Conquer Club

I'd heard something similar.

b.k. barunt wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:
Well, you are what you eat.

I suppose that would make me a vagina.


Honibaz

I've never thought of you as a twat, having said that you are an old cunt.

the old boggy hollow makes its presence felt

player: exacting levels of sentience / intelligence are not as important as the fact that all animals are both of these things (to some extent) why not eat whale or dog meat, say, if you're going to eat beef without a moral qualm? a lot of what is defined as 'acceptable' meat is simply a cultural hangup, as i'm sure i hardly need to point out! the australians i believe are currently tabling something in the ICJ about japanese whaling, but i wonder for how many americans a kangaroo would be too cute to eat?

some addendums:

"The point here is that the animals we eat (at least the ones most of us eat) do not have anything close to human intelligence."

- my theoretical dilemma for you was us (humans) not having close to the intelligence of something else. i believe that line of argument to be a thoroughly immoral defense!

in scotland obviously we have large tracts of highlands, heather and moors etc which are not really suitable for much else than grazing land. i believe saxi listed the states as one of the countries suited to legitimately sustaining a meat industry but i'm not so much interested in the sustainability of said industry in [insert country] as the overall ethical crutch of it, if you catch my drift.

oh, and thanks for your concern! i'm back home now, good to be on a desktop again. those laptop keyboards i just can't get on with

Tofu.

DAZMCFC wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:
Well, you are what you eat.

I suppose that would make me a vagina.


Honibaz

I've never thought of you as a twat, having said that you are an old cunt.

And you sir are an irascible limey fuckwad.


Honibaz

saxitoxin wrote:Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

Firstly - If you live in a developed nation other than Canada, the US, parts of Eastern Europe, or Australia and aren't a vegetarian you - for all intents and purposes - are saying that your satisfaction and well-being is superior to that of any other person.

You are correct that I misread your first statement, but what I said still very much applies universally.

Humans eat the animals they do because it DOES make sense. Some animals make more sense than others, but which depends on the region. Ruminants process grass, etc that we humans cannot digest. Nomads migrat with their cattle because the areas they live are not suited to most crops and the animals can move over vast areas, thus making efficient and ecologically wise use of the sparse growths.

Some areas are suitable for a few crops, but depend more on grazing. Again, you can move cattle, sheep, goats, etc around to take advantage of available growth. Properly contained, it is fully sustainable and a good system. It is when groups like the IMF/U.S. aid groups or companies like Monsanto come in and try to "educate" these people to "better forms of agriculture" that problems start.

Now, that said, yes, there is a hierarchy. It takes power and control to manage and guide a caravan, a tribe, a community nd to protect it. Producing and eating meat in these fashions is usually not a solitary affair, so, yes, eating meat is often seen as a sign of prosperity. However, that doesn't mean eating meat is all bad or strictly about being above your neighbor. Even if only a small amount of meat or animal products are eaten, the fact that they are eaten/used makes them an integral part of the society. In other words, you have it backwards. Its not that they eat meat because they want to be superior, its that because they are a bit more wealthy and so forth, they can eat more meat. Even so, the overall production is sustainable, when done properly... as was (still is, in some areas) done historically.

saxitoxin wrote:The aforementioned list are the only places in the first world that can legitimately self-sustain a meat production industry. Every other place is contributing to episodic malnutrition and periodic famine in the third world by forcing developing nations to produce vegetable protein for animal feed rather than people feed.

You are half correct. It IS a problem when developing nations, usually spurred by such companies as Monsanto, come in to teach their "enlightened agricultural methods" , (only "cooincidentally" requiring purchase of expensive pesticides and specially created seeds -- all uniform to produce a product familiar to the western and European tastes). And it IS a problem when companies encourage south american land owners to cut the forest (note that often possession of said lands only comes after the land has been cleared!) and grow grazing animals (most often beef).

HOWEVER, the problems you mention are not because those areas are incapable of producing meat, not at all. In fact, producing the wrong crops in the wrong areas are just as much or MORE of a problem than producing meat. Grazing is a quite efficient way to use dry and otherwise poor crop lands. Often small settlements would emerge with small gardens and such, but the economy, the real wealth and production is in grazing animals.

The problem is when these areas are forced to over-produce. Now, one issue is real. When you rely on such systems, there are times when famines, etc happen. Storms, too much rain, too little rain, etc. Depending on the natural systems is a tough life. BUT, it is a sustainable one, when kept within bounds. As you note, we offer a temporary respite, a seeming relief, but in reality cause more problems by forcing everyone to replicate our model of agriculture.

Some, more recent development agencies and such ARE learning about older systems and ARE moving to help people sustain their traditional forms, but they are naturally difficult and so the people resist. They want their satellite TVs and beef steaks on the grill (maybe with some varied seasonings.. or in India, not beef at all ..lol). To make the native methods more productive means being willing to pay just a bit more for sustainably produced things. (though, ironically enough, often you really don't have to pay more -- you just have to buy direct).

