On the topic of Spam and Spam

Norwegians and Japanese are also guilty of whale hunting for 'cultural' reasons. It's my opinion every whaling boat should be sunk, and fuck whoever loses their job because of it.

Lots of Asian countries also overfish, and fish protected species in Australian waters, which also shits me. I want to sink all their boats as well, and fuck whoever loses their job because of it. I don't like fishing, I don't like fish, and I fucking hate people who illegally hunt animals of any kind. The bastards just have no respect and no understanding, and they all need to be shot. Yes, I'm pissed off and have worked myself up - what's your point?

 

Snowmane's reason for not eating fish is basically the same as my own reason for not eating meat of any kind. To eat meat is to participate in murder, regardless of the magnitude of the act.

Sure, you can say that we can just wait until things die naturally and then eat their meat. What you would not perceive is that animals that die naturally have begun to starve and therefore don't have as much meat or as high a quality of that product. Murdering them at the peak of their lives is the most efficient way to get the best meat out of creatures and that's how things are done in our society. Owners of livestock don't wait until their herds start to lose weight; they watch their teeth and once they have worn down to a certain point they are slaughtered. An animal with poor teeth doesn't take in as much food and will soon start to thin. Natural carnivores know to take the weakest in any pool of prey while man would rather select the best and strongest for himself, thereby weakening the pool. The pools of our livestock have become so weakened that the majority of them can no longer survive without our support.

Murder that brings a species to the brink of extinction and murder that merely dents the population of a species are still the same thing at heart. Yet, we have taken things a step farther; human beings domesticate animals to bend them to humanity's purposes. Chickens are bred for egg production and cows are bred for their their weight and the quality of their flesh. We have taken their right to natural evolution and replaced it with an evolution which is dictated by our wants. Although we may have that right I feel it is wrong to exercise it.

The reason I say this is that we have taken our own course of evolution and bent it to our will. Just look where it has gotten us. We have a sense of how our environment affects us and how we can change the environment to better suit our needs. Animals have a sense of how their environment affects them and how they might change themselves to better suit the environment. Human beings are a perverted species in that we exert direct control on our future and we exercise this control in directing the futures of our fellow beings. It is a slavery that spans generations and entire species.

When you pay to purchase a hamburger, or a gallon of milk, or a chunk of cheese, or an egg, you give your consent to that industry to continue its enslavement and mass slaughter of our fellow beings. You become an indirect participant in a murder the magnitude of which we have no concept because nothing so severe has been inflicted on ourselves. Consider if the reign of the Reich had come to be and you yourself were not of the Aryans but merely the domesticated slave of one, and that your father and mother were slaves themselves, and that your entire family line went back for thousands of years as the slaves of the Aryans but that you were ignorant of ALL of the history concerning this. Certainly, fishermen have their quotas and cattle owners have to make ends meet, but the quotas are determined by the money fueling the industry and if it weren't for your input then the industries would have failed long before now. It is the concept of money that permits the abuses today which greatly strain our environment and endanger not only our futures but the futures of everything on this planet. A system where need is matched to one's skill at fulfilling that need would be more just.

Change starts with oneself. The animals haven't lost this understanding. Although Snowmane's choosing not to patronize the fishing industry may be a small thing, if everyone weren't patronizing them then the industry would not be. This is what is at the heart of my choice to be vegetarian. I choose not to patronize the slavery and murder we commit every day by not giving the enactors of these atrocities the wherewithal to continue.

 

So, it still just boils down to killing animals is wrong?

You still haven't answered my question - what's your opinion of animals that hunt, kill and eat other animals? Are they enforcing slavery on those they hunt?

 

Well, actually, for more than the last hundred years 90% of all cattle in the developed world have been clones of the best of each breed. Simple procedure too. That means that the stock actually increases in quality since the worst of each breed are not cloned; only the best are and they are cloned in their thousands. There are farming industries out there that maintain a constant turnover of egg division so that new animals can be farmed off them.

And there is a difference between weakening and dependence. There are hundreds of thousands of different organisms out there that are dependant on another species for survival and if just one in a web of organisms is affected then the whole ecosystem can fail. An easy example of this is the fig and fig wasp. The are both mutually dependant on each other whilst both benefit and neither suffer. If one or the other is harmed then they both die out.

