Vegans and Vegetarians: a question RE: fake crab...

[Rose]

> But meat IS murder. Meat means that an animal was killed against
> its will so that someone could have dinner. That to me is just
> as bad as cannibalism. I see very little difference here.

murder: n. the crime of unlawfully killing a PERSON esp. with malice aforethought

> It is murder because the end result is that the animals die;
> thus we have murdered them.

so if someone falls off a building is that murder? because, after all, the end result is that person dies.

>And you don't know that murder is
> just a human concept unless you talk to animals and understand
> what they are saying. I'm sure animals have a sense of evil and
> what constitutes murder.

what...?

> First of all, it isn't natural for us to eat meat. I've studied
> alot of primate anatomy and just by looking at the difference in
> dental features between a carnivore and herbivore, it's plain to
> see that humans are much closer to herbivores

then why, pray tell, do we have sharp incisors?

In addition, if
> it was so natural for us to eat meat, why does it remain to be
> the leading cause of colon-rectal cancers and greatly
> contributes to heart disease?

well if it was so natural for us to have sex, why do all those nasty diseases exist? come on, there's a bad side to everything.

> If meat tastes so good, why do we like to cook it and add so
> many spices to it? I think you are not realizing that we spend a
> great amount of time and energy covering up for the awful taste
> of meat and the people who do eat it raw are seen as taboo.

um, do you use salad dressing?

[IMPOSTER]

> Despite this argument, all it boils down to is how you
> personally feel on the issue. If you're a vegetarian, more power
> to ya...but like most things, it's all about making individual
> choices and we shouldn't chastise others for not sharing the
> same convictions...vegetarian or otherwise.

That's what my throbbing cousin, a notorious paedophile, always said. Nobody listened.

[Kirstie]

> so if someone falls off a building is that murder? because,
> after all, the end result is that person dies.

You must be joking with this comment. It is obvious that if someone falls off a building, it was an accident at her/his own hands (unless pushed off in which case it would be murder) We purposefully take the lives of animals so we have something on our plates. There's a huge difference. Please don't take my words out of context because when you do it sounds pretty ridiculous.

> what...?

> then why, pray tell, do we have sharp incisors?

Compare our incisors to animals that are mainly carnivorian and you will see we are closer (although we have characteristics of each granted) to a herbivore. I'm getting this information from my Primate Anatomy class here. I trust that it is accurate. Just the fact that we have to cook our meat to tenderize it and because our bodies cannot take the bacteria involved without getting sick while true carnivores don't should give you a clue. I'd encourage you to look into it.

> In addition, if

> well if it was so natural for us to have sex, why do all those
> nasty diseases exist? come on, there's a bad side to everything.

Well, this is a whole nother topic but if you want my abbreviated opinion on it, I think promiscuous sex is what you are talking about and I think nonpromiscous sex is more what I think what we are equipped for and would be less likely to lead to these diseases. yes there is a bad side to everything but you are stretching it quite a bit.

Kirstie

[Kirstie]

> Despite this argument, all it boils down to is how you
> personally feel on the issue. If you're a vegetarian, more power
> to ya...but like most things, it's all about making individual
> choices and we shouldn't chastise others for not sharing the
> same convictions...vegetarian or otherwise.

yeah..so when was I chastising anyone? I don't really ram this opinion down people's throats if you must know. It only enters my daily conversations when others bring it up and I have many friends who are not vegetarians. You're right-everyone does have the right to make choices for her/himself. I never suggested that wasn't a right.I may not agree with the decisions that they have made is all but you get nowhere (I've found) by making disparaging, condescending remarks to people who do eat meat. I live my life by example and usually leave it at that.

Kirstie

[Rose]

> You must be joking with this comment. It is obvious that if
> someone falls off a building, it was an accident at her/his own
> hands (unless pushed off in which case it would be murder) We
> purposefully take the lives of animals so we have something on
> our plates. There's a huge difference. Please don't take my
> words out of context because when you do it sounds pretty
> ridiculous.

yes i know. and i meant it to sound extreme. i understood you, but taken in the context of your general tone at certain times, you sounded pretty ridiculous too.