Which gets back to what I said originally, the ANSWER is not to "go vegetarian" and see that as superior. The answer is to purchase sustainable agriculture products, both meat and vegetable. Sure, that will mean purchasing less meat overall, which is good. And, if you wish to be vegetarian for other reasons.. go for it, as long as you are buying sustainably, it is not harmful to go vegetarian. However, it definitely does NOT mean just going vegetarian.

saxitoxin wrote:Secondly - If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all. Meat production generates 1/5 of global CO2 emissions. It doesn't matter how many hippie headbands you wear or Earth-Aid concerts you attend or energy efficient lightbulbs you use, you will not be able to eliminate your contribution from meat consumption. If you complain about climate change and are a meat-eater you are the biggest hypocrite on Earth. You like being part of the climate change "brand" (in the same way some people like wearing the Banana Republic brand, etc.); you like making yourself feel good by imagining yourself as a caring person. In the end, though, you could give a f*ck about the Earth or anyone else. A person who does not believe in climate change at all is morally superior to you because they are failing to actualize on a problem they don't see. You are failing to actualize on a problem you do see.

Already answered this, but you are just wrong here.

The issue, again is sustainability and elimination of most petroleum product additives.

khazalid wrote:

player: exacting levels of sentience / intelligence are not as important as the fact that all animals are both of these things (to some extent) why not eat whale or dog meat, say, if you're going to eat beef without a moral qualm? a lot of what is defined as 'acceptable' meat is simply a cultural hangup, as i'm sure i hardly need to point out! the australians i believe are currently tabling something in the ICJ about japanese whaling, but i wonder for how many americans a kangaroo would be too cute to eat?

Let me clarify. MY reasons for not wanting to eat whale less to do with their inferred relative intelligences. (that is, I see all animals as inferior to humans, intellectually, but they have value on this earth). Whales are very slow to reproduce and therefore it simply doesn't make ecological sense to eat them. A few cultures have managed to keep low levels of takes. The Inuit are an example, when they stick to traditional harvest levels. The Japanese have pretty well exceeded all ecologically sane levels, though it is possible at some point a small take might be legitemized. I know less about the Norwegian take, but would suggest the same thing applies.

Rats, on the other hand... we disdain because they eat garbage/are associated with garbage and bring disease. That's a true and real issue when they are in cities, but not when in the "countryside" necessarily. Kangeroos -- I don't know enough about their ecology to know. Pigs are similarly disdained by some because of the association with garbage, but a factor some people might not realize is that they historically have carried diseases that we can contract more than ruminants and such. Also, in some regions, they can survive better than cattle (tropical areas, I am told, in particular). If you look at the animals any culture traditionally eats for long periods, you tend to find they A. eat different food from us (pigs somewhat of an exception) B. reproduce in relative high numbers compared to the "meat" and other products they produce. C. Benefit humans in other ways.

Other animals tend to be taken only in small quantities, in extremely harsh environs where other options are not available. (crops just don't grow in the Arctic! - but laplanders did develop raindeer, whilst the inuit rely on seals and whales).

khazalid wrote:
some addendums:

"The point here is that the animals we eat (at least the ones most of us eat) do not have anything close to human intelligence."

- my theoretical dilemma for you was us (humans) not having close to the intelligence of something else. i believe that line of argument to be a thoroughly immoral defense!

I did answer/mention the moral charge. However, I don't take a moral stand here myself. It is a belief and a matter not really debateable (any more than belief in God -- interesting to pursue, but let's realize there will be no consensus).

khazalid wrote:
in scotland obviously we have large tracts of highlands, heather and moors etc which are not really suitable for much else than grazing land. i believe saxi listed the states as one of the countries suited to legitimately sustaining a meat industry but i'm not so much interested in the sustainability of said industry in [insert country] as the overall ethical crutch of it, if you catch my drift.

Like I said, that is an "unwinnable" argument. That is, I can argue all I want the various reasons why I see animals as lower than humans, but essentially, it is irrelevant.

The two arguments I can put forward are thus:

#1 if you wish for a species to survive, then its best to make sure people see a direct and immediate benefit from said animal. I find it supremely ironic that many vegheads I have met disdain eating cow or even wild deer, but see no problem building a new house on virgin land and thus destroying acres of habitat, contributing to pollution by living further from their workplaces, grocery stores, etc (even if they work at home, those products still need to get out and in -- whether you drive them or "UPS" delivers them is irrelevant).

#2. death is a part of life. Nature is a circle. The problem is not us being a part of that circle, it is us seeing ourselves as apart and separate from that circle. On that note, you might bring in the "what about cannibalism" bit. The truth is that there are absolute biologic reasons to to take that up. Cultural implications are absolutely real (animals generally don't eat their own kind, either), but so is the threat of disease transmission and the fact that human beings are naturally low reproducers (compared to rabbits, etc.).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Saxi is a vegetarian of the condescending, militant, accusatorial type.

Firstly - If you live in a developed nation other than Canada, the US, parts of Eastern Europe, or Australia and aren't a vegetarian you - for all intents and purposes - are saying that your satisfaction and well-being is superior to that of any other person.