Cattle are merely dependant on humans now. Well, not even really dependant either. About the only thing that they require is milking and food. If they were set free then they would be able to graze themselves, and after just a month or so of not being milked (it would be uncomfortable for them, but not life threatening) then their milk production stops and reverts to the normal process of lactatin only when suckling.

The only factor that really makes a difference is predation, and if you don't think that this happens in the wild then you need to look at reality a bit more. Modern cattle is only very slightly 'weakened' with respect to their more natural cousins in that they tend to be 'juicier' prey.

Not to demean your argument at all, because I agree with some of it (although not enough to make me stop eating the very food that we evolved to eat - I just don't eat certain types), but milking an animal doesn't actually harm the creature. Animals have been milked for thousands and thousands of years, even before domestication occurred and milking doesn't take place once the animal bares offspring and needs to suckle.

I addition, I keep my own free range chickens and don't tend to eat hamburgers of any sort if I can avoid it. All part of the avoiding cruel foods thing.

You're wrong. It's not money, but human greed that causes it. In a society where there was no money, things would occur just the same if you could get something in return for the harvesting of natural resources: whether it be trade in items, other resources, an offer of help in return or anything else that would benefit the harvester in some way.

Again, I'm afraid it would still be there. Smaller no doubt about it, but there would ALWAYS be a need for it, even if it was just a community thing. It would occur on a smaller scale, but there would be more of them for the survival of water-located settlements. There is no way we can ever get rid of the industry save by two means: Making it illegal (but that's never stopped some people, like poachers and Spain) or by completely exhausting the fish stocks and let's just hope that doesn't happen.

 

Ok, I've been biting my tounge, but I'm gonna have to step in here, and say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I have professed many times on these boards to being a farmer. I come from a family that farms beef, pork, chicken, and we catch all the fish we want to eat.

That sentence of yours that I quoted makes no fucking sense. Most "breeds" of animals are around today thanks to the efforts of man. Just like dogs have been bred for special capabilities, hunting and tracking, protection, herding livestock, or just being a good pet, so have livestock been bred for the better.

It's all about effieciency. Nowadays, we can get a cow into the slaughterhouse faster and with less feed than it took 50 years ago. Hell, even 10 years ago. Animals have not been "weakened".

Animals don't "understand". They are wild beasts, through and through. They cannot rationalize or reason. They obey instinct only.

If you think eating meat is murder, fine. No one here is gonna try to change you. Your problem, Chups, is that you push off your holier-than-thou views off on everyone else, or try to down everyone else's viewpoints. People on the forum here get along so well here, Chupa Chups, because we appreciate and respect one another's views. Some people here have vastly different political views. Although that has caused some arguments in the past, no one is an ass about it.

You come off as a loud-mouthed jerk, and I for one am sick of you.

 

You've just made yourself the number one target on Chuppy's hate list.

And number two.

And fourth. I bag third for myself.

 

And lust you forgot lust.

I hear to much of this kind of shit that come from chalupa every blody day. Ohh they are poor animals that we kill. Let me ask you chalupa, do you think an animal cares weather it is killed by a human or another animal. No it does not because "They obey instinct only." The difference is that humans kill them in a much faster and humane way so they suffer very little, hell we even drug down the fish before we kill it.

Yes norway hunt wales, and i'm certain that you all have been given the idea that we are dooing this in such a cruel way as possibole and let the animals suffer for a long time. This is wrong.
You probably also belive that we are hunting endangered species and kill thousands of them every year. This is also wrong.

We hunt vaagewhales,(wich is NOT an endangered species) maybe 700-800 each year spread on a small fleet of maybe 40 boats. The killing is swift, without too much pain to the animal. The whale meat is healty and tastes good. (even though i think it is a little dry, need a lot of good sauce)

It is a million dollar industry, but thanks to a lack of knowledge from other states, and a delibiriate misinformation campaign from for example greenpeace many states does not accept whale meat. Many countries wants to buy whalemeat from us, but other countries threatens them by saying they will cancel trade agreements if they do. Thats called blackmailing...We controll how many whales we have, and shoot a recomended amount of whales each year. The vaagewhale will never be exterminated by our hunting, ever.