> Compare our incisors to animals that are mainly carnivorian and
> you will see we are closer (although we have characteristics of
> each granted) to a herbivore. I'm getting this information from
> my Primate Anatomy class here. I trust that it is accurate.

i know that too. we're really omnivores, so we're equipped for any food if you think about it.
Just
> the fact that we have to cook our meat to tenderize it and
> because our bodies cannot take the bacteria involved without
> getting sick while true carnivores don't should give you a clue.
> I'd encourage you to look into it.

believe me i'm not ignorant of the dangers of eating meat, in extreme quantities. in moderation, there's not too much danger. and i agree with bornmad that we kind of (d?)evolved ourselves into this problem.

> Well, this is a whole nother topic but if you want my
> abbreviated opinion on it, I think promiscuous sex is what you
> are talking about and I think nonpromiscous sex is more what I
> think what we are equipped for and would be less likely to lead
> to these diseases. yes there is a bad side to everything but you
> are stretching it quite a bit.

actually, we're equipped for sex, just sex. how much or how little is up to the individual. and of course i'm talking about promiscuous sex. and why not? to most people it carries a stigma much like the one you assign to people who eat a lot of meat. so if you think about it, for arguments' sake, they're not that different.

and i thank you for picking up on the extreme, sometimes silly quality of my response. i was trying very hard to sound like you.

[Kirstie]

> yes i know. and i meant it to sound extreme. i understood you,
> but taken in the context of your general tone at certain times,
> you sounded pretty ridiculous too.

> and i thank you for picking up on the extreme, sometimes silly
> quality of my response. i was trying very hard to sound like
> you.

I really shouldn't even reply to this because it's obvious you have gone out of your way to be intentionally negative and condescending when really what is your point!

But I'd like to say that alot of what I said was a product of my college education,not just something I was just spouting off radically. I have put alot of time and thought into my actions and what I have said which is something you seem to have missed.

In addition, if you think I'm a radical or an activist, well then I think you should get out more. I was responding to the topic is all. It is something I have opinions on. It is clear you have opinions on it too, only yours resorted to disparaging comments which was not the intention of the topic.

Kirstie

[Rose]

> I really shouldn't even reply to this because it's obvious you
> have gone out of your way to be intentionally negative and
> condescending when really what is your point!

> But I'd like to say that alot of what I said was a product of my
> college education,not just something I was just spouting off
> radically. I have put alot of time and thought into my actions
> and what I have said which is something you seem to have missed.

> In addition, if you think I'm a radical or an activist, well
> then I think you should get out more. I was responding to the
> topic is all. It is something I have opinions on. It is clear
> you have opinions on it too, only yours resorted to disparaging
> comments which was not the intention of the topic.

well here i go, having to defend myself. believe me, i got the point that you basing your views on what you learned in college, and i also know that you know what you're talking about, since you sound intelligent. i'm not an idiot. i know that what you're saying is essentially true. and no i don't think you're radical or an activist. if you think i'm a conservative, then you don't know me at all. however, some of the things you said, although surrounded by some excellent points, were kind of weak, and if you'll notice, that's what i attacked for the most part. um, no, my opinions are very sound, and i don't have to resort to what you call disparaging comments. if it sounded that horribly offensive, you missed my point. and i fully understand the intention of the topic. actually, now i'm offended. i feel as though you're implying i'm some ignorant fool who's too stupid to see the intention of a post on a message board. and if you felt you shouldn't respond, why did you? i'm really curious.

[Pacifist]

