I have to point out the first absolutely stupid thing you said: I don't hunt, skin, and prepare cows because I don't have to. I have hunted and killed deer before. Yes, with a gun. Yes, they had no chance. Yes, they tasted wonderful. I hate the site of blood, you're correct. I also hate the site of human feces, but I still use public septic systems.

MentatMM, why do you defend animals? Animals eat animals, we are animals, and we are able to, without forcing any animals into extinction via environmental intervention, care for and raise animals to eventually be eaten. We need to consume food, and animals are an effective source of food.

We, like all animals, have a need to extend our lifespan. I am more than willing to test AIDs on rats and bunnies and even primates if it's going to save mankind. You go to Africa and you look billions of people in the eyes and you tell them that the combined efforts of idiot right-wingers protecting useless Stem Cells, and idiot left-wingers protecting lab rats is why they have to die knowing that their children will die for the exact same reason. You are the sick and compassionless one, not I for eating cow and supporting rat testing.

My "far right-winged" argument still stands. The western society allows you to take supplements, replacements, and substitutes for meat intake. Your idea of "far right-winged" is my idea of "realistic." You're romanced by the lovely concept of saving mother nature's babies, yet you fail to realize that scope of your statements. You could not live like you do in a poorer nation. You could not care about the sheep that you sheer for warmth in a developing country. You could not sympathize with a primal being that you depend on for food. The western world cradles your weak conscience, and you can't just live in peace by avoiding the situation with your so called vegetarianism. Instead, you have to share your sick guilt. I, for one, won’t give you the time of day, and I certainly won’t let you sit here and tell me terrorism is the proper method of sharing your sick guilt. Terrorism is not a method of informing anyone. It is a fear mongering tactic, and it is unproductive at actually accomplishing anything.

Edit: I was just thinking about shooting and skinning and eating my own deer: I love doing it. I worked at a gas station a couple of times (A family I know owns the place, so it was a favor more than a job) making sausage out of deer people bring in. I ate so much deer jerkey I almost got sick. I ate it even after shoving bloody carcasses into a grinder all day. Do I think it's unfair to kill deer without using my bare hands? Not at all. I used a tool, just like a chimp uses a tool to scoop out thousands of ant larvea from a tree trunk. Oh, sorry, ants along with plants can't mope and cry when eaten, so it's no big deal.

... I'm not entirely sure how you connect vegetarianism with terrorism. That makes absolutely no sense.

We're talking about organizations connected with PETA that firebomb research facilities and violate private property laws in order to "liberate" animals, thus causing environmental catastrophe.

None of this changes the fact that cows are delicious.

Amen.

I will say this... I didn't read any of this thread.. but I am all for People Eating Tiny Animals..... (now if i could only remember where that joke originated)

Isuwen, Kirbs... you're both missing the bigger picture here.

All animals are equally delicious.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]Isuwen, Kirbs... you're both missing the bigger picture here.

All animals are equally delicious.[/QUOTE]
I would have to disagree. I think that, generally, beef is significantly more delicious than lamb. Lamb typically has that foul, liver-like flavor unless it is the proper cut that is prepared just right.

Emon is right. Turkey is also much more delicious than chicken (not to disparage chicken, which is also delicious).

Could you point out who made a post that linked the two? I'd love to go off on them...

This thread reminds me of the vegan who gets eaten by Lrrr, ruler of Omicron Persei 8 and off my favorite animated exchange of dialogue:

I love Futurama.

I have 15 minutes before I must leave for work (my car is warming up as I type this)...


While I have already agreed that I don't believe that all of what PETA does is good, I was actually referring to the ALF, since you continue to confuse them with PETA. Please re-read my initial statement that PETA does more good than harm.


That's pretty cheap. I stated initially, even before this thread started, that I would most likely not have time to participate once the work week started. Some of us work 10+ hour work days and have girlfriends and hobbies on the side. Excuse me for having a life and not wishing to waste my little time debating an issue that no one is going to change their mind on in the first place. I have made my point, you all know where I stand, and this is no longer a debate, it's simply a group of people saying the same thing over and over again.


They should be held responsible for not backing up their own data, yes. I could care less about whether they have "terrorist insurance" or not...


