Animal Activists, please helppp!!!!!

[duchess_of_fork]

Hi eeeverybody! You're a great bunch, by the way. And what do great people do? They help others in need! Ok, so I live in Ontario, Canada. There's a new bill passed by Queens Park which allows for double crested cormorants (they're birds) to be killed! These birds just recovered from a near extinction! If you're an activist, live in Canada, anything, please, read the plea I received from PETA, and please send letters to people indicated bellow, asking them to oppose Bill 156!!!

Oppose Bill 156: Legalization of Cormorant Slaughter
Bill 156 (An Act to Amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1997) was introduced by Ernie Parsons, MPP for Prince Edward-Hastings, Ontario. This Private Members Bill proposes that double-crested cormorants be added to the list of birds whom Ontario residents are allowed to kill at will. Currently, cormorants are protected by provincial law but not by federal law. This bill would remove their provincial protection and allow people to shoot cormorants whenever they wish, as is already the case with crows, cowbirds and other types of birds.

Double-crested cormorants—a species that was once much more common—were nearly wiped out because of human persecution and pesticide poisoning. Legal protections—along with a reduction in pesticide levels in the Great Lakes—allowed cormorant populations to recover, and they are now found in various locations in the province. Unfortunately, many anglers erroneously believe that cormorants are depleting sport-fish populations, even though there is little—if any—evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact, cormorants are major predators of several introduced or invasive fish species who have wreaked havoc in Ontario's waterways, so their presence is extremely positive.

Today, please write to the following people and ask them to oppose Bill 156:

The Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
416-325-3745 (fax)
dalton.mcguinty@premier.gov.on.ca

The Honourable David Ramsay
Minister of Natural Resources
6630-99 Wellesley St. W., 6th Fl., Whitney Block
Toronto, ON M7A 1W3
416-314-2216 (fax)
minister@mnr.gov.on.ca


Yeah!! Please, help!!!!!!!!!!

Yours Truly
The Duchess of Fork

my myspace is www.myspace.com/lesdemoiselles add me, i need more smiths fans on my friends list hahahaha. my friends are all lame and don't understand me ;)

[Mmmmmm]

I believe the bill is titled: "Bill 156: Act to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997", not "Bill 156: Legalization of Cormorant Slaughter" as you have indicated. Let's keep the inflamatory rhetoric to a minimum.

The cormorant poses a bit of a dilemma for Ontario wildlife officials. Although it has made a remarkable comeback (estimates range from 1/4 to 1/2 milion) from numbers only three decades ago, the species did not exist in the Great Lakes until the 1920's. It is not an indiginous species, however, it is responsible for consuming some 20 to 40 million pounds of small mostly indigenous fresh water fish each year. Certainly, it does not appear to be responsible for destroying sport fish or aquaculture stocks. Some form of population control is necessary, though adding cormorants to the same list of legally hunted birds as crows is not likely to result in much of a dent to the population, especially since cormorants spend much of their lives on open water away from hunters.

I'm for neutering the bastards.

[lilybett]

More people should care about animals.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

I believe the bill is titled: "Bill 156: Act to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997", not "Bill 156: Legalization of Cormorant Slaughter" as you have indicated. Let's keep the inflamatory rhetoric to a minimum.

The cormorant poses a bit of a dilemma for Ontario wildlife officials. Although it has made a remarkable comeback (estimates range from 1/4 to 1/2 milion) from numbers only three decades ago, the species did not exist in the Great Lakes until the 1920's. It is not an indiginous species, however, it is responsible for consuming some 20 to 40 million pounds of small mostly indigenous fresh water fish each year. Certainly, it does not appear to be responsible for destroying sport fish or aquaculture stocks. Some form of population control is necessary, though adding cormorants to the same list of legally hunted birds as crows is not likely to result in much of a dent to the population, especially since cormorants spend much of their lives on open water away from hunters.

I'm for neutering the bastards.

I hope that last sentence refers to humans. Some form of population control is necessary? This coming from someone who is part of the most rapidly expanding species on the planet, the species who are responsible for all of the destruction on this planet? Such hypocrisy!

If you want to make constrcutive suggestions, why don't you urge everyone to lobby their MP, asking them to make it illegal for humans to have any more than one child each? That will do far more good to the world than killing Cormorants who are simply minding their own business. Humans are the pests, not animals, and I don't know where most people get the absolute audacity to think they can fuck with nature. People are only killing these cormorants because they are afraid that stocks of fish will be depleted, and there will be less food for humans to cram down their fat gullets.

I'M for neutering humans!

[scottishlass]

I hope that last sentence refers to humans. Some form of population control is necessary? This coming from someone who is part of the most rapidly expanding species on the planet, the species who are responsible for all of the destruction on this planet? Such hypocrisy!

If you want to make constrcutive suggestions, why don't you urge everyone to lobby their MP, asking them to make it illegal for humans to have any more than one child each? That will do far more good to the world than killing Cormorants who are simply minding their own business. Humans are the pests, not animals, and I don't know where most people get the absolute audacity to think they can fuck with nature. People are only killing these cormorants because they are afraid that stocks of fish will be depleted, and there will be less food for humans to cram down their fat gullets.

I'M for neutering humans!


Yes agreed. When will humans understand that eating meat is murder?

Their hands are covered in blood, and I really mean that, anyone who eats meat is murdering filth in my opinion.

[lottie]

I hope that last sentence refers to humans. Some form of population control is necessary? This coming from someone who is part of the most rapidly expanding species on the planet, the species who are responsible for all of the destruction on this planet? Such hypocrisy!

If you want to make constrcutive suggestions, why don't you urge everyone to lobby their MP, asking them to make it illegal for humans to have any more than one child each? That will do far more good to the world than killing Cormorants who are simply minding their own business. Humans are the pests, not animals, and I don't know where most people get the absolute audacity to think they can fuck with nature. People are only killing these cormorants because they are afraid that stocks of fish will be depleted, and there will be less food for humans to cram down their fat gullets.

I'M for neutering humans!

whooohooooooooooooooo, right on!!!
(and i am serious!)

oh and Duchess? consider those letters sent, (i live in UK, but i'll get them posted soon as)

[Strange Fear]

I can say unfortunatley I don't live in Canada, but if there is any way to help just say. Right now I'm actually trying to get more involved with the campaign against KFC, I've recieved some stuff like flyers, etc to pass out. I know most people are ignorant and don't care about the issue, but that shouldn't stop anyone from expressing what they believe in.

[Mmmmmm]

Yes agreed. When will humans understand that eating meat is murder?

Their hands are covered in blood, and I really mean that, anyone who eats meat is murdering filth in my opinion.

In all seriousness, why do you think it is murder for human to eat fish but not Cormorants?

[Strange Fear]

In addition to my post above I will definitley start writing a letter.

[Mmmmmm]

I hope that last sentence refers to humans. Some form of population control is necessary? This coming from someone who is part of the most rapidly expanding species on the planet, the species who are responsible for all of the destruction on this planet? Such hypocrisy!

If you want to make constrcutive suggestions, why don't you urge everyone to lobby their MP, asking them to make it illegal for humans to have any more than one child each? That will do far more good to the world than killing Cormorants who are simply minding their own business. Humans are the pests, not animals, and I don't know where most people get the absolute audacity to think they can fuck with nature. People are only killing these cormorants because they are afraid that stocks of fish will be depleted, and there will be less food for humans to cram down their fat gullets.

I'M for neutering humans!


I'm thinking you don't quite get the issue. The Cormorant population has grown by 3000% in the last 20 years. (By comparison, human population has grown by less than 40% in that same time - problematic but not "the most rapidly expanding species on the planet"). Humans are indeed pests but by the same logic, so are cormorants. In fact humans have been in the area for at least 12 000 years longer giving our own species superior claim to rid the Great Lakes of fish. So, its going to be 2 out of three:humans, fish or cormorants. The other alternative is to let nature take its course (in which case either indigenous fish stocks will suffer or the blooming cormorant population will be quashed by starvation (or by moving into someone else's back yard) - presuming that you can't convince the 50 or so million people living along the Great lakes to pack up and move on account of the bird.

Population control, whether man-made or natural (i.e. death of large numbers of some or other species) is going to happen. Humans "fucked with nature" when we destroyed competing species that otherwise kept the cormorant clear of the lakes, we "fucked" with it again when we nearly destroyed them in the 60's, and we "fucked with nature" when we cleaned up the environment allowing population blooms. Of course we "fucked with nature" when we overharvested fish, and again when we set up aquaculture operations to stop overfishing. Oh, and I'm sure there's a soy bean farm where the forest used to be that sheltered the martens and fishers that ate the cormorant eggs that kept them from over-eating the fish... and so on"

I was being facetious when I suggested neutering the birds but its clear you don't see the logical end of a population bloom. Enjoy watching lots of animals die because that's what will happen by gun or by nature.

Finally, humans are not "pests" in nature, we are part of nature. Just as with every other species that suffers the vicissitudes of population expansion, there are negative consequences on other species. We learn to manage those consequences or we die too. We just need to learn how to manage better and develop the will to take it seriously.