The West Point Cadet (our tax dollars hard at work: building white hot American killers since 1802!) wrote:
>well here i go, having to defend myself.
Please, don't bring your guns off the practice field in here! We're kind, gentle people!
>...believe me, i got the
> point that you basing your views on what you learned in college,
> and i also know that you know what you're talking about, since
> you sound intelligent. i'm not an idiot.
Yes, you are. You're in the military-therefore you think it's ok to shoot PEOPLE! Therefore animals really don't stand much chance of being defended by you, do they? Anyone would kill another living being has little regard for the wonder of life. "Shoot'em all, let God sort'em out!" Right? Gung ho, soldier!
> i know that what you're
> saying is essentially true. and no i don't think you're radical
> or an activist.
Then why are you being a total jerk? Kirstie wasn't being condescending at all. She was discussing her beliefs. You're the one that took this whole discussion into lettered fisticuffs. Completely classless and crude. What is wrong with being radical or an activist, anyway? If such people were crushed by people like you, we'd all be living in caves picking fleas off of one another instead of warm and cozy in our free Army gear. Oops, that's you, not us.
>if you think i'm a conservative, then you don't
> know me at all.
So not all people who think it's ok to shoot people and whore their souls for a college education are conservative? Silly us.
>however, some of the things you said, although
> surrounded by some excellent points, were kind of weak, and if
> you'll notice, that's what i attacked for the most part.
No, actually you attacked with no finesse at all. I'm glad I don't know you. If I did, I'd have to reevaluate spending time with you. Embarassing, really. Did you actually read the whole thread?
> um, no,
> my opinions are very sound, and i don't have to resort to what
> you call disparaging comments.
See, that's funny, because we all think you're the one who started them. Everyone else was having a discussion. Perhaps you were just trying to work off some of that salt-peter sexual frustration. Why not go pick up townies along the river instead?
>if it sounded that horribly
> offensive, you missed my point.
That's because you can't write.
>and i fully understand the
> intention of the topic. actually, now i'm offended. i feel as
> though you're implying i'm some ignorant fool who's too stupid
> to see the intention of a post on a message board.
Why is it that stupid people always end up sounding defensive? Then they usually attack again...
>and if you
> felt you shouldn't respond, why did you? i'm really curious.
There we go. Nice finish.

"Give peas a chance."


USMA=West Point

[Rose]

> The West Point Cadet (our tax dollars hard at work: building
> white hot American killers since 1802!) wrote:

wow, you're perceptive.

> Please, don't bring your guns off the practice field in here!
> We're kind, gentle people!
> Yes, you are. You're in the military-therefore you think it's ok
> to shoot PEOPLE!

no i don't. i think killing people in any context, war or peace, is wrong. and thanks for basically calling half my family idiots. i appreciate it.

Anyone would kill
> another living being has little regard for the wonder of life.
> "Shoot'em all, let God sort'em out!" Right? Gung ho,
> soldier!

shoot em all? have you ever heard of the laws of war?

> Then why are you being a total jerk? Kirstie wasn't being
> condescending at all. She was discussing her beliefs. You're the
> one that took this whole discussion into lettered fisticuffs.
> Completely classless and crude.

whoa. i didn't realize what i said would sound so offensive. i do have a tendency toward bluntness. whatever pissed you off so much was completely unintentional.

What is wrong with being radical
> or an activist, anyway?

did i say there was anything wrong with being radical or an activist?

If such people were crushed by people
> like you, we'd all be living in caves picking fleas off of one
> another instead of warm and cozy in our free Army gear. Oops,
> that's you, not us.

people like me? what kind of person am i?

> So not all people who think it's ok to shoot people and whore
> their souls for a college education are conservative?

niiiiice. way to stereotype.
and no i'm not conservative. if you must know, this place grates against my personality and beliefs. every day i have to bite my tongue and tap my feet to keep from saying things that could get me in a lot of trouble. one of the many reasons i'm not staying here.

> No, actually you attacked with no finesse at all. I'm glad I
> don't know you. If I did, I'd have to reevaluate spending time
> with you. Embarassing, really. Did you actually read the whole
> thread?

did i even pretend to have any finesse? no, i was just saying what i was thinking. i didn't feel a need to wrap it in pretty words. and yes i did read the whole thread. nice how you jump to conclusions about my personality too. good job.

> See, that's funny, because we all think you're the one who
> started them. Everyone else was having a discussion. Perhaps you
> were just trying to work off some of that salt-peter sexual
> frustration.

oh it gets worked off. once again, whatever made you so angry was unintentional on my part. either that, or misinterpreted.

>Why not go pick up townies along the river instead?

so i see you've been here before.

> That's because you can't write.

now that was a cheap shot.

> Why is it that stupid people always end up sounding defensive?
> Then they usually attack again...

why is it that people who get offended at the drop of a hat can't seem to let things go?

wow, for a pacifist, you wrote some pretty violent words. i love how you consistently say things about me that are just flat out wrong.