 

Lust IS an instinct. Thus it's inclusive.

Has anyone told the Welsh?

Mostly. But then, they're the exception rather than the rule. And Chinese. They are still responsible in some manner for the majority of kills of endagered species, although pissed off African farmers come close. Those medicines of theirs still require a large amount of endangered produce from the black market.

And that's the way it should be for all countries. Whale hunting is actually one of the most controlled type of farming in the world now. Mostly because countries such as Japan massively overfished them and thus international protection laws were put into action. This kind of management is ideal and it is what is being implemented in most fish stocks. Unfortunately, it's far easier to sneak in the odd boatload of endangered fish than it is to sneak in a 100 foot whale.

 

Maybe Cobra is talking about the ability in wild, sometime his wording is too......narrow. Anyway it is true that most livestock depends on human now, due to the slavery done by your human ancestor. That is a strange kind of mutaliam, I would say. Livestock have been bred for the better ------ actually for the better of this cursed realationship, and mostly human mouth.

A famous Chinese ancient writing wrote, "You are not fish, how could you know the happinees of the fishes?" "You are not me, how could you know if I know the happiness of the fihes". Just because you have a cleaner farm, better hamburger, larger cow, don't even say they have become "better" because of all this!

Again, you are not fish. You may say animals never have HUMAN understanding, but do you know what a dog would think when it smell the stinking gas from your diseased :asshole: ? It may want to spend its night (or day, if it prefer) with you to taste it.

Rationalize and reason, so proud human think they are the only species have them, but they never know the "reason" of some other animals' "adnormal act". I would say bull-shitting in a forum is kind of human instinct for some people, as they never rationalize and reason when posting. (not you, retard, although I also quote you.)

Yet on the ground of meat-eating, I don't stop people from eating livestock most of the time.

For meat, I only eat livestock, but never wild animal. Also no meat from those forest-burning bastard's country. And for livestock I mean those animal that are caged thousand years ago. Putting a piegon in a cage doesn't work. It is a shame that Chinese like eating them so much, and torch me when I saw do so.

I think those livestock under my defination are no longer "animal" but "livestock". They have no different with Dolly the sheep. If human are caged and eaten by other animal for such a long time, I would say human would see being eaten as a "natural" dying. I don't know what the livestock think, but it never pains me when I eat them.

I see myself as part of the animal kingdom, so I respect those free animal, their right to live, and freedom, too. As predation is part of the general game rules, I would do so, BUT NO MORE! Think about your own feeling in the situation before doing anything that might harm other animals. Share their instinct, although our "understanding" are different.

One more. Sorry Snowmane, but I have a strange hatred for the fishes and I always eat them first and think later. I will not harm them unless I am hungry but...... they are just tasty, YUM![/quote]

 

You really sure you want to eat 1000 year old meat?

 

I'm sorry, but I cannot, and will not, ever, ever think that killing whales is okay. I won't try to push my views on you though, because you have a right to think what you like, just as I have a right to think what I will.

The methods used for catching fish are horrible. Trawling is one of the worst. The damage it causes, both to the populations that they are fishing for, the ones they aren't, and the reefs or ocean floor is immense. It would be like chopping down a whole forest just to catch a deer.

I doubt that many of you guys have ever had the tasty delicacy that is a BLUE CRAB! Well, these little guys, when hard shelled, involve a mallet and knife, and when soft shelled, invovled lots of little legs. Yum. But anyway, they have been so overfished that they are barely any left in the bay. Any "Maryland" blue crabs you might see for sale don't come from Maryland- they come from Texas and other places. I just find this really sad, and since it's my home, it has particular weight with me. Not that you all care, but we've ruined the Chesepeake bay.