[Kuiper]

Neutering humans now? Have you all gone insane?

[Dave]

I agree that there is probably some subtle difference between caring for animals and wishing for the annihilation of the human species. ;)

I think when you make statements about how the planet would be better off without humans you lose a large part of the audience who might have some interest in continuing to live here, and you fit into the cliche of the activist that most people don't take seriously. In order to make changes you have to win people to your cause.

[Kickstand]

In all seriousness, why do you think it is murder for human to eat fish but not Cormorants?

Fishs suffocate and scream when they are pulled out of water, that's like having your finger nails pulled off one by one. Humans have to accept that land does not belong to us, we do not own land, we do not own mother nature, she owns us. We are animals too and so we should live amongst other animals. There are far too many people on the planet, how about culling a few billion? After all we are animals too.

It's disgusting to eat any form of flesh and I have never heard of a good argument for eating meat, be it birds, fish or any other animal.

[Mmmmmm]

Fishs suffocate and scream when they are pulled out of water, that's like having your finger nails pulled off one by one. Humans have to accept that land does not belong to us, we do not own land, we do not own mother nature, she owns us. We are animals too and so we should live amongst other animals. There are far too many people on the planet, how about culling a few billion? After all we are animals too.

It's disgusting to eat any form of flesh and I have never heard of a good argument for eating meat, be it birds, fish or any other animal.

Fish scream! That is frickin' hilarious. Fish may feel pain (that much is still up in the air) but only so far as it induces a flight reaction. They don't have enough gray matter to be conscious of their mortality.

If "we are animals too", as you say, then why is it not okay for us to eat fish but it is okay for cormorants - the question you didn't bother to answer.

I'm going to guess that you are about 16, grew up watching anthropomorphic cartoons and have been drawn in by some on-line PETAphile who has filled your eager mind with falsehoods and fantasies about what is "natural". Culling human beings is obviously an inane suggestion and saying you "have never heard of a good argument for eating meat" is indefiance of the basic principles of both the food chain and human nutrition (yes meat can be substituted but we've evolved as omnivores and require certain things from meat that allowed us to evolve in the first place).

As for saying eating meat is disgusting, that is a moral judgement. Morals don't reside in our genes whereas your propensity for ingesting meat protein does. You, my dear, are in defiance of mother nature. By your own logic, I insist that you live by your creed, embrace your omnivorousness and do that which comes naturally...

[Theo]

Mmmmm owned in this thread. Well done.

I see Duchess of Fork spreads ignorance everywhere she goes. What do you expect from someone who lists The Communist Manifesto and some jive by Leon Trotsky as her very favorite books on her MySpace. It seems she really does support culling the human herd. (BTW, those who think there's too many humans should step up, lead by example, and off themselves for the good of nature.)

From her Q&A (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=49242647&blogID=209757950&MyToken=212be853-0596-45aa-a0cb-9db24cc3cfc8), however:


Q: Do you have any pets?
A: Two cats who absolutely hate me...and two gold fishies I don't care for much really…I used to.

So she lives with two cats who have come to despise her, and she has enslaved two poor goldfish in a bowl where they gasp and suffer in neglect. Two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year. :( Do you even change their water?

Kindness to animals begins at home.

http://www.bockman.ca/uploads/goldfish.jpg

You could relieve some of your cats' frustrations...

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/kitty%20and%20fishbowl.JPG

...and take your fish out of their misery quite easily.

http://digilander.libero.it/Daisychain/gatti/images/fishbowl.jpg

It's what Mother Nature wants.

[Theo]

If you want to make constrcutive suggestions, why don't you urge everyone to lobby their MP, asking them to make it illegal for humans to have any more than one child each?

You can count me out! Thank God Americans still breed. I plan on having 5 or 6 infidel babies. :)

[vAndreav]

If "we are animals too", as you say, then why is it not okay for us to eat fish but it is okay for cormorants - the question you didn't bother to answer.

...

comorants dont eat factory farmed fish. thats the difference. comorants live naturally, in the wild, we live in a superficial concrete jungle where we go to a supermarket to hunt us some steak. we are a part of nature but we've completely reversed the roles.

[Kickstand]

Fish scream! That is frickin' hilarious. Fish may feel pain (that much is still up in the air) but only so far as it induces a flight reaction. They don't have enough gray matter to be conscious of their mortality.

If "we are animals too", as you say, then why is it not okay for us to eat fish but it is okay for cormorants - the question you didn't bother to answer.

I'm going to guess that you are about 16, grew up watching anthropomorphic cartoons and have been drawn in by some on-line PETAphile who has filled your eager mind with falsehoods and fantasies about what is "natural". Culling human beings is obviously an inane suggestion and saying you "have never heard of a good argument for eating meat" is indefiance of the basic principles of both the food chain and human nutrition (yes meat can be substituted but we've evolved as omnivores and require certain things from meat that allowed us to evolve in the first place).

As for saying eating meat is disgusting, that is a moral judgement. Morals don't reside in our genes whereas your propensity for ingesting meat protein does. You, my dear, are in defiance of mother nature. By your own logic, I insist that you live by your creed, embrace your omnivorousness and do that which comes naturally...

Laughing at your own ignorance is indeed hilarious, I'm laughing at you, not with you. It's common knowledge that Fish have an attention span of more than two seconds, they suffocate and go through immense pain when they are pulled out of the water, they do not just flap around. It's sheer hell, it's like have a hot poker shovedup ones anus and having their organs burnt to a crisp.

Cormorants eat fish in the natural state, raw, they do not garnish the fish with salt or pepper, they do not fry or cook the fish to eat it, they also cannot eat vegetation, us humans can, therefore we do not need to eat fish, if we hunted, killed and ate fish the natural way, using our own bare hands, not nets or other man made tools and ate the fish raw then I would except humans eating meat. It's cruel and I still haven't heard a good argument for eating meat, to me it's vile and not needed in today's society. Humans don't need to eat me to survive, that case has been closed for a long time, humans eat meat because it tastes nice. Do comorants eat fish because it's nice? No they eat fish to survive.

You would be wrong again, I am not part of PETA, they are far too radical for me. Humans eating meat has never been natural, in order for it to be natural we would have to as I say, hunt the animal with our barehands and eat the corpse raw, as we do neither it's unnatural. Humans have to use weaponry and man made devices because we are the weakest creature on the food chain. Could we kill a mountain bear with our own force? Like heck could we, we'd be dead within five minutes.

Of course culling humans is an stupid suggestion, but it's no different from culling seals for their pelts or bears for their fur etc. Cavemen ate meat, which has indeed evolved our brain capcity, but we don't need to eat meat anymore, so again that's not a very good argument and considering the world is becoming more barbaric, I can't see meat helping enhance the brain. ;)

Meat eating isn't in our genes, we aren't born with a chicken leg in our hand are we? A human shapes their views and perferences as they grow. How is me having respect and admiration for these beautiful creatures a defience of mother nature? If anything we are all in defience of mother nature. As we don't live with nature in harmony.

[scottishlass]

Laughing at your own ignorance is indeed hilarious, I'm laughing at you, not with you. It's common knowledge that Fish have an attention span of more than two seconds, they suffocate and go through immense pain when they are pulled out of the water, they do not just flap around. It's sheer hell, it's like have a hot poker shovedup ones anus and having their organs burnt to a crisp.

Cormorants eat fish in the natural state, raw, they do not garnish the fish with salt or pepper, they do not fry or cook the fish to eat it, they also cannot eat vegetation, us humans can, therefore we do not need to eat fish, if we hunted, killed and ate fish the natural way, using our own bare hands, not nets or other man made tools and ate the fish raw then I would except humans eating meat. It's cruel and I still haven't heard a good argument for eating meat, to me it's vile and not needed in today's society. Humans don't need to eat me to survive, that case has been closed for a long time, humans eat meat because it tastes nice. Do comorants eat fish because it's nice? No they eat fish to survive.

You would be wrong again, I am not part of PETA, they are far too radical for me. Humans eating meat has never been natural, in order for it to be natural we would have to as I say, hunt the animal with our barehands and eat the corpse raw, as we do neither it's unnatural. Humans have to use weaponry and man made devices because we are the weakest creature on the food chain. Could we kill a mountain bear with our own force? Like heck could we, we'd be dead within five minutes.

Of course culling humans is an stupid suggestion, but it's no different from culling seals for their pelts or bears for their fur etc. Cavemen ate meat, which has indeed evolved our brain capcity, but we don't need to eat meat anymore, so again that's not a very good argument and considering the world is becoming more barbaric, I can't see meat helping enhance the brain. ;)

Meat eating isn't in our genes, we aren't born with a chicken leg in our hand are we? A human shapes their views and perferences as they grow. How is me having respect and admiration for these beautiful creatures a defience of mother nature? If anything we are all in defience of mother nature. As we don't live with nature in harmony.


That is possibly one of the most rational, well articulated arguments about this subject I have ever read on this topic on this forum.

When will people realise.... it's murder.