[Kirstie]

>What is wrong with being radical
> or an activist, anyway?

hey-I want to talk about this. It is definitely something I have very mixed feelings about. I'm very tempted to join into fur protesting squads and things like that all the time but I keep relatively quiet about my beliefs unless they are brung up by someone else. So then I feel like a hypocrite. When someone passes me wearing a fur coat, I have tremendous urges to lecture them or yell animal killer at them (I've actually said it under my breath a couple of times hoping it might reach a subconscious note later on) but then I feel ashamed of myself and am just like, "Well, everyone has to live their own life and you aren't going to make any difference by pissing others off" and there I go again, basically back to my living my life by example, which has actually worked quite well in the sense that a couple of friends I have that are carnivores are now very interested in going vegetarian. So I feel like I am constantly walking this thin line between what my heart wants to do and what my brain says to do. I'm really torn about it. Does anyone think animal activists actually make a difference and change people's minds? Or are they just considered irritating by the public who tends to shut them out?

Kirstie

[Folly]

WHAT on earth are you refering to- military and shooting people dead?! I found no such comment in Rose's posts. My next point would be, what in blarney are you taking while reading this board to NOT understand that Rose was being insightful and a bit sarcastic in her responses to Kirstie? I have already brought up that they are obviously both very intelligent people with differing views, and since Kirstie feels so strongly about a subject that most people look the other way at, she may be on a slight defense, which is also ok. They have since made up, I believe!

As far as activists go, and it being ok to be one...I have no problem with them, except that one who is believed to be an activist (and this is entirely MY take on it, I haven't pulled this out of an encyclopedia or dictionary or what-not) is someone who feels very strongly about a cause (or many causes, whatever their stress level can handle) and tends to try to persuade many others to believe the way they believe by protests, speeches, meetings, etc. They can get a tad overzealous as far as I have experienced, but I admire their gumption and zeal as well. It isn't something I would choose as a career, much less something to do in my spare time. I have my causes, but I work a bit more on the side than someone who takes much of their time supporting their cause by being what I would call an activist.

I think the word itself is the thing that spurs more response than anything else. It has been placed in a negative connotation by those who look at someone who is an activist and doesn't support what they are trying to give information on. And besides, look at what an activist can do to make their cause look bad:

Shoot doctors (abortion clinics, I mean)
Dump red paint on someone wearing something made from and animal
Blow up buildings, cars, ships, people...
Hi-jack airplanes, cars, transportation in general...

THESE are the people I believe who give 'activism' a nasty sound.

But my main point in my post here to you is this :

PASS OVER THE CRACK PIPE, baby. You are COOKED!

Unless you have a sound explanation of why you went off like that?

Oh, and I don't care anyway!

Ta!

[Andrew]

> That's what my throbbing cousin, a notorious paedophile, always
> said. Nobody listened.

paedophilia is a criminal act, punished by law.
eating meat is not.

[Andrew]

Hi Kirstie,
I think you should indeed do the opposite: not join furr squad protests but live according to your opinions and explain them hoping more people will come to the same conclusion.

Shouting at people, destroying furr coats etc. does not serve the cause of any animal. Moreover, you hurt the individual who, for one, will not be very likely ever to find any point in the whole debate.

I think the best way is indeed to live by example, and to try to persuade people you are close with.

If we all tried in honesty and dignity?

[george]

> WHAT on earth are you refering to- military and shooting people
> dead?! I found no such comment in Rose's posts. My next point
> would be, what in blarney are you taking while reading this
> board to NOT understand that Rose was being insightful and a bit
> sarcastic in her responses to Kirstie? I have already brought up
> that they are obviously both very intelligent people with
> differing views, and since Kirstie feels so strongly about a
> subject that most people look the other way at, she may be on a
> slight defense, which is also ok. They have since made up, I
> believe!

> As far as activists go, and it being ok to be one...I have no
> problem with them, except that one who is believed to be an
> activist (and this is entirely MY take on it, I haven't pulled
> this out of an encyclopedia or dictionary or what-not) is
> someone who feels very strongly about a cause (or many causes,
> whatever their stress level can handle) and tends to try to
> persuade many others to believe the way they believe by
> protests, speeches, meetings, etc. They can get a tad
> overzealous as far as I have experienced, but I admire their
> gumption and zeal as well. It isn't something I would choose as
> a career, much less something to do in my spare time. I have my
> causes, but I work a bit more on the side than someone who takes
> much of their time supporting their cause by being what I would
> call an activist.

