally go back on topic
> ​ ​



I was 100% talking about modern humans compared to the ancestors of ours being mentioned in that article. I was obviously doing this, since that article was the subject at hand. If I used terminology that is sub-par in your understanding, I apologize, but given my clarification, I made no logical or factual fallacies. There is no way of saying that those ancient ancestors had the cognitive ability to speculate whether or not meat was a necessity, and so I called the suggestion of your implication upon posting that article silly. The article was written in order to illustrate how our ancestors ate meat in order to become smarter..... So if they were less intelligent before this process, it's safe to speculate that they were perhaps incapable of understanding that meat was not a necessity. Either way, the point is that we currently have the capacity and the research to know better. Thats all that matters here.


----------



## highlordmugfug

BigPhi84 said:


> Check these out:
> Beriberi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Pellagra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I know that, in our modern culture with an understanding of nutritional requirements, this wouldn't happen again, but it DID happen at one point in our history.


Oh yeah, I know that there are possible nutrient deficiencies/diseases (either through inadequate intake or through interruption/blockage of proper absorption) I made sure to say "all" in that post just to clarify to Sicarius that being vegetarian or vegan wasn't synonymous with being nutrient deficient.

EDIT: That was the only point I was trying to make with that, that the first didn't necessitate the second.


----------



## Daemoniac

"Dark ages" meant in a figurative sense, seeing as how animal cruelty on a massive, socially accepted scale didn't even really die out in Western culture until the mid 20th century. I apply the same logic there though, shit should have died a fucking long time before it did (has...).

Hell, I still hear stories from my partner about the disgusting people that come through her vet clinic, and even that makes my blood absolutely boil.


As for the vegetarian/meat argument, from what I understand, the human body is built to be omnivorous. We were a hunter/gatherer species millions of years ago and so (no doubt more as a result of availability than anything) our bodies are built to consume both (so we are 'able' to consume both, not purpose built to consume one or the other entirely). I'm not going to get into what is more healthy, partially because I don't know (there are long-winded arguments for both sides, each making their own points) and partially because I simply do not give a rats ass and this is not the time or the place for that argument.


----------



## wlfers

Adam Of Angels said:


> I was 100% talking about modern humans compared to the ancestors of ours being mentioned in that article. I was obviously doing this, since that article was the subject at hand. If I used terminology that is sub-par in your understanding, I apologize, but given my clarification, I made no logical or factual fallacies. There is no way of saying that those ancient ancestors had the cognitive ability to speculate whether or not meat was a necessity, and so I called the suggestion of your implication upon posting that article silly. The article was written in order to illustrate how our ancestors ate meat in order to become smarter..... So if they were less intelligent before this process, it's safe to speculate that they were perhaps incapable of understanding that meat was not a necessity. Either way, the point is that we currently have the capacity and the research to know better. Thats all that matters here.



No, they didn't eat to become smarter. Humans snatched up a new habit based on available resources that ultimately (argued in this article and others of a more academic nature) benefited them.

You're correct, we currently have the research and knowledge to know that the nutrients in meat are not exclusive to meat- and you're also wrong. It has nothing to do with intelligence, cognitive ability, or pre-modern humans being retarded. 



highlordmugfug said:


> Organic Certification
> 
> Well, there's a difference between something that's certified organic, and "all natural" and stuff like that. And a lot of packaging tries to tie stuff like organic and all natural together to confuse the issue.
> Questions and Answers About Organic - Organic Trade Association
> 
> I'm fairly certain (though not 100% and I am getting really sleepy right now) that Organic in relation to produce just means grown without pesticides. I'd like to think that it also means non-GMO, but I'm not certain on that.
> 
> (and more)



Thanks for the clarification, hm it may have been the "all natural" terminology and the attempted interchangeability of the two terms that confused me like you were saying.


----------



## wlfers

Daemoniac said:


> "Dark ages" meant in a figurative sense, seeing as how animal cruelty on a massive, socially accepted scale didn't even really die out in Western culture until the mid 20th century. I apply the same logic there though, shit should have died a fucking long time before it did (has...).
> 
> Hell, I still hear stories from my partner about the disgusting people that come through her vet clinic, and even that makes my blood absolutely boil.
> 
> 
> As for the vegetarian/meat argument, from what I understand, the human body is built to be omnivorous. We were a hunter/gatherer species millions of years ago and so (no doubt more as a result of availability than anything) our bodies are built to consume both (so we are 'able' to consume both, not purpose built to consume one or the other entirely). I'm not going to get into what is more healthy, partially because I don't know (there are long-winded arguments for both sides, each making their own points) and partially because I simply do not give a rats ass and this is not the time or the place for that argument.



I know, it was merely a joke at my recent de-railment of the thread.

But to be honest, I think an internet forum is actually the time and place for the argument. I don't think any amount of apparent anger or "on topicness" is doing any favor to these tortured animals.

The topic came about with animal welfare as it pertains to eating habits, and as I do not empathize with the vegan and vegetarian lifestyle, I still find it perfectly relevant and fair for them to bring up the topic that we here in America still treat animals like shit.

But I'm sure we all share the same amount of hate for the treatment of these bears and the people who could do such a thing.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

athawulf said:


> No, they didn't eat to become smarter. Humans snatched up a new habit based on available resources that ultimately (argued in this article and others of a more academic nature) benefited them.



They began eating a lot of meat, which aided in the development of their brain...... What are you trying to say here? I didn't say they chose to eat meat to become smarter, I'm saying it's just what happened... Well, no, that's what the article is saying. 




athawulf said:


> You're correct, we currently have the research and knowledge to know that the nutrients in meat are not exclusive to meat- and you're also wrong. It has nothing to do with intelligence, cognitive ability, or pre-modern humans being retarded.



Again:

You presented that article in this thread so as to emphasize the importance of meat in the human diet. Otherwise, it was a random article with no value, so I won't assume that you randomly posted it for no reason.
I said that while I agree with the implications of that article, it has nothing to do with with modern humans since there is a difference in cognitive ability between us and those ancestors of ours, effectively making us much different. Basically, that article is irrelevant here, thats all I'm saying. The later point I made were just efforts to defend my choice of words when what's-his-name challenged me.

I'm getting awfully tired, y'all.


----------



## BigPhi84

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm getting awfully tired, y'all.




Like "sleepy-tired" or "I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over" tired? :raspberry:

EDIT: Man, there's no raspberry emoticon? This one is a little too strong for my playful banter.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Like, I've been lacking sleep all week and just flew all day and now it's 4:47 am tired..... Plus a healthy serving of "I'm repeating myself ad infinitum" tired.


----------



## BigPhi84

Adam Of Angels said:


> Like, I've been lacking sleep all week and just flew all day and now it's 4:47 am tired..... Plus a healthy serving of "I'm repeating myself ad infinitum" tired.




Are you in Florida? Pennsylvania? Lithuania?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Haha, just got to Flo Rida. Back to offensive humidity and armies of mosquitos


----------