You are correct that I misread your first statement, but what I said still very much applies universally.

Humans eat the animals they do because it DOES make sense. Some animals make more sense than others, but which depends on the region. Ruminants process grass, etc that we humans cannot digest. Nomads migrat with their cattle because the areas they live are not suited to most crops and the animals can move over vast areas, thus making efficient and ecologically wise use of the sparse growths.

Some areas are suitable for a few crops, but depend more on grazing. Again, you can move cattle, sheep, goats, etc around to take advantage of available growth. Properly contained, it is fully sustainable and a good system. It is when groups like the IMF/U.S. aid groups or companies like Monsanto come in and try to "educate" these people to "better forms of agriculture" that problems start.

Now, that said, yes, there is a hierarchy. It takes power and control to manage and guide a caravan, a tribe, a community nd to protect it. Producing and eating meat in these fashions is usually not a solitary affair, so, yes, eating meat is often seen as a sign of prosperity. However, that doesn't mean eating meat is all bad or strictly about being above your neighbor. Even if only a small amount of meat or animal products are eaten, the fact that they are eaten/used makes them an integral part of the society. In other words, you have it backwards. Its not that they eat meat because they want to be superior, its that because they are a bit more wealthy and so forth, they can eat more meat. Even so, the overall production is sustainable, when done properly... as was (still is, in some areas) done historically.

saxitoxin wrote:The aforementioned list are the only places in the first world that can legitimately self-sustain a meat production industry. Every other place is contributing to episodic malnutrition and periodic famine in the third world by forcing developing nations to produce vegetable protein for animal feed rather than people feed.

You are half correct. It IS a problem when developing nations, usually spurred by such companies as Monsanto, come in to teach their "enlightened agricultural methods" , (only "cooincidentally" requiring purchase of expensive pesticides and specially created seeds -- all uniform to produce a product familiar to the western and European tastes). And it IS a problem when companies encourage south american land owners to cut the forest (note that often possession of said lands only comes after the land has been cleared!) and grow grazing animals (most often beef).

HOWEVER, the problems you mention are not because those areas are incapable of producing meat, not at all. In fact, producing the wrong crops in the wrong areas are just as much or MORE of a problem than producing meat. Grazing is a quite efficient way to use dry and otherwise poor crop lands. Often small settlements would emerge with small gardens and such, but the economy, the real wealth and production is in grazing animals.

The problem is when these areas are forced to over-produce. Now, one issue is real. When you rely on such systems, there are times when famines, etc happen. Storms, too much rain, too little rain, etc. Depending on the natural systems is a tough life. BUT, it is a sustainable one, when kept within bounds. As you note, we offer a temporary respite, a seeming relief, but in reality cause more problems by forcing everyone to replicate our model of agriculture.

Some, more recent development agencies and such ARE learning about older systems and ARE moving to help people sustain their traditional forms, but they are naturally difficult and so the people resist. They want their satellite TVs and beef steaks on the grill (maybe with some varied seasonings.. or in India, not beef at all ..lol). To make the native methods more productive means being willing to pay just a bit more for sustainably produced things. (though, ironically enough, often you really don't have to pay more -- you just have to buy direct).

Which gets back to what I said originally, the ANSWER is not to "go vegetarian" and see that as superior. The answer is to purchase sustainable agriculture products, both meat and vegetable. Sure, that will mean purchasing less meat overall, which is good. And, if you wish to be vegetarian for other reasons.. go for it, as long as you are buying sustainably, it is not harmful to go vegetarian. However, it definitely does NOT mean just going vegetarian.

saxitoxin wrote:Secondly - If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to mention the words "climate change" in any context at all. Meat production generates 1/5 of global CO2 emissions. It doesn't matter how many hippie headbands you wear or Earth-Aid concerts you attend or energy efficient lightbulbs you use, you will not be able to eliminate your contribution from meat consumption. If you complain about climate change and are a meat-eater you are the biggest hypocrite on Earth. You like being part of the climate change "brand" (in the same way some people like wearing the Banana Republic brand, etc.); you like making yourself feel good by imagining yourself as a caring person. In the end, though, you could give a f*ck about the Earth or anyone else. A person who does not believe in climate change at all is morally superior to you because they are failing to actualize on a problem they don't see. You are failing to actualize on a problem you do see.

Already answered this, but you are just wrong here.

The issue, again is sustainability and elimination of most petroleum product additives.

I didn't have time to read your entire speech, just the first two lines where you said that I was correct, your previous novel was just rambling at the moon.

If you'd like to bullet-point this latest volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica you've pounded out on spec, however, I might be able to give it the once over. I can't devote the time to reading this extremely verbose commentary, though, on the (likely) chance it's all couched on another misinterpretation of basic English.

Thanks, hon!

I'm a well known cc vegitairan

tonbomorphew wrote:I'm a well known cc vegitairan

And one of the more noted dyslexics here.


Honibaz

Alfalfa Sprouts!

Ice cream DUH!