Well, there is always this wrote:
Intellectually you are almost certain to spend the rest of your life in abject poverty.
My prayers go out to you.
So you are saying that prayer doesn't work?
Well, there is always this wrote:
Intellectually you are almost certain to spend the rest of your life in abject poverty.
My prayers go out to you.
So you are saying that prayer doesn't work?
Captain Oblivious wrote:
Well, there is always this wrote:Intellectually you are almost certain to spend the rest of your life in abject poverty.
My prayers go out to you.
So you are saying that prayer doesn't work?
That is a whole different topic. And one that I am perfectly happy to address in a more appropriate setting (different thread).
Here, I am simply using the phrase as a literary tool, interchangeable for these purposes with "Best of luck", "I feel for you, man", or "Ciao".
Not a chance. We evolved to get more protein. We won't take a step in the other direction. Unless your supplementing, good luck with your vegetarian diet. B12, Creatine,D3, Carnosine and DHA aren't found in plants unless your eating algee.
Prediction: in 50 years, meat eating will be a thing of the past. Much like slavery was once considered the norm, but is not largely viewed as morally corrupt.[/quote]
Yes, but be responsible. We really dont need meat in every meal.
Well, there is always this wrote:
Captain Oblivious wrote:So you are saying that prayer doesn't work?
That is a whole different topic. And one that I am perfectly happy to address in a more appropriate setting (different thread).
Here, I am simply using the phrase as a literary tool, interchangeable for these purposes with "Best of luck", "I feel for you, man", or "Ciao".
All of those are legitimate things though, not just literary tools.
"My prayers go out to you" is about like farting in his general direction.
Captain Oblivious wrote:
Well, there is always this wrote:That is a whole different topic. And one that I am perfectly happy to address in a more appropriate setting (different thread).
Here, I am simply using the phrase as a literary tool, interchangeable for these purposes with "Best of luck", "I feel for you, man", or "Ciao".
All of those are legitimate things though, not just literary tools.
"My prayers go out to you" is about like farting in his general direction.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5942215All that growing of vegetables also inevitably alters land from its natural state, reducing habitat for most animals and creating it for "vermin" species. These critters that the farmers attract with their huge fields of crops are regularly killed to protect those crops.
So if you're guilt-ridden about meat, you can't get off the hook just by not eating it. You have to not eat food that it might have eaten if the farmer didn't kill it first. The "organic" label won't do it - untold numbers of innocent crows may have been shot to bring you that bag of rice from the hippie store. You'll have to go way out hardcore new-age Redwoods and diligently source the farming practices of every single ingredient of everything you eat, or else you will certainly be taking part in the killing of animals for food.
Here's what this "I don't wanna kill animals" is about - some people are so disconnected from nature that they project values of human society onto it. Rather than cope with themselves as killers, they fabricate a feeling of innocence and cling to their fantasy like children.
Well, there is always this wrote:
Captain Oblivious wrote:All of those are legitimate things though, not just literary tools.
"My prayers go out to you" is about like farting in his general direction.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5942215
OK. Let your prayers be with me and I'll fart in your general direction. Deal?
Captain Oblivious wrote:
Well, there is always this wrote:I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5942215OK. Let your prayers be with me and I'll fart in your general direction. Deal?
As long as it is all virtual I'm not sure that it really matters one way or another.
So, whatever floats your boat.
Ciao.
Paul Bunyan wrote:
I'm not sure that term 'omnivore' would be confusing to this (mostly) college educated group of people, but letting that topic go.
In case you're not already familiar, I'd like to introduce you to a an idea called 'caloric asceticism.' It's very simple. One eats the bare minimum number of calories to sustain their own life.
If we were to accept the vegan principle that contributing to the death of any animal is wrong, we can make a strong case that we would have to accept caloric asceticism also. All forms of agriculture contribute to the death of an animal, either directly or through indirect means (displacement of habitat for roads and farmland, destruction of native plant species, mechanical harvesting techniques, use of pesticides).
Whether directly or by indirect means, animals end up dying through human agricultural activities. Vegetarianism/veganism only eliminate direct killing, but does little to prevent indirect killing through agriculture. And we'll just assume that the vegan/vegetarian diet leads to fewer animal deaths than an omnivorous diet. While plant based diets may lead to fewer animal deaths, caloric asceticism would reduce our dependence on agriculture to a bare minimum (perhaps 1500 calories worth of agricultural output per day). If we accept the vegan principle that all animal killing is wrong (including both direct and indirect killing), then we have a moral obligation to accept caloric asceticism. If not caloric asceticism, we would have to learn to subsist off of the edible plants that we can forage, and that hardly seems practical to sustain our current population in our environment.
If we accept the vegan principle, we have to accept caloric asceticism. Again, this would mean reducing calorie intake to an absolute bare minimum to sustain our own lives. Necessarily, we would be obligated to give up running and other leisure time physical activity, as this vastly increases our energy requirements and hence our reliance on agriculture.