[CharethCutestory]

I'm thinking you don't quite get the issue. The Cormorant population has grown by 3000% in the last 20 years. (By comparison, human population has grown by less than 40% in that same time - problematic but not "the most rapidly expanding species on the planet"). Humans are indeed pests but by the same logic, so are cormorants. In fact humans have been in the area for at least 12 000 years longer giving our own species superior claim to rid the Great Lakes of fish. So, its going to be 2 out of three:humans, fish or cormorants. The other alternative is to let nature take its course (in which case either indigenous fish stocks will suffer or the blooming cormorant population will be quashed by starvation (or by moving into someone else's back yard) - presuming that you can't convince the 50 or so million people living along the Great lakes to pack up and move on account of the bird.

Population control, whether man-made or natural (i.e. death of large numbers of some or other species) is going to happen. Humans "fucked with nature" when we destroyed competing species that otherwise kept the cormorant clear of the lakes, we "fucked" with it again when we nearly destroyed them in the 60's, and we "fucked with nature" when we cleaned up the environment allowing population blooms. Of course we "fucked with nature" when we overharvested fish, and again when we set up aquaculture operations to stop overfishing. Oh, and I'm sure there's a soy bean farm where the forest used to be that sheltered the martens and fishers that ate the cormorant eggs that kept them from over-eating the fish... and so on"

I was being facetious when I suggested neutering the birds but its clear you don't see the logical end of a population bloom. Enjoy watching lots of animals die because that's what will happen by gun or by nature.

Finally, humans are not "pests" in nature, we are part of nature. Just as with every other species that suffers the vicissitudes of population expansion, there are negative consequences on other species. We learn to manage those consequences or we die too. We just need to learn how to manage better and develop the will to take it seriously.

At last, someone who knows the score and finds this shit as funny as I do.

In all seriousness dude, you're wasting your breath, the people that you're engaging in conversation are not capable of listening to any opinion which differs from their own, so whilst I know it's fun to get it out of your system, don't expect them to actually listen.

[Kickstand]

I've taken his opinion on board, but it's not convincing enough for me to change my stance on something. The post hasn't opened up the so called bigger picture to me. The person hasn't given me enough examples of how eating meat is good. This person says they have more right over the fish because humans arrived before the comorants. Good excuse? I think not. :p

[CharethCutestory]

I've taken his opinion on board, but it's not convincing enough for me to change my stance on something. The post hasn't opened up the so called bigger picture to me. The person hasn't given me enough examples of how eating meat is good. This person says they have more right over the fish because humans arrived before the comorants. Good excuse? I think not. :p

I'm not getting involved. I've been there before and can't be arsed again. I know I'm right, and that's good enough for me.

Phrases like "fish scream" really won't help your cause be taken seriously by grown ups.

[HIM]

I agree that there is probably some subtle difference between caring for animals and wishing for the annihilation of the human species. ;)

I think when you make statements about how the planet would be better off without humans you lose a large part of the audience who might have some interest in continuing to live here, and you fit into the cliche of the activist that most people don't take seriously. In order to make changes you have to win people to your cause.

precisely, sir.

[CharethCutestory]

Can a human hear a the sound dog whistle? ;)

And if you fell off your P.C chair, and there (obviously) wasn't anyone there to hear it..... would it make a sound.

Really, don't come out with nonsence arguements, that's why right headed people ignore that kind of shit.

Let me guess, you like animals more than most people.

[dazzak]

Vegetarians depress and annoy me.

[CharethCutestory]

I'm not politically correct, you'll find I'm a hardline Conservative thinker. ;)

I perfer animals to humans. I prefer spending my time with my cat than I do with so called friends. Animals are loyal, animals are loving, animals are beautiful, animals don't knife you in the back. Animals don't invade your company and bore you for hours on end with endless drivel, so yes I do prefer animals.

Fish scream when pulled out of water, our ears aren't sensitive enough to pick up the frequency, of course being ignorant is far easier.


Have you ever thought that maybe you you don't know the right people? That may be because the right people avoid you on the grounds that you spend all your time talking to a fucking cat.

If you're so open minded, why do you choose to spend your time with something that -

1. Can't speak
2. Doesn't have opinions
3. Doesn't have opposable thumbs

[HIM]

[...] animals don't knife you in the back.[...]

yeah, but what if foxes could go, tooled-up?

[Kickstand]

Vegetarians depress and annoy me.

That's nice. The reason I am highly strung about vegetarianism is I have had to endure the same old lectures of "Vegetarianism is wrong", "Vegetarianism is abnormal", "You'll die earlier, because of a lack of protien". I don't mind people having views, but I have had the carnivores lectures for the past few years so when it comes to Vegetarianism I like nothing more than put down the consumption of meat.

Cutestory, people are all the same, friends come and go, I'll sadly live on and make new friends who will over stay their welcome, annoy me, knife me in the back and so forth. I have a few close friends, I had a few more, but I one day decided to cut all ties. I don't spend all day talking to cats, I hardly speak, usually when I am spoken to, I would speak more often but there is never anything decent to talk about.

I consider myself somewhat open minded, but people are destroying that quality of mine, by constantly ramming their views down my throat hence why I am hardlined on vegetarianism.

[CharethCutestory]

yeah, but what if foxes could go, tooled-up?

Exactly, what about this cocky fucker

http://tekken3br.sites.uol.com.br/screens_so/panda.jpg

[CharethCutestory]

That's nice. The reason I am highly strung about vegetarianism is I have had to endure the same old lectures of "Vegetarianism is wrong", "Vegetarianism is abnormal", "You'll die earlier, because of a lack of protien". I don't mind people having views, but I have had the carnivores lectures for the past few years so when it comes to Vegetarianism I like nothing more than put down the consumption of meat.

Cutestory, people are all the same, friends come and go, I'll sadly live on and make new friends who will over stay their welcome, annoy me, knife me in the back and so forth. I have a few close friends, I had a few more, but I one day decided to cut all ties. I don't spend all day talking to cats, I hardly speak, usually when I am spoken to, I would speak more often but there is never anything decent to talk about.

I consider myself somewhat open minded, but people are destroying that quality of mine, by constantly ramming their views down my throat hence why I am hardlined on vegetarianism.


Isn't it you who keeps saying that eating meat is wrong? Pushing your views down people's throats, maybe that is why people "knife you in the back".

You're a cliche, and humans are omnivores not carnivores you moron.

[CharethCutestory]

Oh dear and old fart slagging me off for being unsocialble and yet he plays video games. :D

Have another go, that was pretty poor.

[dazzak]

That's nice. The reason I am highly strung about vegetarianism is I have had to endure the same old lectures of "Vegetarianism is wrong", "Vegetarianism is abnormal", "You'll die earlier, because of a lack of protien". I don't mind people having views, but I have had the carnivores lectures for the past few years so when it comes to Vegetarianism I like nothing more than put down the consumption of meat.
Don't get me wrong, it's not the choices you make or even why you chose to make those choices, it's the preaching that annoys me. Calling someone a murderer, comparing the slaughter of animals to the Holocaust, wearing annoying T-shirts that say "I'm not a nugget" under a cartoon of a chicken, denigrating the human race to somehow balance out things - all of these things only harm the vegetarian cause. If people really cared more about the animals and less about feeling superiour, they'd choose the most effective method method of conversion, which is still probably focusing on the health aspect in this ever-increasingly unhealthy world. But I suppose vegetarians are just as dumb as omnivores.

As for friends, everyone needs some. You should probably get over whatever happened to you and try to make some. It'll do you good.

[Kickstand]

I know, it amused me though, how you tell me to get out more, yet spend your days playing Tekken.

I say eating meat is wrong, because I feel it is, but after hearing the sheer ignorance of meat eaters forcing their opinions onto me, I now go out of my way to do the same.

I am not a cliche, I don't go around saying "Meat is Murder", I also do not support PETA. ;)

[HIM]

The fox, a very cunning and incredibly beautiful creatures. :)

agreed...

...but i bet you wouldn't leave one, alone, with your girlfriend

[CharethCutestory]

I know, it amused me though, how you tell me to get out more, yet spend your days playing Tekken.

I say eating meat is wrong, because I feel it is, but after hearing the sheer ignorance of meat eaters forcing their opinions onto me, I now go out of my way to do the same.

I am not a cliche, I don't go around saying "Meat is Murder", I also do not support PETA. ;)

That's right. A picture of a panda is enough to tell you that someone "spends their days playing Tekken".

Do you ever just stop and listen to yourself, you sound ridiculous.

[Kickstand]

Don't get me wrong, it's not the choices you make or even why you chose to make those choices, it's the preaching that annoys me. Calling someone a murderer, comparing the slaughter of animals to the Holocaust, wearing annoying T-shirts that say "I'm not a nugget" under a cartoon of a chicken, denigrating the human race to somehow balance out things - all of these things only harm the vegetarian cause. If people really cared more about the animals and less about feeling superiour, they'd choose the most effective method method of conversion, which is still probably focusing on the health aspect in this ever-increasingly unhealthy world. But I suppose vegetarians are just as dumb as omnivores.

