Cage free eggs and pork - who cares

[X'tyfe]

CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY

[|iR|Focalor]

CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY

Pick whichever reply you like the most:

1. It's the Canadian way too, Einstein.

2. I suppose the Canadian way is... conserve conserve conserve? Riiiiiiiight. That's so cute.

3. Little do you know that if we ever run out of food, we won't go Donner and start eating our own, we'll just use Canada as our personal human meat farm, aye. "You are eating me, you hoser! What's this all aboot!?!"

[ex]

Fuck everyone who feels sympathy to animals.  Animals are meant to live and be killed every day all over the world.  It's called nature. 

1. I hope you feel sympathy toward animals, as we are primates.

2. There's no evidence of intent in nature, thus the use of 'meant to' in this context is inappropriate.

3. Given that we ourselves are animals, it would seem our compassion toward our numerous cousins should scale based on the capacity for an organism to experience suffering, which we generally assume to be related to the complexity of that organism and its posession (or lack) of a nervous system, etc.


Presumably an instantaneous transition from life -> non-life would imply an absense of suffering in that transition. 

For anything less than an instantaneous transition, point #3 should be considered.





99. I'll be grilling steak this weekend.

Well, I'm one of the rare ones that doesn't feel pity on primates either.  Animals of all kinds, including us, are meant to live and die.  It's the natural way.  This society is a bastardization of that nature.  Don't get me wrong, I love the bastardization and live it up, but it's a bastardization nonetheless.  I don't forget my animal roots. 

As far as intent in nature, there is absolutely an intent in this context, as the food chain supports the life cycle of all living beings.  Animals are meant to exist in a cyclical chain, to support one another by the deaths of each other, to give others life.  When the top food chain beings die, they go back into the Earth to become plants, whereby they get eaten by herbivores/omnivores/parasites, and the cycle continues again.  If there was no intent of nature, i.e. life, to support itself by supplying its fellow beings with consumable substances, we wouldn't exist...this planet would be yet another desolate wasteland just like 99%+ of the planets we observe are.

Now for sure, I'm not advocating pain or torture of animals.  My point is that when it comes to animal rights activists, esp. PETA and the like, it goes above and beyond what would be considered a normal level of caring about the welfare of animals.  When people get to the level of caring about fucking insects and start making statements like they are our equals, which is what many animal activists do, that's where I stop caring.  This goes all the way through the animal kingdom with some of these PETArds, yet they usually are the same kind of people who wouldn't help you if your life depended on it, because you're a "disgusting human."

I'm all for an instantaneous/as close to as possible death for all living creatures so suffering doesn't have to be prolonged.  My only issue, which was my original point, is that PETA members/animal activists place animals ABOVE humans, and that is where I draw the line with these coo-coo fucks.

Anyway, my .02 c

[ex]

I like bacon and eggs.

I always wanna swith to a vegan diet (for health reasons) but Im too lazy to do some more research and IDK but being vegan seems to be more heavy on the pocket.

Actually, this is incorrect.  Vegan/vegetarian diets are usually LESS expensive, as meats are almost always the highest-cost item in your grocery store.  Vegetables and fruits are among the cheapest items hands down.  Even items like tofu or daily supplements end up costing you less than if you eat a normal omnivore diet.  The veg's usually spend a lot less on food than normal people do.  Of course, I'm going to bite the bullet and pay the extra, because I love my beef, chicken, and shrimp.  mmm mmm

As far as "health" goes, it's debatable whether or not being strictly vegan is the most healthy of all possible diets. Unless I'm mistaken, there a few nutrients which are vital for a well-balanced healthy diet which cannot be attained from anything other than meat.

And like quadz mentioned, being that I'm atheist, I don't think there's any reason to say meat was "meant" to be eaten lest I claim that someone in particular designed it to be that way. What it "is" can be talked about plenty though, and what I think it "is" is DELICIOUS! It provides lots of protein and tons of other things, which is GOOD. Being that the animal has never done me any wrong, I have no need to make it suffer for anything. So whatever means gets the job done the quickest and the cheapest is obviously the best. Quite frankly, it's the whole truth that the way most meat is obtained these days is a whole lot more humane than how another animal in nature would obtain it from the animal becoming food. Honestly... how bad would it suck to be a gazelle with a gimpy leg getting your ass and neck chewed to death by 3 or 4 lions? How bad would it suck to be an elk calf being mauled by 8 wolves. Also, seems a lot less stressful of a life for an animal that doesn't roam far and wide in order to find food. They get daily food delivery and a shelter for free.