Basically, vegetarian/veganism (without caloric asceticism) is not fully consistent with its own principle. For a vegan to bring his diet into full consistency with the principle, he must be a caloric ascetic. If he rejects caloric asceticism and chooses to draw the line (which would distinguish too much killing from too little killing) elsewhere, the decision as to where he should draw that line is essentially random. Veganism, which eliminates the direct killing of animals without affecting the indirect methods of killing, becomes an arbitrary moral standard.
I'm lazy, but the argument is spelled out better somewhere on this website.
http://letthemeatmeat.com/
Interesting.
First, though, I would like to point out that I am a vegetarian, not a vegan.
Second, I think you put your finger on it. Agriculture is the big evil here. So's technology, truth be told, but agriculture came first. We were a much happier species in the hunter-gatherer days, were healthier, had more free time and virtually idyllic lives. We screwed up.
Hom Saps have long ago outlived their usefulness on this planet. We are, evolutionarily speaking, good for nothing but the planet-wide dissemination of Triticale. It's time to step aside, stop breeding and return the planet to animals before we destroy the place beyond all hope of redemption.
Robert Harrington wrote:
Paul Bunyan wrote:I'm not sure that term 'omnivore' would be confusing to this (mostly) college educated group of people, but letting that topic go.
In case you're not already familiar, I'd like to introduce you to a an idea called 'caloric asceticism.' It's very simple. One eats the bare minimum number of calories to sustain their own life.
If we were to accept the vegan principle that contributing to the death of any animal is wrong, we can make a strong case that we would have to accept caloric asceticism also. All forms of agriculture contribute to the death of an animal, either directly or through indirect means (displacement of habitat for roads and farmland, destruction of native plant species, mechanical harvesting techniques, use of pesticides).
Whether directly or by indirect means, animals end up dying through human agricultural activities. Vegetarianism/veganism only eliminate direct killing, but does little to prevent indirect killing through agriculture. And we'll just assume that the vegan/vegetarian diet leads to fewer animal deaths than an omnivorous diet. While plant based diets may lead to fewer animal deaths, caloric asceticism would reduce our dependence on agriculture to a bare minimum (perhaps 1500 calories worth of agricultural output per day). If we accept the vegan principle that all animal killing is wrong (including both direct and indirect killing), then we have a moral obligation to accept caloric asceticism. If not caloric asceticism, we would have to learn to subsist off of the edible plants that we can forage, and that hardly seems practical to sustain our current population in our environment.
If we accept the vegan principle, we have to accept caloric asceticism. Again, this would mean reducing calorie intake to an absolute bare minimum to sustain our own lives. Necessarily, we would be obligated to give up running and other leisure time physical activity, as this vastly increases our energy requirements and hence our reliance on agriculture.
Basically, vegetarian/veganism (without caloric asceticism) is not fully consistent with its own principle. For a vegan to bring his diet into full consistency with the principle, he must be a caloric ascetic. If he rejects caloric asceticism and chooses to draw the line (which would distinguish too much killing from too little killing) elsewhere, the decision as to where he should draw that line is essentially random. Veganism, which eliminates the direct killing of animals without affecting the indirect methods of killing, becomes an arbitrary moral standard.
I'm lazy, but the argument is spelled out better somewhere on this website.
http://letthemeatmeat.com/Interesting.
First, though, I would like to point out that I am a vegetarian, not a vegan.
Second, I think you put your finger on it. Agriculture is the big evil here. So's technology, truth be told, but agriculture came first. We were a much happier species in the hunter-gatherer days, were healthier, had more free time and virtually idyllic lives. We screwed up.
Hom Saps have long ago outlived their usefulness on this planet. We are, evolutionarily speaking, good for nothing but the planet-wide dissemination of Triticale. It's time to step aside, stop breeding and return the planet to animals before we destroy the place beyond all hope of redemption.
Yeah I'm sure the life of a hunter-gatherer was pretty much paradise on earth. God I hate people who fetishize the past. If you had any real conviction in what you're saying you'd kill yourself
Michael L. Robinson wrote:
WhistleBlower wrote:It is absolutely not ok to kill animals for food or to support the meat industry and animal farming by buying meat. Is MURDER ok? The meat industry is the most depraved business on the planet and will one day be viewed by most people as primitive, cruel, unsustainable and most importantly as an unnecessary part of modern human existence.
mmmm......what about killing babies as a form of b/c? I bet you're perfectly OK with that though, yes?
In utero before the end of the first trimester? You bet! I'm all for it. There are too many squalling brats on the planet already.
we kill children for lands yo and we can't kill animals fo food? lolz
Bad Wigins wrote:
All that growing of vegetables also inevitably alters land from its natural state, reducing habitat for most animals and creating it for "vermin" species. These critters that the farmers attract with their huge fields of crops are regularly killed to protect those crops.