As for friends, everyone needs some. You should probably get over whatever happened to you and try to make some. It'll do you good.


I don't dislike people who eat meat, as you say it is down to personal choice, but when I say to someone I'm a vegetarian, I gets looks of sheer shock and disgust, I could understand if I confessed to murder, but these looks make me ever so angry, plus the old lecture of why we need meat in our diet and how I will die aged forty because my heart will give way etc etc, it's not really surprising I decide to get hardnosed over the issue. The thing with the Holocaust is there was a survivour of the Holocaust who made that comparison after he saw cows lined up behind fences waiting to be slaughtered. I see the slaughter of animals as an wicked act, but that comes from my liking for animals rather than me being a vegetarian, there are an awful lot of vegetarians who are vegetarians because they do not like meat, not because they are animal activists. Naturally there are vegans and vegetarians who are very radical in their outlook, but you always will have such people in any cause.

As I say I have friends, true friends, I ditched the others who I become sick of, there is no point in being two faced or saving face. I'd happily have no friends rather than pretending to be someone's friend.

[CharethCutestory]

I don't dislike people who eat me

Me either. I'm normally pretty grateful.

[CharethCutestory]

I really should proof read my work. :o

I thought it was a fair comment to be honest, I mean why would you? Having said that, meat is meat.

[scottishlass]

Isn't it you who keeps saying that eating meat is wrong? Pushing your views down people's throats, maybe that is why people "knife you in the back".

You're a cliche, and humans are omnivores not carnivores you moron.


why insult others in a petty way because you oppose their beliefs?

meat IS murder in my opinion.

[Kickstand]

I'm not a radical animal activist, I choose not to eat meat because I do not like the taste or the fact animals have to endure bad conditions and an unnatural death, that's my decision. If you or anyone else chooses to eat meat then that is your choice, but what annoys me is when meat eaters preach to me about the wonders of meat and how natural it is, well whilst it can be considered normal, it isn't natural and that is the last I shall say on this issue...for the time being.

[HIM]

why insult others in a petty way because you oppose their beliefs?

meat IS murder in my opinion.

personally, i have no problem with vegetarianism and wouldn't try to convince a vegetarian to eat meat.

when people (on this site, at least) try to engage in a discussion on the subject, those vegetarians who are willing to participate, seem to resort to spurious claims about ethics and seem more determined to assert their own, supposed, moral rightousness than they are to try to convert people to their point of view.

they seem to be more concerned with presenting a particular image of themselves than they are about alleviating animal suffering; it just comes across as vanity rather than compassion. that appearance renders them a target for ridicule.


b.t.w. these comments are not, necessarily, aimed at "kickstand" 'cause (without wishing to seem patronising) he's a young bloke and fair play to him for caring about something. but there are others who are older and should realise that they sound like dicks and who, i'm sure, realise that their indignant posturing will not convert people - which is what one would expect them to aim for.

[Theo]

Kick: You claim fish scream in agony and feel a pain the equivalent of one's fingernails getting torn off or something getting rammed up one's butthole.

Rebut this: Fish lack the brains to feel pain (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725683181.html)

Note the last paragraph where even the PETA clowns knew they'd sound foolish going as far as you do, at least when they're talking in respectable circles.

Sorry, it seems Finding Nemo was just a cartoon. This must shatter you. But you should be glad to learn they're not feeling what you thought they did.

And I don't know why you think it's "unnatural" for humans to use tools, etc. You don't think we're the only animals that use tools to get food, do you? Look who's underestimating other creatures now!

It's often amazing how many of these PETA cultists turn out to be rather cut-off from nature as it really is.

Off to the sushi bar.....

[Theo]

Yawn! Yawn! Yawn!

Excellent rebuttal. Your concession suggests Mmmmm had the facts on his side, while you just have your religious ideology.

[Mmmmmm]

Laughing at your own ignorance is indeed hilarious, I'm laughing at you, not with you. It's common knowledge that Fish have an attention span of more than two seconds, they suffocate and go through immense pain when they are pulled out of the water, they do not just flap around. It's sheer hell, it's like have a hot poker shovedup ones anus and having their organs burnt to a crisp.

Cormorants eat fish in the natural state, raw, they do not garnish the fish with salt or pepper, they do not fry or cook the fish to eat it, they also cannot eat vegetation, us humans can, therefore we do not need to eat fish, if we hunted, killed and ate fish the natural way, using our own bare hands, not nets or other man made tools and ate the fish raw then I would except humans eating meat. It's cruel and I still haven't heard a good argument for eating meat, to me it's vile and not needed in today's society. Humans don't need to eat me to survive, that case has been closed for a long time, humans eat meat because it tastes nice. Do comorants eat fish because it's nice? No they eat fish to survive.

You would be wrong again, I am not part of PETA, they are far too radical for me. Humans eating meat has never been natural, in order for it to be natural we would have to as I say, hunt the animal with our barehands and eat the corpse raw, as we do neither it's unnatural. Humans have to use weaponry and man made devices because we are the weakest creature on the food chain. Could we kill a mountain bear with our own force? Like heck could we, we'd be dead within five minutes.

Of course culling humans is an stupid suggestion, but it's no different from culling seals for their pelts or bears for their fur etc. Cavemen ate meat, which has indeed evolved our brain capcity, but we don't need to eat meat anymore, so again that's not a very good argument and considering the world is becoming more barbaric, I can't see meat helping enhance the brain. ;)

Meat eating isn't in our genes, we aren't born with a chicken leg in our hand are we? A human shapes their views and perferences as they grow. How is me having respect and admiration for these beautiful creatures a defience of mother nature? If anything we are all in defience of mother nature. As we don't live with nature in harmony.


You know, I wasn't going to bother. Its not your awe-inspiring lack of knowledge of piscine neurology, nor your inability not to pepper your rhetoric with absurd hyperbole. Heck, it isn't even your incapacity to construe my arguments that bothers me. Its your complete refusal to exercise any sort of cohesive, logical structure in your own argument that sticks in my ass (rather like a hot poker or fish scale).

Sit back and observe.

First of all, being out of water does not cause pain. Second, we don't know what the sensation of pain feels like for fish - or even if it has much of one at all. Finally, there is nothing unnatural about fish dying: natural causes, algae blooms, grizzly bears cormorants and even humans have evolved by killing fish.

Why would garnishing a dead fish with pepper add to any inhumanity? Vindaloo maybe but not pepper.

Now let us consider what is natural. First of all. Human consumption of meat is natural. Your teeth and digestive system are built for omnivorousness, baby. Let us not confuse 'can do without meat' with what is natural. As you correctly pointed out humans are pretty poor animals, with limited ability to hunt, protect ourselves, flee predators, etc. We avoided extinction by using that perfectly natural organ the brain to build tools. We are not the only tool users in the animal kingdom by the way. Using tools to hunt and cooking food are both millions of years old.

Let me recap your argument to this point for moment:

It hurts the fish to be out of water which is very bad.
Its okay for cormorants to be very bad to fish and it would be okay for humans if we used our bare hands and ate them raw, but to cook them with pepper! That is cruel.
Cormorants naturally evolved to eat fish so its okay for them to do so
Humans naturally evolved to eat fish so its not okay for them to do so
We can't defeat a mountain bear in hand-to-paw combat

Its at precisely this point that your bankrupt fact account and your inability to reason collide with these two statements:
"Cavemen ate meat, which has indeed evolved our brain capcity"
"Meat eating isn't in our genes"

And you cap it off with:
"we aren't born with a chicken leg in our hand"
No, but we're not born with dreadlocked, fluent in five languages or horny, but the capity for all of those things is there. Depending on the choices we make.

Which brings us to the conclusion. Meat eating is natural, but we can choose not to do it: not because fish scream, not because tool-using is wrong, , not because killing animals is not part of our evolutionary heritage, not because it makes makes us animals (we've no choice in that); but because we personally feel that we don't wish to kill other animal species.

[WinkWink]

You know, I wasn't going to bother. Its not your awe-inspiring lack of knowledge of piscine neurology, nor your inability not to pepper your rhetoric with absurd hyperbole. Heck, it isn't even your incapacity to construe my arguments that bothers me. Its your complete refusal to exercise any sort of cohesive, logical structure in your own argument that sticks in my ass (rather like a hot poker or fish scale).

Sit back and observe.

First of all, being out of water does not cause pain. Second, we don't know what the sensation of pain feels like for fish - or even if it has much of one at all. Finally, there is nothing unnatural about fish dying: natural causes, algae blooms, grizzly bears cormorants and even humans have evolved by killing fish.

Why would garnishing a dead fish with pepper add to any inhumanity? Vindaloo maybe but not pepper.

Now let us consider what is natural. First of all. Human consumption of meat is natural. Your teeth and digestive system are built for omnivorousness, baby. Let us not confuse 'can do without meat' with what is natural. As you correctly pointed out humans are pretty poor animals, with limited ability to hunt, protect ourselves, flee predators, etc. We avoided extinction by using that perfectly natural organ the brain to build tools. We are not the only tool users in the animal kingdom by the way. Using tools to hunt and cooking food are both millions of years old.