As far as avoiding the meat-related health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, etc., being a vegan is far healthier than living an omnivore diet.  Here's how it breaks down:  If you eat meat, you're more than likely going to develop some kind of cardiovascular issues at some point in your life.  This may even be near the very end of your life, but usually you do get something eventually.  When you eat a purely vegetarian/vegan diet, you simply don't develop these conditions as much.  I remember hearing that you are roughly 50 times LESS likely to experience cardiovascular health conditions if you're a vegit/vegan.

Now if you really want to know how much longer you'll live on average, the stats show that you gain about a year usually.  So you aren't going to lengthen your lifespan by 40 years by going full veg.  The only thing going veg does is severely lessen your risk of heart-related problems.  In a nutshell, you more than likely won't die from a heart attack, stroke, or cancer like your meat-eating peers will.  Is this for sure?  Absolutely not, there's veg's that get cancer and have heart attacks.  But the proportion is extremely less than their meat-eating friends is all.

Now if you excuse me, I have a Hot Pocket loaded with pepperoni and some leftover rotisserie chicken to get to.

[|iR|Focalor]

When people get to the level of caring about fucking insects and start making statements like they are our equals, which is what many animal activists do, that's where I stop caring. 

Well maybe your cousin also hasn't considered that many of the social and instinctual behaviors which insects exhibit are also quite similar to microorganisms like bacteria and viruses, which are just as "alive" as a few fruit flies. Maybe next time she goes to the doctor to get some antibiotics for a bad cold or the flu she should think about all the millions of lives she's willingly snuffing out by taking a substance which aids in the process of bodily bacterial genocide.

[ex]

TBH I want to send her ass to China where they cook up dogs like hers.  I can't even visit my aunt anymore without the fear of her being there and having the dog sitting with everyone at the table at Christmas dinner.

[|iR|Focalor]

As far as avoiding the meat-related health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, etc., being a vegan is far healthier than living an omnivore diet.  Here's how it breaks down:  If you eat meat, you're more than likely going to develop some kind of cardiovascular issues at some point in your life.  This may even be near the very end of your life, but usually you do get something eventually.  When you eat a purely vegetarian/vegan diet, you simply don't develop these conditions as much.  I remember hearing that you are roughly 50 times LESS likely to experience cardiovascular health conditions if you're a vegit/vegan.

Now if you really want to know how much longer you'll live on average, the stats show that you gain about a year usually.  So you aren't going to lengthen your lifespan by 40 years by going full veg.  The only thing going veg does is severely lessen your risk of heart-related problems.  In a nutshell, you more than likely won't die from a heart attack, stroke, or cancer like your meat-eating peers will.  Is this for sure?  Absolutely not, there's veg's that get cancer and have heart attacks.  But the proportion is extremely less than their meat-eating friends is all.

Now if you excuse me, I have a Hot Pocket loaded with pepperoni and some leftover rotisserie chicken to get to.

That's SO not true. When you ingest meat, sure, you're always going to ingest portions of fatty tissues along with it. The fat deposits inside arteries. But vegetables contain fats also, otherwise there wouldn't be any such thing as "vegetable oil". Sugar is from a plant, and ALL plants that end up on your dinner table have some type of sugar in them. A diet consisting entirely of sugar is not healthy. Corn syrup is from plants and vegan-friendly. Which means that high fructose corn syrup is healthy too, right?

Basically the point I want to make is this:

Proper diet really isn't a mystery anymore. Human kind has advanced enough to build frickin' laser beams that can destroy cruise missles and telescopes that can see things in outer fuckin' space that our childrens childrens childrens childrens childrens children will STILL never be able to see with the naked eye from the comfort of a space ship with lightspeed hyperdrive. So yeah, I think we've pretty much got the whole food thing found out. Moderation is the key. Hell, doing most of ANYTHING too often will have negative effects. You drink too much beer too often, your liver turns into a rock. You eat a pound of bacon at every meal, and your heart shits itself. You masturbate too much, you get a dick that looks like Freddie Kruger's face. Anyone who wants to claim that they've discovered something new and surprising about what a humans proper diet is supposed to consist of... is only trying to get you to buy their new fad diet book. It ain't rocket science. There is a science to it... but it's old science. At this point, the only thing "new" anyone is ever going to discover is possibly how bad these fake/manufactured ingredients in the food are for people. Case in point... pink slime. Maybe it ain't dangerous, just like they claim. But honestly... if you wouldn't sit and eat 10 or 20 spoonfuls of that one ingredient all by itself, well lets use common sense here and say that it really doesn't deserve to be IN your food at all. I mean... DUH. If you have a handful of something and say, "Jesus fuckin Mary, I'd wouldn't eat this if you paid me 500 bucks!", then I don't see any reason to put that shit in your food even in trace amounts. Like rat turds. Sure, it's fuckin disgusting and anti-healthy to eat a whole plate of, but putting just a WEEEE TINY bit of it in something will give it a nice brown hue and since such a small amount ain't deadly,... it's OK? No. IT'S SHIT! DON'T PUT SHIT IN FOOD BECAUSE SHIT IS NOT FOOD! It's EX-food. It's post-food. It is the late Mr. Food. It's anything in the world your imagination wants it to be when you shape it like a wad of brown smelly play dough, but there is no imagination vivid and powerful enough to manipulate reality to make it become food... unless it's german porn.