Sprinklers aren't a viable replacement for off-site backup. What year is this? I've worked for small companies that have had off-site backup since the mid-90's.

Kirby: I may try to take a few minutes this evening, if my girlfriend doesn't come over, to respond to your thread, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I've already answered this once before. It seems as if you're skipping posts.

So, because an extemist group came in and destroyed their files, it's their own fault for not have planning ahead for such a situation? That doesn't seem like a good stance. If someone were to go into a medical office right now and torch the place, is that facility at fault for not having "anti-fire-bombing protocalls" or is the person who threw a few jugs of gasoline into the building at fault?

Roach, it's simple.

MentatMM (and the other PETA folks) don't like what those doctors did, so if anything bad happens to them it's their fault. The pro-lifers make the same argument every time they firebomb an abortion clinic or murder an abortion doctor: it's their fault because they shouldn't be killing babies.

It's immoral and infair to test medicines on animals. We should test medicines and perform dissections on people instead. Mentat is exactly right: the Japanese and the Nazis had the right ideas. The Chinese and the Jewish are much more disposable than rats and chimps.

Do you all understand now?

Why don't we also eat people instead?

The way I see it:

When animals are killed, I get my delicious meat products.

If a lot of animals are killed continuously, there won't be any meat left for my delicious meat products.

In other words, we need to have animals in order for me to get my delicious meat products.

So if Americans weren't warmongers, they could use their 60 years of advancement to ensure that I will always have animals whose meat will give me delicious meat products.

burgerfinn

How does the United States' 50 year advance in military technology translate into what is obviously a commercial product.

50!? I can't really accept that, 60 is a bigger number.

doesn't it seem humane to shoot an amimal in the woods rather than leaving it to starve to death in old age or be taken down and watch itself be eaten belly first by predators?

If the demand for animal eat remains high, there will be increased breeding to meet the demand. We'll never "run out of" animals. That's just argumentum ad absurdum.

This is the reason why endangered species animals go extinct. There is absolutly no demand (except for groups like PETA) to save the north african spotted horned blotchy white-beard licking owl. However, there is a great demand for cows and beef, and there are just as many cows as there ever have been.

There are more. In fact, cattle ranching contributes more to global warming and deforestation than any other human activity.

And the Upper Eurasian Spined Cabbage Lizard died out because it was a crappy animal who evolved the ability to not be able to digest cabbage anymore.

How exactly did that happen?

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]doesn't it seem humane to shoot an amimal in the woods rather than leaving it to starve to death in old age or be taken down and watch itself be eaten belly first by predators?[/QUOTE]

If people didn't hunt deer and also kill them by hitting them with cars, the deer population in the US would be larger than the envirnment's carrying capacity in most cases. Then many deer would starve and die.

The same way you evolved out normal human intelligence.

Avenger, no - there would still be exactly as many deer as the environment could support. As you said, any over population would die. Therefore, there would be exactly enough. The reduction in the population that can be supported, however, is entirely our fault. We have a nasty habit of building cities and such where the deer like to be. It is their tendency to over breed, then simply spread out. Since we have prevented that, we must shoot them. Alas, it would be tragic, except that they are also delicious.

Well, that would lead to a thing aptly titled "mad-human-disease."

it would also be really unhealthy. Too much fat.

It probably taste horrible anyways..

I'd be willing to bet that we taste like pork. We are 'white meat', after all.

OH SO WHITE PEOPLE TASTE LIKE WHITE MEAT?

LEMME GUESS, THE DARKIES ARE DARK MEAT RIGHT?


You racist *******!

That's what we're said to taste like. There's a tribe in Papua New Guinea who refers to human meat as "long pig."

Most human meat from the First World would taste downright awful, considering the amount of crap we put into our bodies.

He made no mention of race - simply referring to people. So, your comment could imply that people with colored skin are not people.

We all know Massassi is like 97% white dudes.

Not quite. Animal populations, if left unchecked depend on the resources around them. Their numbers follow wave patterns, ranging from very high to very low, depending on the resources available, which also follows a wave pattern. When there are lots of resources, the population grows until the resources crash, then the population crashes in the years following. The affect of hunting deer and them being hit by cars changes in the wave patterns far less drastic. Where you might have an average population of 100 deer in an area, the range might be anywhere from 25 to 175 over a longer period of time. With hunting and so on, you might see an average population of 100 as well, but the range might be 80-120 over a long period of time because the population is never allowed to spike beyind the carrying capacity of the environment.