Let me recap your argument to this point for moment:

It hurts the fish to be out of water which is very bad.
Its okay for cormorants to be very bad to fish and it would be okay for humans if we used our bare hands and ate them raw, but to cook them with pepper! That is cruel.
Cormorants naturally evolved to eat fish so its okay for them to do so
Humans naturally evolved to eat fish so its not okay for them to do so
We can't defeat a mountain bear in hand-to-paw combat

Its at precisely this point that your bankrupt fact account and your inability to reason collide with these two statements:
"Cavemen ate meat, which has indeed evolved our brain capcity"
"Meat eating isn't in our genes"

And you cap it off with:
"we aren't born with a chicken leg in our hand"
No, but we're not born with dreadlocked, fluent in five languages or horny, but the capity for all of those things is there. Depending on the choices we make.

Which brings us to the conclusion. Meat eating is natural, but we can choose not to do it: not because fish scream, not because tool-using is wrong, , not because killing animals is not part of our evolutionary heritage, not because it makes makes us animals (we've no choice in that); but because we personally feel that we don't wish to kill other animal species.

to a large extent, this debate could be over if someone, anyone...i don't know...uses the internet to research the subject. It's not that hard.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Just to give another perspective to this argument, it is very likely that within a hundred years or more, meat-eating will die out among humans anyway. The younger generations who are children now are far more aware of what vegetarianism is.

It's my assertion that anyone over the age of about thirty will probably be set in their ways until they die, unless they're an exceptionally open-minded individual, but those under 30 will have grown up seeing vegetarian food in shops, knowing vegetarians and being far more aware of alternative ways of living than those born in the 1970's and before. This will only increase naturally over time until eventually, meat-eaters will be in a minority.

That said, I notice an imbalance in this thread, of meat-eaters using a mob mentality to intimidate and bully a seventeen-year-old who happens to be enthusiastic about vegetarianism. It looks bad, folks. It's people like Kickstand who will pass on their open-mindedness to the younger generations who are born.

So, whilst I could go and research the benefits and quote from my library of A.R. literature, I'm not going to - because the people in this thread don't want to know. You'd all look a lot more honest if you just admitted the truth, which is that you couldn't be a vegetarian even if you did think it was a good choice. There's no shame in being weak, but there's a hell of a lot of shame in bullying and name-calling a seventeen-year-old because he embraces more conscientious lifestyle choices than you ever could.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

And I don't know why you think it's "unnatural" for humans to use tools, etc. You don't think we're the only animals that use tools to get food, do you? Look who's underestimating other creatures now!


No, you're right. It's a well-known fact that Lions use sawn-off shotguns to shoot at Gazelle on the African plains, and they then hand them from meat-hooks, after skinning them with large butchers knives. Sharks use harpoons to aim at smaller sea creatures which they eat, and Polar Bears in the Antarctic are notorious for chasing seals around whilst brandishing chainsaws.

Do yourself a favour and keep your narrow-minded, wanky, neanderthal statements to yourself. You're only succeeding in making yourself look like George W Bush's dopier younger brother.

[drunken goldfish]

^^monkeys use tools. Just sayin'.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

^^monkeys use tools. Just sayin'.

To kill other beings?

[drunken goldfish]

I honestly don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. It's irrelavant to your argument anyway, as they don't have a choice, and humans do.

[Dave]

what follows is totally random and unedited. If I'm successful people on all sides of this issue will be angry with me. Thank you. ;)

I used to work as a cook when I first stopped eating meat and had to learn to cut steaks from top rounds. It was really easy not to want to eat it and I still don't many years later. The smell of the meat that has been sitting in the walk-in is enough to make you gag. I'm not talking about rotten meat. It is rotting as all meat is, but hasn't quite reached the rotten stage yet.

I quit eating shrimp and lobsters because before they are cleaned and the nice little morsel of meat is ready they look like bugs, like something that would run for cover when you turn the light on.

I do eat chicken, although I know that a large percentage of the factories that prepare the chickens are automated and spill chicken shit on the meat while cutting them up, and if that isn't enough to make you think twice I don't know what is.

I do think that it is not a terrible moral crime to eat animals, but factory farms are immoral. There are proper ways to raise and slaughter animals humanely, although that sounds like a joke. About being "natural" I think that some of the natives had the right idea, taking what they needed, using every part of the animal, and generally fitting into the overall picture. But they weren't eating ham and sausage for breakfast, a cheeseburger for lunch, and roast beef for dinner.

Pork is disgusting, I don't want it, I'm not depriving myself of it. Beef is not a temptation, I still remember that smell, but I do like chicken tamales and enchiladas, and I do crave a turkey sandwich sometimes. I really love salmon, red snapper, grilled tuna, etc.

I sometimes go for months eating no meat though. I see milk, cheese, eggs differently, although again they are often produced in factory conditions and those egg factories are disgusting, not to mention that an egg is pretty disgusting if you really think about it. Milk is not clean or pure, really and I only continue to put milk in my coffee from laziness. I mean, drinking something that is secreted from a cow? That's pretty nasty.

I love cheese. I love ice cream, but I trust Ben and Jerry's when they say the cattle aren't doped and aren't in factory dairies. I'd rather break the habit of eating thses things, but I don't, through laziness, mostly. I don't like tofu. I don't want to eat commercially grown fungus, I'd rather drink black coffee than mess around with funky tasting soy milk. I find rice tastes much better when cooked with chicken stock than with water.

I've been completely vegeterian before, although never a vegan, and hadn't even heard the term. I wear leather shoes.

The funny thing is that even though I never talk about what I eat, my family knows I won't eat beef, and this is what they tend to serve at family gatherings, and so it's always an issue that I am "vegetarian" which actually, I'm not. My sympathies go to those who are though. I mean, good going, thank you. Don't preach to me though. You're not superior. I'm sure if I followed you through your daily routine I could find several ways in which you are human and have failings.

That's a big reason why making it a moral issue is a tactical error. As someone else said, many vegetarians (but not all) approach it as an opportunity to come across as superior, and seem to be more involved in promoting this idea than they are involved in animal treatment issues.

btw, PETA does do a lot of silly things, but they also do good things, and they know how to get attention. I'd like to see them take a more mature approach, but they seem to be concentrating on influencing younger people.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

I honestly don't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. It's irrelavant to your argument anyway, as they don't have a choice, and humans do.

They absolutely do NOT use weapons to kill prey, and it is relevant, because it illustrates that animals who kill other beings do so in a natural way, whereas humans, being the stupid, useless cowards that they are, have to resort to using weapons. This is usually done by stupid men who have tiny, flaccid little cocks, so killing animals is quite useful for making them feel more powerful. The men who work in slaughterhouses are lower than algae to me. If I had the opportunity, I'd spit in their faces.

[Dave]

They absolutely do NOT use weapons to kill prey, and it is relevant, because it illustrates that animals who kill other beings do so in a natural way, whereas humans, being the stupid, useless cowards that they are, have to resort to using weapons. This is usually done by stupid men who have tiny, flaccid little cocks, so killing animals is quite useful for making them feel more powerful. The men who work in slaughterhouses are lower than algae to me. If I had the opportunity, I'd spit in their faces.

Do you like big animal cocks?

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Don't preach to me though. You're not superior.

Yes I am.


I'm sure if I followed you through your daily routine I could find several ways in which you have failings.

No you couldn't.




That's a big reason why making it a moral issue is a tactical error. As someone else said, many vegetarians (but not all) approach it as an opportunity to come across as superior, and seem to be more involved in promoting this idea than they are involved in animal treatment issues..

No they don't. Meat-eaters seize every possible opportunity to 'defend their right to eat meat'. If they thought what they were doing was so acceptable, they wouldn't feel the need to defend themselves. They know they're guilty as sin and are too cowardly to admit it. Every time they tell a vegetarian not to be 'emotive', that translates as: "I am a heartless, ignorant bastard. I don't care about animals."

And it is moral. Morality either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, well I guess I can just go and kill my boss then can I? Or go and tuck into a human being? No, of course not. Because humans twisted and contorted morality to suit themselves, and protect themselves. So whilst it's not okay for me to punch in the face every person who annoys me, it is okay for some sick, retarded in-bred who works in a slaughterhouse to maim a cow. Hmm, logical. Animals feel pain. End of story. Anyone who has trouble understanding this basic concept should probably go an blow their brains out as soon as possible. Either that or watch Soapstar Superstar, there isn't much difference that I can see.

[CharethCutestory]

They absolutely do NOT use weapons to kill prey, and it is relevant, because it illustrates that animals who kill other beings do so in a natural way, whereas humans, being the stupid, useless cowards that they are, have to resort to using weapons. This is usually done by stupid men who have tiny, flaccid little cocks, so killing animals is quite useful for making them feel more powerful. The men who work in slaughterhouses are lower than algae to me. If I had the opportunity, I'd spit in their faces.

This book may help you learn something.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hunting-Apes-Eating-Origins-Behavior/dp/0691011605

Oh and by the way, some apes do use tools to kill.