[yahoo]

Actually, this is incorrect.  Vegan/vegetarian diets are usually LESS expensive, as meats are almost always the highest-cost item in your grocery store.  Vegetables and fruits are among the cheapest items hands down.  Even items like tofu or daily supplements end up costing you less than if you eat a normal omnivore diet.  The veg's usually spend a lot less on food than normal people do.  Of course, I'm going to bite the bullet and pay the extra, because I love my beef, chicken, and shrimp.  mmm mmm

IDK.. well fruits and some veggies is kinda standard to my meat rich (mostly pork + chcken / not much a big fan with seafoods) diet.. My friend said that they have soy based meat (like tofu) but the tastes bland. There are some artficial veggie meat that looks and tastes like real meat but its a bit expensive though.

Well, as one wise man said whats the use of living long f you are not able to enjoy the best tastes .

[Sgt. Dick]

If I put salt on my food am I being a bad person, its like pouring salt on their wounds.

[adz1La]

[peewee_RotA]

3. Little do you know that if we ever run out of food, we won't go Donner and start eating our own, we'll just use Canada as our personal human meat farm, aye. "You are eating me, you hoser! What's this all aboot!?!"

Canadian Human Meat. Made with 100% "Grade, Eh?" human.

[Sgt. Dick]

 

[quadz]

ex -

On the one hand, I suspect you're inclined to speak somewhat hyperbolically.  On the other hand, I'm not sure what you're being literal about and what you're not.  So I'll address specific statements:

Well, I'm one of the rare ones that doesn't feel pity on primates either.

We seem to have moved from sympathy to pity (not sure if these mean the same to you.)  Nevertheless, I presume this is one of your hyperbolic statements, as I'd imagine there must be some non-empty set of situations in which you'd feel sympathy/pity for primates.  Say a close friend half-crushed by a bus?  I mean, there's gotta be something there unless you're manouvering to be the poster child for psycopathy.

Animals of all kinds, including us, are meant to live and die.  It's the natural way.

Meant to?  Who says?

This is akin to saying a child is meant to be born into a famine in sub-Saharan Africa.  Or like saying our own vertibrate eyes are meant to have the blind spot where nerve fibers pass through the retina, whereas cephalopod eyes are meant to have no blind spot since the nerve fibers route behind the retina.  It's the natural way!

There's no place for such claims of meaning to stick, as when we strip away the romanticism about Nature, we're talking about complex chemical processes.

As far as we know, chemistry doesn't mean to do anything.  It just behaves according to the physical properties of our universe.

This society is a bastardization of that nature.

This would seem to imply an oddly provincial, anthropomorpho-separatist view of nature in which homo sapiens are viewed as something outside of and in opposition to nature.

There's evidence life has existed on our planet for about 4 billion years.  For the first 1.5 billion years there was no significant amount of oxygen in our atmosphere.  Initially primitive microbes lived anaerobically, relying on sulfate for their energy. ^[1]  Only after the eventual evolution of oxygen producing cyanobacteria did oxygen begin to appear in our atmosphere.

So, if we take a provincial view, our present oxygen rich atmosphere is a bastardization of nature!  Here nature was perfectly happy for 1.5 billion years, and then those cyanobacterial bastards show up and started terraforming the whole planet!

As such, all oxygen breathing life is a bastardization of nature!

...Alternately, let's stop talking about what nature is meant to do, and instead talk about how it functions.  It's not meant to do anything.

[ex]

Hey there quadz!  Believe it or not, I'm not speaking hyperbolic-ally, at least not in this thread.  I do honestly believe what I say is true if you think about it on a philosophical-planetary scale.  Sure, I feel sympathy and pity, which I do see differences from eachother, for being which suffer.  My point is in nature, there is no sympathy or pity for beings which are killed in order to ensure survival of the food chain.  If a friend dies now in our culture today by a mechanical machine or some other unfortunate happening, of course I feel sadness, but I do not get that mixed up with the fact that if that same friend was killed out in nature by a lion, say 300,000 years ago when we were still pretty much cavemen, absolutely I would still feel the same level of sadness, but it would be different.  It would be a part of survival.  Our society allows for our emotions to feel on the level which we do now.  In nature, it's all about bare survival of the fittest, and emotions are still there, but they are quickly dealt with to ensure survival of the species, rather than dwelled upon to enhance the severity of emotions that most humans put themselves through now.  This is specifically due to us trying to come out of nature and become something more than it.