> I think the word itself is the thing that spurs more response
> than anything else. It has been placed in a negative connotation
> by those who look at someone who is an activist and doesn't
> support what they are trying to give information on. And
> besides, look at what an activist can do to make their cause
> look bad:

> Shoot doctors (abortion clinics, I mean)
> Dump red paint on someone wearing something made from and animal
> Blow up buildings, cars, ships, people...
> Hi-jack airplanes, cars, transportation in general...

> THESE are the people I believe who give 'activism' a nasty
> sound.

> But my main point in my post here to you is this :

> PASS OVER THE CRACK PIPE, baby. You are COOKED!

> Unless you have a sound explanation of why you went off like
> that?

> Oh, and I don't care anyway!

> Ta!

Judging by your long post, I'd say you care.

[IMPOSTER]

> paedophilia is a criminal act, punished by law.
> eating meat is not.

So everything that is lawful is acceptable? Interesting!

How do acts become illegal then? Until slavery was outlawed, was it okay to benefit from it? Just a matter of personal choice? It must have been thought of by SOME PEOPLE to be morally unacceptable, which is why the practice ended. Were they wrong? Should they have left everyone (and by everyone, of course, I mean whites) to decide for themselves?

[Andrew]

> So everything that is lawful is acceptable? Interesting!

> How do acts become illegal then? Until slavery was outlawed, was
> it okay to benefit from it? Just a matter of personal choice? It
> must have been thought of by SOME PEOPLE to be morally
> unacceptable, which is why the practice ended. Were they wrong?
> Should they have left everyone (and by everyone, of course, I
> mean whites) to decide for themselves?

You miss the point, rather.
It's of no use to compare freedom of choice to lawlessness.
That's my point. You can't compare those two.

It's a mistake in reasoning to infer from the difference between paedophilia as crime and eating meat as not that "everything lawful is acceptable".
That, again, is NOT the question. I hope you did not make the mistake on purpose.
There are perfectly legal acts that are morally unacceptable; there are morally acceptable acts that are perfectly illegal.

[IMPOSTER]

> You miss the point, rather.
> It's of no use to compare freedom of choice to lawlessness.
> That's my point. You can't compare those two.

> It's a mistake in reasoning to infer from the difference between
> paedophilia as crime and eating meat as not that
> "everything lawful is acceptable".
> That, again, is NOT the question. I hope you did not make the
> mistake on purpose.
> There are perfectly legal acts that are morally unacceptable;
> there are morally acceptable acts that are perfectly illegal.

Well, of course! But given that you accept the above, what was your original point? There really doesn't seem to have been one. Why bring legality into it in the first place?

What is "NOT the question"?

Also, it seems necessary now (it would have been pedantry previously, or so I thought), to point out that paedophilia is NOT a crime where I live, and probably not where you live either. It doesn't stop those who would condemn the "throbbing cousin" of my original joke.

[Kirstie]

> Also, it seems necessary now (it would have been pedantry
> previously, or so I thought), to point out that paedophilia is
> NOT a crime where I live, and probably not where you live
> either. It doesn't stop those who would condemn the
> "throbbing cousin" of my original joke.

well, it is a crime to act on those paedophilic urges.

I have to say I liked the point about slavery from the last post. It's good to question things that are and are not (and have not been in the past) made as laws. It makes me think how people would react if it was made a law to not kill animals (although, I think this may never happen or atleast it is a very long while off). Laws are too aligned with culture in the sense of what others see as acceptable. When the majority sees something as unacceptable, it sometimes becomes a law. Isn't there some kind of law (either spoken or unspoken) in India that you cannot kill cows because they value them as sacred in that culture? If only Americans were more like that-only with all animals. Anyhow, this is an interesting discussion and I can't help but remark how I love the distinct opinions made. It's so refreshing in comparison to wishy washyness.

Kirstie

[Andrew]

> Well, of course! But given that you accept the above, what was
> your original point? There really doesn't seem to have been one.
> Why bring legality into it in the first place?