 

while i do believe that if we werent meant to eat meat it wouldnt taste so good, (as in we never would have evolved in a way that caused us to enjoy the taste of meat) but i do believe that we need to think about the ways we eat meat, shark fin soup for example, is a disgustingly barbaric waste of life, in that the sharks are usually thrown back finless, to die in the ocean without any degree of motillity (thats a word right? as in motile? whatever) anyway, while i am not a vegetarian, i do think we should avoid certain types of seafood, such as salmon that didnt grow up on a farm etc. and california sheephead (dont ask about the name if you dont already know why its called that, its because of its coloring) but we've already mutilated the bovine genome through farming so much that it couldnt survive in any other way, they're bread to give a lot of meat, and they all have ridiculously short legs not fit for any kind of terrain, so yeah, the damage is done, pass me the steak sauce. as for whales, why do we need to kill them? their oil? tradition? people who think we NEED whale oil are idiots. But then again vegetarians are second guessing our entire evolutionary process. my motto is MEAT in MODERATION.

 

"Meatpuppet!"

Actually meat doesn`t taste that good in itself. We modify it to taste good; add seasoning, cook it and so on.

We are carnivores by choice, not because our animal-heritage dictates us to..

- Zen

 

ACTUALLY, if we wouldnt taste meat at all if we hadnt evolved a taste for it, in other words, we evolved in a manner that lets us digest the flesh from some otehr animals, and in evolving hat we also evolved traits that allow us to taste the nutrients found in said flesh.

cats are carnivores, and cannot digest stuff like wheat, which is why if you offer a cat a piece of bread, he/she wont touch it, and might lick the salt from a pretzel, but wont take a bite out of it, or a stick of celery. dogs are omnivores however and will gladly eat any of those things. so yes it is because of evolution that we take pleasure in eating meat, because evolution has allowed us to enjoy the taste.

i'm sure ferret could probably explain this better though...

 

For the sake of arguement:

My point: We have evolved past a "carnivore" title set in stone.

We now have, as the only race on this planet, the ability not only to grow and produce our own food, but also to decide at leisure what we would want to eat at any time (well, some of us has), be it based on ethics, culture or taste.

I think that labeling the human race as either this or that is a bit off since a "herbivore"(vegitarian) would never admit to being a "carnivore".

- Zen

 

In Nature, diversity is strength. Diversity allows the pests which plague our crops to survive almost every vector we have taken to remove them. Diversity gives natural animals the leeway to keep the environment and their relationships to it and each other in balance. Diversity has given us the ability to eat just about any food we please. To reduce diversity is to cultivate weakness.

What we have done with our livestock is to reduce their diversity. The only good cow, to us, is a cow that has a lot of meat to give us by its death and a lot of milk to give us by its life. Once the value of the latter is exceeded by the former it is slaughtered. Their definition in life is reduced to a purely arbitrary economic value set by us. The only good crop, to us, is one that uses the land efficiently and yields the highest quality and weight food in the shortest possible harvest cycle. We have even begun to manipulate the genes of these entities so that we can directly affect their development in a very short time instead of cultivating the select ones over generations. What this leads to is the one super cow, the one super produce of any given type. And when ALL of your livestock and produce are of one type, you have placed all of your "eggs in one basket" and eliminated diversity from the gene pool. One pestilence can take the entire lot in one fell swoop. This is what I meant in saying that we have weakened the pool.

To release all of our livestock into the wild would be foolhardy and extremely detrimental to the environment. For one, the strongest predator in any given environment would glut itself on the new source of easy meat and become overpopulated while at the same time depopulating the pool of prey. This would whiplash into the predators starving in the long run and the effect would cascade into the entire food web that Nature has been fine tuning since the beginning of life on Earth. Of course the web would stabilize itself again but at a cost in suffering and whole species which might exceed what we have done in our short time here.

I don't hold it against the wolf that he must kill the sheep in order to live. In fact, I encourage him to do so as that is his natural way. It checks the sheep so that they don't overgraze their lands and thereby end up starving. The wolf provides a second service to the sheep in that he weeds their gene pool of any deficient strains that might be trying to surface. The sheep in turn monitor the wolf's genes. This is entirely different from the way that we have chosen to meddle with our sources of food. The sheep are not the slaves of the wolf. The wolf encourages the good of the environment while mankind encourages the propagation of himself; it is a positive feedback loop, something which sounds good but which can only result in further suffering.