[Dave]

You're some sort of fascist. If you're really being honest and this isn't a put-on.

edit: not you, her. :D

[CharethCutestory]

whereas humans, being the stupid, useless cowards that they are, have to resort to using weapons. This is usually done by stupid men who have tiny, flaccid little cocks


I'm pretty sure that this guy has a huge wang, so that's that little part of your theory blown to shit!

http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/filmes/stallone-cobra/stallone-cobra-poster02.jpg

[The Crime Of The Century!]

I'm pretty sure that this guy has a huge wang, so that's that little part of your theory blown to shit!

http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/filmes/stallone-cobra/stallone-cobra-poster02.jpg

Speculation. You've never seen his penis, have you?

[drunken goldfish]

I'm pretty sure that this guy has a huge wang, so that's that little part of your theory blown to shit!

http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/filmes/stallone-cobra/stallone-cobra-poster02.jpg
you've seen his pre fame porn film? :eek: Or is it just common knowledge?

[The Crime Of The Century!]

You're some sort of fascist. If you're really being honest and this isn't a put-on.

edit: not you, her. :D

Definition of fascist: brutal or dictatorial control. I'm not in favour of killing animals, you are, yet I'm the brutal one? Oh, that makes loads of sense.

[CharethCutestory]

I think COTC is one of the more intelligent people on this board, I agree with a lot of her opinions.

That's a shame, you're a young guy, you're allowed to have crazy opinions (no offence, I think it's a good thing, it doesn't really matter what a 17 year old is passionate about, just that they're passionate about something). COTC is a 35 year old PE teacher, she should really have grown out of such black and white, idealistic gibberish by now.

[Dave]

Crimie, you're exactly who I refer to when I say that many vegetarians prefer to exclaim their superiority rather than promote the good of animals. Here you have me blowing out my brains because I don't agree with you, when I'd think it far more likely I'd do so if I ever did. You want to kill people, neuter people, see people commit suicide, hardly the thoughts of someone that is faultless as you claim to be. In an issue that has to do with compassion, you show very little and inspire even less.

[CharethCutestory]

Speculation. You've never seen his penis, have you?

I have, it looks like you should store tennis balls in it.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

That's a shame, you're a young guy, you're allowed to have crazy opinions (no offence, I think it's a good thing, it doesn't really matter what a 17 year old is passionate about, just that they're passionate about something). COTC is a 35 year old PE teacher, she should really have grown out of such black and white, idealistic gibberish by now.


You really should go into talking shite as a career. I'm neither 35, nor a P.E. teacher. Nor am I talking gibberish.

'Black and White?' Ah, the favourite old chestnut used continuously by people who revel in having no conceivable standards of decency whatsoever! I wondered when I'd hear that.

[Dave]

Definition of fascist: brutal or dictatorial control. I'm not in favour of killing animals, you are, yet I'm the brutal one? Oh, that makes loads of sense.

you want to neuter people and you say you have no faults. you speak of "true vegetarians" and "false vegetarians". That sounds like a fascist to me.

Besides that you can't process information very well. But that's beside the point.

[Dave]

I think COTC is one of the more intelligent people on this board, I agree with a lot of her opinions.

Oh kicky! So you think I should blow my brains out? :( :p

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Crimie, you're exactly who I refer to when I say that many vegetarians prefer to exclaim their superiority rather than promote the good of animals. Here you have me blowing out my brains because I don't agree with you, when I'd think it far more likely I'd do so if I ever did. You want to kill people, neuter people, see people commit suicide, hardly the thoughts of someone that is faultless as you claim to be. In an issue that has to do with compassion, you show very little and inspire even less.

I want to kill people? What the hell are you on? I've never even been in a fight! The comment about killing my boss was purely theoretical. I was saying because I have morality I wouldn't do such a thing, even though I loathe the ground she walks on.

I think many people would benefit from neutering, yes. Do you disagree?

[The Crime Of The Century!]

You have already proved yourself completely incapable of reason or open-mindedness by resorting to this kind of juvenilia:



Do you like big animal cocks?

Frankly, you give meat-eaters a bad name, and that's no mean feat.

[CharethCutestory]

I want to kill people? What the hell are you on? I've never even been in a fight! The comment about killing my boss was purely theoretical. I was saying because I have morality I wouldn't do such a thing, even though I loathe the ground she walks on.

I think many people would benefit from neutering, yes. Do you disagree?

I promise I'll leave you alone for a bit if you complete this test and post your results. It's really good. It plots you on a graph against famous historians based on the answers to there questions. I'd be genuinely interested to see the results.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

Kickstand, you might want to consider doing the same, it's interesting to do once ever now and again and keep track of where you are, mine has moved significantly in the last few years.

[Dave]

I want to kill people? What the hell are you on? I've never even been in a fight! The comment about killing my boss was purely theoretical. I was saying because I have morality I wouldn't do such a thing, even though I loathe the ground she walks on.

I think many people would benefit from neutering, yes. Do you disagree?

Are you going to make me go look for your old posts? No, it's not worth it. As for your question, you'll have to define it a little more clearly.

Did you not say that humans should be wiped off the planet or something to that effect? It's in the ex-vegetarian thread if anyone feels like having a look. I don't really.

You lose me when you say you have no faults. you do. Much as it may pain you to admit, you are one of those horrible things, a human being.

[Dave]

You have already proved yourself completely incapable of reason or open-mindedness by resorting to this kind of juvenilia:




Frankly, you give meat-eaters a bad name, and that's no mean feat.

you brought up the issue of cock size. I was just seeing if I could understand it's relevance to the discussion.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Are you going to make me go look for your old posts? No, it's not worth it. As for your question, you'll have to define it a little more clearly.

Did you not say that humans should be wiped off the planet or something to that effect? It's in the ex-vegetarian thread if anyone feels like having a look. I don't really.

You lose me when you say you have no faults. you do. Much as it may pain you to admit, you are one of those horrible things, a human being.

I'm not. I was created in a science laboratory near Leamington Spa.

[CharethCutestory]

you brought up the issue of cock size. I was just seeing if I could understand it's relevance to the discussion.

Dave,

The definately well thought out and certainly scientific point which she was trying to make was that people who fire guns and/or eat meat have undersized genitalia..... I don't fire guns, but I do eat meat, so naturally I have quite a miniscule member, you on the other hand, don't fire guns (I'm guessing) and only occassionally eat chicken, therefore you have a nob like a coke can with an apple on top. Congratulations, mind you don't have someone's eye out.

[Kuiper]

No, I think we should go for a pint. Now Dave, you know I don't hate the US, could please tell Kuiper that I don't hate the US, she thinks I am some sort of anti-US person, which is not true. Sure I slate the US from time to time, but you don't mind deep down.

I'm a man actually. :)

[Dave]

Kuiper, it's all in fun. Kickstand knows that when I say England's proudest achievement is a giant ferris wheel, I might be joking.

http://www.davehacker.co.uk/docs/qualitywork/london-night-eye-quality2.jpg

[Kuiper]

Oh dear. :D

I'm sorry, man!

Shit, Dave, I'm fucked, I called a bloke a woman. :eek:

It's just FYI, good sir. :)

[Dave]

I'm a man actually. :)

:D :D :D

[Dave]

alright then, I have to get away from this for a while and attend to "real life". thanks for the fun, people! ;)

[The Crime Of The Century!]

I promise I'll leave you alone for a bit if you complete this test and post your results. It's really good. It plots you on a graph against famous historians based on the answers to there questions. I'd be genuinely interested to see the results.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

Kickstand, you might want to consider doing the same, it's interesting to do once ever now and again and keep track of where you are, mine has moved significantly in the last few years.


Sorry, but there's no way of copying and pasting the graph at the end. Though what the relevance my political leanings have to this debate is anyone's guess.

[Kuiper]

You don't copy and paste the graph, above the graph it says what your score is. Just remember the score and type it into the quick reply box. :)

As for mine, even though no one's interested but I did it for fun so I have to post it, I'm 0.88 Economic L/R and 1.28 Social L/A.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Economic Left/Right: -6.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

[the more you explore me!]

Kuiper, it's all in fun. Kickstand knows that when I say England's proudest achievement is a giant ferris wheel, I might be joking.

http://www.davehacker.co.uk/docs/qualitywork/london-night-eye-quality2.jpg


it's a bit slow that wheel and they don't sell candy floss or cotton candy as you silly americans call it, at the bottom when you get off!
anyway our 'England's proudest achievement' is hugh grant.

[dazzak]

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Mildly interesting.

[Dave]

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

My results and your results are practically identical. Does that surprise you?

[scottishlass]

Dave,

The definately well thought out and certainly scientific point which she was trying to make was that people who fire guns and/or eat meat have undersized genitalia..... I don't fire guns, but I do eat meat, so naturally I have quite a miniscule member, you on the other hand, don't fire guns (I'm guessing) and only occassionally eat chicken, therefore you have a nob like a coke can with an apple on top. Congratulations, mind you don't have someone's eye out.

I would have thought you have extremely full dick sacks as well.