Also, you find deer in places with people because people live in a deer's natural habitat. Building cities actually has a negative impact on deer because it takes away habitat. What you're thinking of is urban intermix areas where houses meet the wildnerness, where deer are still very much able to survive. I see deer around my house all the time because I live in an area where the houses meet open area.

Now, there are animals that thrive as a result of human populations, like coyotes and racoons.

Coyotes seem to be struggling around where I live.

A lot of ranchers offer bounties for dead coyotes. That kind of hunting has the biggest effect on the a coyote population. Don't know if that applies where you live though.

Whose fault is it if my hard drive crashes, beyond recovery, and I didn't have my data backed up. Mine. Maybe a virus would be a better analogy. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems like common sense to me, even being outside of the animal cruelty field, to backup data. However, as I believe I stated once before (excuse me if I didn't, this thread is getting incredibly long), I wouldn't personally see a point in destroying data that is already gathered.



While that statement gave me a chuckle, it's not entirely true. One, yes many animal rights activists see cruelty to animals as immoral. Two, while some animal rights activists believe that testing should indeed be done on willing humans, not all feel this way, most likely due to the fact that humans are also animals. My personal stance was previously stated.



Predation is a part of nature. Unless you're willing to kill every single animal on the planet, there's no way to stop predation. However, many people don't see factory farms as natural. I don't personally see anything wrong with hunting animals for food.



Humans have interrupted the demand in unnatural ways.



That may have something to do with the fact that humans are overpopulating the earth and that we're moving in on their territory. Every action has a reaction.



As I stated once before, my reaction to your initial statement was to show how absurd it was for you to act as if not eating meat somehow has something to do with how masculine one is.



I don't recall stating that I was against the killing and eating of animals. As a matter of fact, I encourage people to eat what they want. I just don't want people torturing animals that they're going to eat and I don't want people killing animals that they're not going to eat. You seem to have a warped sense of what all of this is about and seem to think that just because I believe that PETA does more good than harm that I automatically believe in everything they say and do.



AIDS prevention is the cure, and yes I am rather detached from the issue, mainly due to me believing that the world is vastly overpopulated with humans. While I do feel compassion when a human is suffering, I realize that disease is part of nature. I don't think that cruelty to one species of animals in the name of healing another is justifiable.



I'm not a vegan and don't need to take supplements, replacements, and substitutes for meat. Oh, and many vegetarian foods such as tofu and soy have been used for thousands of years.



There are vegetarians in every country and have been for thousands of years.

Other than those statements, nothing else that you said really made any sense. You really do have a warped sense of what this is all about. You're making illogical assumptions and it's incredibly frustrating having to explain these things to you. I would highly recommend that you Google vegetarianism and read a bit more about it.

Anyways, I realize that there are a few people here who are going to take cheap shots and continue talking "debating" with me 100-1, but I don't really have the time or desire to continue with this. As I stated before, I've made my stance as clear as I wish to make it and Google will provide you with anything else that you want to know. Have fun, folks.

I'm not talking about vegetarianism at all. I'm talking about vegans. The difference being the reason behind the decision to not eat meat, and the lifestyle/outcomes. I have gone for long periods of time without eating meat in order to have certain surguries, and to take certain medications. I don't have anything against vegetarians.

I have something against PETA and other organizations for what they do. I'm not even really arguing with YOU in particular. My statements were targeted at PETA as a whole.

Your lack of human compassion frightens the hell out of me. It's "natural" for diseases to exist, but it's unnatural to fight that? I really don't want to have a "natural" vs "human" debate with you. We are animals that use tools to our advantage. Vaccines are tools. Researching means of fighting a disease through animal testing is a use of tools and prey. I honestly don't see how you think it's cruel and unusual to try and further your species.

I am a lot more informed than you might think. I have a great deal of people in my circle of friends who are avid green peacers, vegans, and liberal hippies. I consider myself a liberal, but a lot further right than any of them. I'm very aware of the twisted, sickening, and inhumane ideals of PETA/Green Peace. It's disgusting.