Not sure if believing humans are living outside, or at least in aggregate to what our nature should've allowed, is truly oddly provincial as you put it.  Unless of course if you mean provincial to science itself, then absolutely!  Interesting viewpoint on the Great Oxygen Catastrophe being a bastardization of nature.  You're right, it was, for the anaerobes.  That reigned in the era of the aerobes (us and almost everything else alive today) being able to take advantage of the oxygen today, to the detriment of the anaerobes, which made them a hard-to-survive form of life.  They are still around now, mind you, in very limited numbers.  In fact, many bacteria/virii that get us sick now are anaerobes.  Anyway, the point is, a bastardization of an original form of life is a bastardization nonetheless.  I agree, let's talk about how it functions, but let's not throw away the ideas that for one form of life to survive, another had to die, and it had a specific reason(s) for happening.  To throw that away makes it incomplete science.

I think a point is being missed in my posts, so I'll try to be extremely clear in my posting now.  What I have said is not the same as saying a person is predestined to be born into poverty, or that differences in ocular precision are due to fate.  That is an interpolation of my broader point.  My point:  In nature, humans beings are a peg in a giant cogwheel planetary food chain cycle.  Just as all alive beings are.  The plants feed the small animals, the small feed the bigger, the ones at the top die and get decomposed for the parasites to redistribute into the ground to start as plants again.  That IS PURE NATURE.  If this wasn't meant to be this way, once again, this planet wouldn't have life on it.  Now I understand when using terms like "meant", that brings about ideas of religious predestination, but if you look at how nature functions in its chemical reactions, you start to see a patterning that is obvious.  These reactions feed off eachother to support themselves, which is why I say they are meant to happen, because without them happening, nothing would be here.  This concept spans universe-wide in my eyes as well.  There are other planets we believe may have life on them, the closest one being Gliese 581 g, which could potentially support life as we understand it here on Earth.  To me, life itself has a meaning, just like all forces in the universe do.  Gravity's meaning is to hold the structure of our universe together in a set amount of time before it breaks down.  Height, length, and width are meant to give our universe the ability to shape and construct itself in a way that supports the elements in it from breaking down in a set amount of time.  And time itself is meant to hold together everything in a linear structure until the ability to bind itself breaks apart, which is congruent to a mathematical understanding of how the universe will experience entropy and ultimate cold death.

I do see where you're coming from on this issue, as my using of terms such as "meant" and "meaning" invokes certain undertones which denotes lack of logic and falls back to archaic ideas of faith.  I do hope you understand my point is anything but.  I am saying that there can be meaning intertwined within science, which is a broad new idea I do agree, but a completely valid one nonetheless.  This will more than likely come into the scope of intellectual science as science advances in its scope and understanding of how our universe works.

[|iR|Focalor]

friend was killed out in nature by a lion, say 300,000 years ago

If this friend was killed a little over 1900 years ago by a lion, chances are he'd be a Christian in the Roman Coliseum, and chances are I'd be cheering like hell in the stands... Which goes to show you that humans may very well be animals, but the way our brains function is VERY different from the rest of the animals. We're the only ones that kill entirely for sport. We're the only ones with thought processes and emotions so complex that the occasional member of our species can become a homicidal serial killer who kills other humans for no other reason but because they find gratification in overcoming the challenge it presents. We're the only ones with brains so complex that we can actually find joy in watching another living thing die. The only thing that determines whether these things are good or bad is the opinion of the other humans when tallied collectively. Right, wrong, and meaning only have a definition when individuals assign them a definition. If you go ask all the registered voters in America whether or not rape should be considered a crime, the vast majority will say yes. If you ask everyone in the looney bin whether or not throwing their own shit at people is an acceptable and normal behavior, (depending on just how looney they really are) the majority will say yes. What is my point? I don't fucking know.

And I don't know this either: How the hell did the Romans get all those fucking lions into the Coliseum anyway? Someone had to go out and catch the bastards live. I don't think they had tranquilizer darts back then. That had to be a really shitty job, catching live lions. Also corralling those fuckers back into their cages after they eat all the Christians. And you thought YOUR job sucked.