[Theo]

Just to give another perspective to this argument, it is very likely that within a hundred years or more, meat-eating will die out among humans anyway. The younger generations who are children now are far more aware of what vegetarianism is.

You find it "very likely" that all humans will have stopped eating meat within 100 years? I find that as far-fetched as saying there will be no war in 100 years. But I'm not against people being vegetarian, so whatever!

But I find it more likely that this scientific avenue will be perfected (http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,1548451,00.html):


It is the ultimate conundrum for vegetarians who think that meat is murder: a revolution in processed food that will see fresh meat grown from animal cells without a single cow, sheep or pig being killed.

***


The idea of doing away with traditional livestock and growing steaks from scratch dates back at least 70 years. In a horizon-scanning essay from 1932, Winston Churchill said: "Fifty years hence we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium."

Several decades too late, Churchill's vision finally looks set to become a reality.

Here's how one vegeteratian responds:


Kerry Bennett, of the Vegetarian Society, said: "This is certainly an interesting development, and one that is bound to prompt many different responses from individual vegetarians - largely depending on why those individuals have chosen vegetarianism.

"The Vegetarian Society is concerned that while this has the potential to decrease the number of meat-producing animals in factory farms, there are still a number of question marks regarding the origins of the cells and the method of harvesting.

"It won't appeal to someone who gave up meat because they think it's morally wrong to eat flesh or someone who doesn't want to eat anything unnatural," Ms Bennett added.


Yeah, some people are rather religious about it. Sort of like how Christian fundamentalists oppose stem-cell research.

Anyway, apparently it's a long way off for anything besides something like Spam or Chicken McNuggets. But 100 years from now....



That said, I notice an imbalance in this thread, of meat-eaters using a mob mentality to intimidate and bully a seventeen-year-old who happens to be enthusiastic about vegetarianism. It looks bad, folks. It's people like Kickstand who will pass on their open-mindedness to the younger generations who are born.

He's so open-minded his brain fell out. What you object to is that you and your kind can't spew your human-hating propaganda uncontested.

I don't know anyone's age, just screennames. You're trying to excuse things he said because he's only 17 and you're just happy he's letting himself be brainwashed and you don't want him second-guess his faith. Religions hate a Doubting Thomas. Here's a pat on the back to the boy who doesn't question what his cult tells him.


You'd all look a lot more honest if you just admitted the truth, which is that you couldn't be a vegetarian even if you did think it was a good choice. There's no shame in being weak, but there's a hell of a lot of shame in bullying and name-calling a seventeen-year-old because he embraces more conscientious lifestyle choices than you ever could.


I'm not, personally, too fond of red meat. My preference is fish, chicken and other poultry. I especially like chicken noodle soup for its now-proven benefits when the common cold is going around. And I absolutely love seafood. My Scandinavian ancestors have been eating fish since the beginning of time; it's as natural as could be.

I decided years ago that I'm sick of puritans trying to take pleasure out of life. It's funny that a lot of the same people who take the "hard line" as vegans are also the ones who feel ashamed of the prosperity and pleasures capitalism brings them.

If I wanna drink, smoke, eat meat, buy luxuries, I will do so for the fact that I was born free and reject those who wanna tell me what to do and force me how to live "for my own good." If I wanna go to a top restaurant and have an expertly, beautifully prepared dover sole dish - like I did this weekend - I damn well will. I felt like a king when the Italian waiter had me inspect the fish before he finished preparing it tableside like an artist. And how nice for the fish that instead of being just another fish he got to become this fabulous work-of-art of a meal. :)

If people wanna prove to themselves how "strong" they are by living ascetic lives, I won't intervene on their lifestyles. Morrissey was once asked about his diet and he said it's extremely "basic." That sounded as sad as his nonexistant sex life. His choice, but I ain't down. Food is a pleasure of life. You can make pleasurable, artistic meals that are vegetarian, but it's also true you're giving up a lot of the best ingredients, and there's something pathetic about all those veggie meals that have fake meat. (Is that "more natural"?)

Which is why you say we're "weak" when we don't feel compelled to sacrifice pleasures like you do. IMO, people who join cult-like groups have a weakness, but what do I know? Why is it that whenever people do things they don't have to do but enjoy nonetheless that this makes them "weak"?

Carnivorous people don't try and force anyone to stop being a vegetarian. It's you folks trying to force lifestyles on others. I won't have it. Particularly since your arguments are so filled with emotional propaganda rather than reality. If you are right, why do you have to lie?

[Kickstand]

Theo, I can think for myself thank you very much, I haven't been brainwashed into anything. You are saying that you don't force your views onto people, which are funny because you just didn't when you tried to patronise me. I don't eat meat, because I do not like eat, it makes me cringe, it makes me gag and heave, it's vile and that is my choice. I might be a young inexperienced person in the world, but I will not have adults talk down to me and call my ideals utopian. I read research and then forge my own opinions. I will always stand behind my opinions too; I’d rather die than change my outlook on life. I am a vegetarian because I want to be, I like it, I love and respect all creatures, and therefore it makes no sense for me to eat them. I am a keen advocate of recycling; I support the congestion charge, and love nature.

So I haven’t been brainwashed, I forged my own opinions, I am not religious, I however consider myself more of Buddhist than I do to any other faith, but what that has to do with a first class cretin like you is beyond me.

You’re the silly twat who thinks he’s Mr America. “That’s was sooo rad man!!!! Woah!!! We just bombed I-RACK back to the stone age, rad!!!! :cool:

[CharethCutestory]

I am not religious, I however consider myself more of Buddhist than I do to any other faith.


What is it about Buddhism that you relate to?

[Theo]

No, you're right. It's a well-known fact that Lions use sawn-off shotguns to shoot at Gazelle on the African plains, and they then hand them from meat-hooks, after skinning them with large butchers knives. Sharks use harpoons to aim at smaller sea creatures which they eat, and Polar Bears in the Antarctic are notorious for chasing seals around whilst brandishing chainsaws.

As has been pointed out, other primates use tools. Not only that, but if you read Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, you find - while he mentions their termite fishing and other uses of tools - that within local groups of chimpanzees they have their own customs and traditions for using tools that get handed down and differ from chimps in other areas.

And there are other animals. A sea otter will find a stone to crack shellfish out of their shells, and will save a good stone for future use. A beaver will buid a dam not just for protection but to make it easier to get food in the winter. There are birds that use tools to get insects out in the open, and there's apparently a bird that uses rocks to smash ostrich eggs.

There are even little ants, according to one site (http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/beasts.html):


In what is now Ghana, colonial forestry official W B Collins witnessed the extraordinary way in which driver ants harnessed a simple tool to break through the defences of a horde of snails. Driver ants can reduce a python to bones in an hour, but these snails initially repelled the ant army by secreting a foam-like mucus into the entrances of their shells for protection.
The ants deposited crumbs of dry soil in the mucus. As the liquid was absorbed, the snails responded by secreting yet more mucus, and in turn, the ants deposited more soil around the snails. This relentless attack technique was repeated until the snails had exhausted their mucus reserves and lay defenceless.


And other creatures hunt and often hunt in rather harsh fashion. I've watched what spiders are up to in own home and it's pretty nasty when some poor bug winds up in their web - a net they've set up to catch food.


Do yourself a favour and keep your narrow-minded, wanky, neanderthal statements to yourself. You're only succeeding in making yourself look like George W Bush's dopier younger brother.


I don't know what Bush has to do with this, except he's much less a fast-food hamburger-eating pig than his predecessor. Oh yeah, rather than addressing points, you'd rather be able to say you can dismiss them without handling them if someone voted Bush over Kerry. Conventient if you're just pushing bullshit, which you are.

No, I didn't vote for the photo-op goose hunter, Kerry. But on this issue you have more in common with Bush. His religion leads him to oppose abortion and put up blocks to government-funded stem-cell research. I don't know why anyone would feel so worried about stem-cell research, or think that killing a first-trimester fetus is the same as killing an adult person, but then I don't know why anyone would think a fish feels pain and has awareness in exactly the same way as animals with more advanced brains.

[Theo]

Theo, I can think for myself thank you very much, I haven't been brainwashed into anything. You are saying that you don't force your views onto people, which are funny because you just didn't when you tried to patronise me. I don't eat meat, because I do not like eat, it makes me cringe, it makes me gag and heave, it's vile and that is my choice. I might be a young inexperienced person in the world, but I will not have adults talk down to me and call my ideals utopian. I read research and then forge my own opinions. I will always stand behind my opinions too; I’d rather die than change my outlook on life. I am a vegetarian because I want to be, I like it, I love and respect all creatures, and therefore it makes no sense for me to eat them. I am a keen advocate of recycling; I support the congestion charge, and love nature.

So I haven’t been brainwashed, I forged my own opinions, I am not religious, I however consider myself more of Buddhist than I do to any other faith, but what that has to do with a first class cretin like you is beyond me.

You’re the silly twat who thinks he’s Mr America. “That’s was sooo rad man!!!! Woah!!! We just bombed I-RACK back to the stone age, rad!!!! :cool:


Yeah, Iraq was a utopia of peace and happiness until Bush stole the White House from Gore and ruined it.