I quote your answer to what started it:

> Despite this argument, all it boils down to is how you
> personally feel on the issue. If you're a vegetarian, more power
> to ya...but like most things, it's all about making individual
> choices and we shouldn't chastise others for not sharing the
> same convictions...vegetarian or otherwise.

"That's what my throbbing cousin, a notorious paedophile, always said. Nobody listened. "

You tell me, dear, if the implication was NOT that you disagree with free choice comparing it to lawlessness.
Why legality? Because, in the place where I live, paedophilia is a crime. You get busted. Eating meat won't.
My original point was that you made a wrong and very questionable comparison, equating something that was legally wrong to something that was not. In cases of legally wrong actions, the choices of the individual are per s? limited - by law that is.

> What is "NOT the question"?

it is not the question whether you have to see whether there are morally acceptable acts that are yet illegal, and then immoral acts that are legal, and then generalising the moral stance or the immoral one. That is not the concept of free choice. The "personally feel" from the original post was not hinting at generalising to the "illegal" cases.

> Also, it seems necessary now (it would have been pedantry
> previously, or so I thought), to point out that paedophilia is
> NOT a crime where I live, and probably not where you live
> either. It doesn't stop those who would condemn the
> "throbbing cousin" of my original joke.

In the place I live, and the places I have lived, it is a crime. Adults having sex with persons under 18 do get convicted. Regardless of the fact whether there was mutual consent or not.

What IS the point, is this: your "original" joke is such a very "original" one. Every time there's a debate on free choice and personal values, you get this kind of nonsense. The joke, if you consider it to be a joke, is shifting the discussion towards a pane it is never intended to be brought upon.
And don't try to push me into accepting the presupposition that it was ME who brought in the point of legality: when you linked the question of free choice to the paedophile "joke", you introduced it. In most countries I know, paedophilia is indeed a crime.

[Andrew]

> well, it is a crime to act on those paedophilic urges.

For the record, in Ancient Greece (take the philosopher's period, Plato), having sex with minors was not considered a crime.
"Oh the times .. they are changin'."

> I have to say I liked the point about slavery from the last
> post. It's good to question things that are and are not (and
> have not been in the past) made as laws. It makes me think how
> people would react if it was made a law to not kill animals
> (although, I think this may never happen or atleast it is a very
> long while off). Laws are too aligned with culture in the sense
> of what others see as acceptable. When the majority sees
> something as unacceptable, it sometimes becomes a law.

not necessarily, though. It depends on the system you're living in: who makes the law? In dictatorships or with "enlightened" despots, it's not the majority. In democracies, it is generally the majority (I omit some very tricky cases).
"Laws are too aligned with culture ..." you write. Yes. What is not? What you may consider morally wrong (not necessarily illegal, though) also depends on cultural values. There were indeed times when people thought that slavery was morally NOT wrong; the laws followed. There was a time when the German people agreed that Jews are rankless citizens, laws followed.
There have been moments in which other people found that slavery and racial discrimination was morally wrong, they made their point very clear, and the law followed.
So, and this goes back to the point about activism, it has been much more fruitful to continue to explain and argue about opinions, being explicit about your views, and not admitting fake representations, than to burn buildings, insult people or what not.
When violence wins from communication, totalitarianism is knocking on the door.

> Isn't
> there some kind of law (either spoken or unspoken) in India that
> you cannot kill cows because they value them as sacred in that
> culture?

The cow is indeed a holy animal in India. So are rats in some monasteries there as well. They can indeed not be killed - as far as religion is concerned. I am unaware of what the Indian law would say about those cases (depends on the degree of theocracy they have - I can't tell). It certainly is considered morally wrong - but don't let them fool you. They DO kill other animals. It's not because they are against animal killing ...
(note however that the 'true' hindu and/or buddhist saints refuse to kill animals - in contrast to their christian counterparts - even religions differ).

> If only Americans were more like that-only with all
> animals. Anyhow, this is an interesting discussion and I can't
> help but remark how I love the distinct opinions made. It's so
> refreshing in comparison to wishy washyness.

you're welcome. Only striving to improve, we are, aren't we?
Andrew

> Kirstie