|
Post by Kamau on Sept 15, 2003 20:16:35 GMT -5
Well, once the child has been nurtured to a stage where it no longer requires its parents' assistance in life then technically there is no problem with this. However, in today's society you would probably be branded a psycho and jailed for life because it's not the 'normal' thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 15, 2003 20:39:35 GMT -5
Yes, cannibalism is unethical in today's "civilized" societies.
|
|
|
Post by theblakeman on Sept 16, 2003 0:49:15 GMT -5
SLEEPY TEMPLAR. Fool. Humans don't generally consider other humans as animals when we think about it on the fly. We view other humans as our kinsmen, and so we don't eat each other. Other animals do not share that same bond with us as a whole, so that is generally why it is considered WRONG to eat peeps. BTW pets don't count because although those kinds of bonds are strong we feel we can relate to human beings because we ARE THEM. BTW, I had some DELICIOUS chicken today. DID I MENTION IT WAS DELICIOUS?
|
|
Pat
RPG Townie
Posts: 254
|
Post by Pat on Sept 16, 2003 7:23:42 GMT -5
SLEEPY TEMPLAR. Fool. Humans don't generally consider other humans as animals when we think about it on the fly. We view other humans as our kinsmen. So then why do we go to war with them and kill them. The meat is there wahy dont we just eat it.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Sept 16, 2003 11:32:53 GMT -5
Oh FFS!! I had an entire argument against ST then and the f*cking thing didn't post. That is SO irritating. To come along story short it said:
* ST is also repeating the same stuff by constantly going on about us butchering our parents * I said ST shouldn't use peoples spelling mistakes to boost his argument and should remember that some people do not have as good a vocabulary as him. * I said that sleepytemplar must have tasted awful meat if he thought meat substitutes taste like it. That would be a valid argument instead of wishy washy animals have feelings stuff. * I said that I don't find slaughtering animals pleasurable, but I find eating dead and cooked ones pleasurable. They are already dead then so they won't feel pain from my acts.
Sorry it's such a vague argument, but I am NOT writing it all out again.
|
|
|
Post by Forbidden on Sept 16, 2003 12:21:05 GMT -5
I was once a vegetarian, until I found out that I can't eat meat.
This debate is waay too smart for me. I didn't understand about 30% of what ST said.
I guess this post is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by SickAndWretched on Sept 16, 2003 18:05:25 GMT -5
So then why do we go to war with them and kill them. The meat is there wahy dont we just eat it. 'cause they were humans and they're all full of lead and other chemical that are harmful.. though I do remember hearing about some thing about a tribe that would eat there dead after battle, y'know so their power doesn't go to waste.. but in this moral and chirstain "soceity" it would be better to let them rot 6ft under.. oh by the way.. Pat I love you're sig
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 16, 2003 18:18:28 GMT -5
Pat's sig rules . . .
|
|
|
Post by theblakeman on Sept 16, 2003 18:27:46 GMT -5
My anus rules
|
|
|
Post by The One True Cow on Sept 20, 2003 10:04:48 GMT -5
Eating meat is indeed immoral.
But since when was morality an issue?
I wasn't following my morals when I downloaded RM2k and RM2k3.
We're humans. We're not moral. We do lots of immoral things every day.
The endless fighting between various groups of people on earth is also immoral, but that doesn't stop it from happening. This is just the same.
I say that vegetarians should be allowed to think what they think and not be treated as lesser people because of it. But they should also realize that some of them who use the morality argument are quite hypocritical because quite a few of them do things just as immoral than eating meat.
|
|
|
Post by theblakeman on Sept 20, 2003 10:53:30 GMT -5
Everyone has different moral standards and by THEIR standards eating meat is wrong, but not by my standards.
|
|
Mr. E
RPG Townie
i r kenshin. bow befour me.
Posts: 343
|
Post by Mr. E on Sept 20, 2003 11:17:59 GMT -5
I think vegitarinism is just plain silly.
|
|
|
Post by Forbidden on Sept 20, 2003 13:49:59 GMT -5
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:23:52 -0800 From: PETA Correspondent <info@peta.org> To: maddox@xmission.com Subject: response requested
Thank you for contacting PETA about animals killed during grain harvesting. While it is true that animals are killed during harvesting, there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye. First, we, and animals rights advocates in general, are primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals. While millions of animals are killed each year in the harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the majority of the animals killed during harvesting.
If you have a moment, I'd like to know in which restaurant you saw this "Guiltless Grill" menu section. Thanks again for your message. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Sincerely,
Cliff Kaminsky*Note: I have never contacted PETA. Someone sent my guiltless grill article to them and PETA decided to contact me instead.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.
So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.
Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off. Not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?
I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY MADOX WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No nuts? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a mission to prevent "the suffering of living animals." This email I received, and many like it is the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place. My opinions are kept to myself on my personal web page. I don't remember asking anyone to read a d**n thing on my website. When you open up your inbox, you don't find it full of my opinions, and if you do I didn't send them to you. I'm not standing on the street corners protesting, I'm not putting fliers on your car and I'm not putting ads on TV and in magazines. I'm not shoving my agenda down your throat, don't shove your agenda down mine. All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.
Fun with facts: vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be d**ned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your thingy when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be d**ned if you're going to let them.
What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with not a very nice persons who listen to nutsty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like nuts? Slaughter please. Just thought this might help.
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 20, 2003 14:29:00 GMT -5
You DO know that the "Guiltless Grill" at Chile's is a LOW-FAT menu, and not a LOW-SUFFERING menu, right?
|
|
|
Post by theblakeman on Sept 20, 2003 15:42:47 GMT -5
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? More like "People for the Erotic Treatment of Animals"
|
|