Anyone can go back to the beginning of this thread and see what you were trying to pass off. It wasn't rational, but gets pats on the back in certain circles I'd call similar to cults.

If you're only 17, the odds are low you'll remain a veggie for long after high school. Either way I don't care, more power to ya, live however you choose. No one cares if you're eating a salad. It's PETA types who always comment on what others eat. "Eww, you like those eggs? You're eating an aborton!" - is what one once told me at a college cafeteria.

[Kickstand]

What is it about Buddhism that you relate to?

Tolerance.

[Theo]

I'll be a vegetarian until the day I am planted into the ground.


Then good for you. You might even live longer than your fast-food eating friends as a result. (Though your comrade might wanna pass laws about living too long for the same reasons as she advocates laws against having more than one kid.)

It's just not exactly unheard-of for someone to be a political vegetarian in his teen years and outgrow it.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

As has been pointed out, other primates use tools. Not only that, but if you read Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, you find - while he mentions their termite fishing and other uses of tools - that within local groups of chimpanzees they have their own customs and traditions for using tools that get handed down and differ from chimps in other areas.

And there are other animals. A sea otter will find a stone to crack shellfish out of their shells, and will save a good stone for future use. A beaver will buid a dam not just for protection but to make it easier to get food in the winter. There are birds that use tools to get insects out in the open, and there's apparently a bird that uses rocks to smash ostrich eggs.

There are even little ants, according to one site (http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/beasts.html):




And other creatures hunt and often hunt in rather harsh fashion. I've watched what spiders are up to in own home and it's pretty nasty when some poor bug winds up in their web - a net they've set up to catch food.




I don't know what Bush has to do with this, except he's much less a fast-food hamburger-eating pig than his predecessor. Oh yeah, rather than addressing points, you'd rather be able to say you can dismiss them without handling them if someone voted Bush over Kerry. Conventient if you're just pushing bullshit, which you are.

No, I didn't vote for the photo-op goose hunter, Kerry. But on this issue you have more in common with Bush. His religion leads him to oppose abortion and put up blocks to government-funded stem-cell research. I don't know why anyone would feel so worried about stem-cell research, or think that killing a first-trimester fetus is the same as killing an adult person, but then I don't know why anyone would think a fish feels pain and has awareness in exactly the same way as animals with more advanced brains.

And here is where my argument with you shall cease. You are way too ignorant and set in your ways to be persuaded of anything, let alone the benefits of a meat-free diet. Good luck to you. Your entire lifestyle is dependent upon death and destruction, but I'm certain what goes around comes around. Time will tell.

[Theo]

And here is where my argument with you shall cease. You are way too ignorant and set in your ways to be persuaded of anything, let alone the benefits of a meat-free diet. Good luck to you. Your entire lifestyle is dependent upon death and destruction, but I'm certain what goes around comes around. Time will tell.

Death and destruction. Do you think your vegetarian items get to you without any death and destruction? What about all the animals killed by farming equipment? What about the massive environmental damage done by agriculture? What about the additional harm to the environment from transporting vegetarian food to people? Etc. I'm afraid by your logic even vegetarian humans are "pests" and you should do the right thing according to your ideology and just off yourself.

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Death and destruction. Do you think your vegetarian items get to you without any death and destruction? What about all the animals killed by farming equipment? What about the massive environmental damage done by agriculture? What about the additional harm to the environment from transporting vegetarian food to people? Etc. I'm afraid by your logic even vegetarian humans are "pests" and you should do the right thing according to your ideology and just off yourself.

Why should I when it would be so much more fun to 'off' people like you?

[The Crime Of The Century!]

Death and destruction. Do you think your vegetarian items get to you without any death and destruction? What about all the animals killed by farming equipment? What about the massive environmental damage done by agriculture? What about the additional harm to the environment from transporting vegetarian food to people? Etc. I'm afraid by your logic even vegetarian humans are "pests" and you should do the right thing according to your ideology and just off yourself.

Look, I already said - I'm not arguing with you or anyone like you any longer. It's non-productive. Lets just say I disagree with practically every single thing you've said on here and leave it at that.

[Kickstand]

Then good for you. You might even live longer than your fast-food eating friends as a result. (Though your comrade might wanna pass laws about living too long for the same reasons as she advocates laws against having more than one kid.)

It's just not exactly unheard-of for someone to be a political vegetarian in his teen years and outgrow it.

I shan't speak for TCOTC, she can speak for herself, now if she agrees with the one child policy then that's her belief. Maybe I will outlive my friends, maybe I won't, at the end of the day I could walk out into the road and get hit by a bus (crosses his fingers). If people want to eat meat, fine, go ahead, that's your choice, but the reason I am upfront and self righteous on this issue is simply because I've been lectured constantly about how Vegetarianism is bad and all the propaganda that comes with it. I became a vegetarian because I wanted to and I have not had one thought about meat since, I haven't had the urge to eat meat again and I doubt I ever will.

It's not unheard of, but when I have a view on something I rarely change my mind, I am prone to seeing the other argument at times, when a great point has been made. I won't over my political beliefs or vegetarianism.

[Dave]

No, I didn't vote for the photo-op goose hunter, Kerry. But on this issue you have more in common with Bush. His religion leads him to oppose abortion and put up blocks to government-funded stem-cell research. I don't know why anyone would feel so worried about stem-cell research, or think that killing a first-trimester fetus is the same as killing an adult person, but then I don't know why anyone would think a fish feels pain and has awareness in exactly the same way as animals with more advanced brains.

True about Kerry, and I'm reminded of that photo of Dukakis in the tank. That was sort of a predecessor of the Mission Accomplished thing, which was equally as embarrassing.

Now Bush on abortion, though... It's just my opinion but I don't think his position has anything to do with his "religion". It's just party line politics. Didn't he execute retarded people when he was governor? He clearly does not value human life.

About fish pain, I know nothing.

[drunken goldfish]

About fish pain, I know nothing.
Don't get me started :p .

[chica]

Didn't he execute retarded people when he was governor?
He did?! I'm ignorant :p

[Dave]

Don't get me started :p .

too late! :D



He did?! I'm ignorant :p

From Salon.com (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/06/13/death_penalty/index.html)

"We should never execute anyone who is mentally retarded," the president told a group of European reporters who had asked him about growing concern from prominent American diplomats that execution of the retarded was impeding U.S. relations abroad. "And our court system protects people who don't understand the nature of the crime they've committed nor the punishment they are about to receive."

However...

What made Bush's comments particularly remarkable: As governor of Texas, Bush himself presided over several executions of mentally retarded inmates.

Indeed, his governorship was literally ushered in with one such killing: the execution of inmate Mario Marquez on the day of Bush's 1995 inauguration. Bush did not, strictly speaking, sign off on Marquez's execution. But he did approve two other executions that drew worldwide condemnation: Terry Washington in 1997 and Oliver Cruz in 2000. Marquez, Washington and Cruz each "definitely had an I.Q. below 70," says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. An I.Q. of 70 is the universally recognized minimum for normal mental development.



As governor, Bush also authorized the execution of Johnny Paul Penry, who had an I.Q. in the 50s and a mental age of 6. Penry came within four hours of execution in 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed his execution; and last week, the court overturned his death sentence, saying the Texas legal system did not give jurors the proper opportunity for "morally reasoned" consideration of his retardation.

Bush's remarks -- coming just a day before his brother Gov. Jeb Bush signed a ban on executions of the retarded in Florida -- left White House staffers in damage-control mode, denying any shift in position.

The president "has always believed we shouldn't put people to death who are incompetent to understand the charges against them or the difference between right and wrong," senior White House communications advisor Dan Bartlett told Salon. But, he added, "there is some confusion" because in cases like Cruz's and Washington's, Bush believes that I.Q. is not the only measure of retardation. Bush, Bartlett said, believes that someone can learn to understand the difference between right and wrong regardless of I.Q.

The president, Bartlett added, continues to think that a ban on executing the retarded -- like the one signed by his brother and like a similar measure passed by the Texas Legislature that awaits action by Gov. Rick Perry -- is unnecessary. "The president believes juries are the appropriate body" to weigh a defendant's mental status, Bartlett said.

[chica]

The president "has always believed we shouldn't put people to death who are incompetent to understand the charges against them or the difference between right and wrong,"

Bush, Bartlett said, believes that someone can learn to understand the difference between right and wrong regardless of I.Q.
Wow! I am truly amazed by those spins! Kind of like 'We're going to retreat from Iraq, that's why we're sending 20000 more soldiers there'.

[Mmmmmm]

Wow! I am truly amazed by those spins! Kind of like 'We're going to retreat from Iraq, that's why we're sending 20000 more soldiers there'.

Wait !! I have the solution.

Send the 20 000 troops to the Great Lakes instead to control the cormorant population thereby bringing an end to this meandering thread.

[drunken goldfish]

^^Wasn't Saddam responsible for the death of lots of cormorants during the first Gulf war? :p

[Dave]

Can this (http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=200940) be real?