So if you're guilt-ridden about meat, you can't get off the hook just by not eating it. You have to not eat food that it might have eaten if the farmer didn't kill it first. The "organic" label won't do it - untold numbers of innocent crows may have been shot to bring you that bag of rice from the hippie store. You'll have to go way out hardcore new-age Redwoods and diligently source the farming practices of every single ingredient of everything you eat, or else you will certainly be taking part in the killing of animals for food.
Here's what this "I don't wanna kill animals" is about - some people are so disconnected from nature that they project values of human society onto it. Rather than cope with themselves as killers, they fabricate a feeling of innocence and cling to their fantasy like children.
Well, I don't think those people are particularly disconnected from nature. They recognize that cows & pigs are sentient beings, which seems to connect rather than disconnect them from nature.
The anthropomorphic view in this case of eating animals is not all that crazy. It creates cognitive dissonance, which is understandable. I think we all recognize that that cows have feelings and can suffer.
Now, I don't think the cow has exciting plans for the future with its family or has goals in mine like we do, but we're both conscious and that's a bit uncomfortable for me if I had to personally cut it's throat and prepare that steak. Hey, I'm glad someone else does that for me cause steaks are delicious.
subfive wrote:
I think we all recognize that that cows have feelings and can suffer.
And those of us who are in tune with nature are wise enough not to care. Yes, they suffer. Eat them anyway.
Well, there is always this wrote:
Captain Oblivious wrote:OK. Let your prayers be with me and I'll fart in your general direction. Deal?
As long as it is all virtual I'm not sure that it really matters one way or another.
So, whatever floats your boat.
Ciao.
Which direction are you located in?
Cheers.
Robert Harrington wrote:
Interesting.
First, though, I would like to point out that I am a vegetarian, not a vegan.
Second, I think you put your finger on it. Agriculture is the big evil here. So's technology, truth be told, but agriculture came first. We were a much happier species in the hunter-gatherer days, were healthier, had more free time and virtually idyllic lives. We screwed up.
Hom Saps have long ago outlived their usefulness on this planet. We are, evolutionarily speaking, good for nothing but the planet-wide dissemination of Triticale. It's time to step aside, stop breeding and return the planet to animals before we destroy the place beyond all hope of redemption.
Good deal. While I personally wouldn't vote for a return to hunger-gatherer society, I can understand the appeal. If nothing else, if would be far more sustainable than what we have going on currently.
For anyone who's interested, I'd suggest a book called "meat: a benign extravagance" which is a series of essays related to sustainable agricultural practices and how animal husbandry fits into the larger picture. While I haven't read the whole book, one point the author (simon fairlie) made really stood out to me. Even if we converted our whole agricultural system to one that was entirely devoted to the production of vegan food items, we would still be able to raise a significant number of livestock. He refers to this as 'default livestock' (or something similar).
These are animals that could be raised without any additional inputs (save for water). Since animals can convert inedible food items into high quality animal protein, we could produce plenty of meat (although not enough to match current production) by feeding our livestock kitchen scraps, corn/soybean silage, wheat chaff, produce wasted by kitchens, farms, and grocery stores, and of course, grass. We wouldn't have to grow any additional food merely to feed it to the animals, yet we could get a significant return on our very minimal investment. In terms of efficiency, it could be said that vegetarianism and veganism are much more efficient uses of our resources (land, water, energy) than CAFO based animal production, but that system described above would likely be an even bigger improvement since significant quantities of food could be produced with only minimal additional imputs.
as33 wrote:
Also, why is it okay to raise an animal in an open field and kill it, but it's not okay to raise it in a pen and kill it? Vegetables are the answer.
"Do you REALLY think it's okay to kill animals for food."
Ask the native Americans.
Ask the Mexicans.
Ask the Frankfurters from Frankfurt.
Ask the lions.
I have nothing personal against vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians. I love salads.
But please don't tell me there's something wrong with eating animals.
WE are animals. Some animals eat other animals. They've--and we've--been doing so for tens of thousands of years.
In WHY WE RUN, Berndt Heinrich argues that we run, we humans, because we have a long prehistory as endurance predators. We chased animals to ground on the African savannah. That's how we developed our brains, in fact: by tracking prey that was no longer visible and had to be imagined. We weren't the fastest animal, but we could sweat--we didn't overheat in the sun, as long as we kept hydrated--and we were dogged and crafty.
Yes, I REALLY think it's okay to kill animals for food.
Here's the link to a film explaining Heinrich's theory of humans as endurance predators:
Robert Harrington wrote:
Agriculture is the big evil here. So's technology, truth be told, but agriculture came first. We were a much happier species in the hunter-gatherer days, were healthier, had more free time and virtually idyllic lives. We screwed up.
Hom Saps have long ago outlived their usefulness on this planet.
Your post does not make a lot of sense. Agriculture did not 'come first', agriculture IS technology. So for that matter were the tools our ancestors started making about 3 million years ago as began the transition from pure gatherers to hunter-gatherers. Describing our hunter-gatherer days as idyllic? That's pure fantasy.
As to our usefulness? Animals have no usefulness. The purpose of a species is to survive. Any other aspiration is a construct of human imagination.