Deker is right to say that we don't have a complete understanding of the way animals feel about the whole thing. But I know that animals have an understanding of what it is to die. They know the meaning of fear. They know the meaning of pain. To kill animals and then consume their flesh is to blatantly show our misunderstanding of them. Zen is right to say that we have a choice. VERY few animals besides ourselves have this choice to the extent that we do. I feel that we should exercise our choice to spare the animals' suffering. Not only are there better sources of food, but plants make a more efficient use of the environment; you don't see animals living primarily on sunlight.

retard, I take offense at the double standard you hold at me. Instead of asking me to silence you should be asking me to clarify my stance, that is, if you REALLY "respect one another's views". I'm not pushing off my "holier-than-thou" views on you. I'm not saying, "EAT VEGETARIAN YOU CANNIBALISTIC FARMER SON-OF-A-BITCH OR YOU WILL DIE LIKE A PIG WITH ITS THROAT SLIT AND THE LIFE SLOWLY DRAINING OUT OF YOU AS YOU LOOK AT THE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN (by the way, that DOES happen to be the most efficient way to bleed a pig, unless you like your pork with half-congealed pig's blood in it; the heart pumps most of the blood out so you don't have to deal with it while you enjoy your meal)!" I'm not jibing the opinions of others as you have so flagrantly done to my own. I'm merely voicing my opinion as others here are voicing theirs. Understanding is not necessarily a cognizant act and you obviously have yet to learn this.

 

Re: For the sake of arguement:

True. Whilst we are strictly omnivores and not carnivores, our ability to actually digest plant matter is vastly inferior to the ability to digest animal matter. We can choose what we want to eat, and we can choose to eat nothing but vegetables if we wish, but in order to be at our healthiest and most efficient we need a diet rich in meat products. It's what we are evolutionarily designed to do. Our ability to eat other things is through choice, not ability. We can eat chunks of lead if we wish, but it'll do not one bit of good to our systems.

Actually, we were the second race to ever discover farming and produce production. The first species to ever discover this is the leaf cutter ant and they've been doing it since we were still carnivorous savages. Some other ants also 'farm' aphids, but that was a comparatively late development and not exclusive anyway.

We're labelled 'Omnivore', but biologically and physiologically speaking, we're still fundamental carnivores - all of us.

You mean that it doesn't matter that we can't make use of the plants? Sure, they make more efficient use of the environment, but mass for mass, organism for organism, we need to destroy nearly 1000 times more plant material in order to gain the same nutritional value of animal. Is THAT efficient? I think you'll find it far LESS efficient to eat plants than animals. You're only looking at the primary resource level and not the secondary or teritiary level. Even with the lack of efficency of uptake of resources through the levels, it is still more efficient for us to partake of the consumer levels than it is to partake of the primary levels.

 

I don't know about your intake levels, Ferret, but I've been subsisting on a diet mainly consisting of starches and cereals with a bit of dairy, vegetables, and legumes thrown in for the past year and a half. I would gauge that intake at about a pound or two a day. I'm 5'9" and I weigh 145 pounds and have maintained that weight for at least the last year and a half. I doubt that the same could be said if I were subsisting on one thousandth of a pound or two of meat coupled with essential vitamins and minerals. Your allusions to the inefficiency of a vegetarian diet seem completely blown out of proportion. I went in to see my doctor about two months ago and he told me that I was in the best of health.

 

From that description, I can deduce that while you may be thin, you have pretty much no muscle, thus you can't really be in perfect health, can you? Congratulations on achieving the Left wing bleeding heart pansy assed weakling vegan hippy stereotype.

The only doctors I listen to now are the ones I'm related to (two, before any questions me), and I know that they're smart, I know that they know what they're talking about - I can't say the same for any other doctors.

And if you're into such a vegan lifestyle, what's with the dairy in your diet, huh?

 

I never said I was vegan. I feel that one can own some sort of lactating animal to provide cheese and milk on a personal level without having to subjugate thousands of livestock in a factory-style death camp. That I don't own one is evidence of my life in a city as well as my poverty. I'm sure these are just two more traits of a "Left wing bleeding heart pansy assed weakling vegan hippy stereotype" but I hope that you will some day overcome your prejudices (what's funny is that you thought I was a right wing religious type at first impression). I'll have you know that I can give most carnivores a good run for their money in an arm wrestling contest and I am an undefeated leg wrestler.