Planes used to be fueled by old shoes and rotten meat.
Is trysts, trysts?
Sort:
Does the world really exist?
LavaRook wrote:
Does the world really exist?
It's questionable but the usual assumption is "Yes".
Jaglavak wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
I see a whole lot more veggie propaganda than meat propaganda.
Then you are blind to or brainwashed by the meat industry. I eat meat, but it would be obvious to Ray Charles that there is no "veggie propoganda machine".
Take a white cane to the vegetarian section of your supermarket and compare it to the meat section and you will "see" what I am talking about.
Someone else said, "When I look at the organic fruit and vegetables at the store, it always looks all rotting and beat up and small, but it always costs twice as much." No one is being fooled in these cases.
On the other hand, rotting meat is marked down, recolored, and covered in spices in our supermarkets. Who fooling who?
I used to work for a meat processing company in connecticut. The USDA inspectors had an office in the building and watched every move you made, 3-day old rotten meat scraps that really stink are groundup- processed- and sold as HOTDOGS and no they are not marked down. according to the USDA they are safe for human consumption ! 
May 18, 2011
0
#126
There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is concerned with how things ought to be, but the only thing we can ever witness directly is how things are. The universe simply neglected to give us access to any intel suggesting that things should objectively be different from how they are.
Of course, humans are able to form more subjective ideas about how they would like to see the universe unfold. These ideas often conflict, and though some are supported by more appealing arguments, none of them can claim to be definitely true.
The fact that humans are able to feel empathy for beings in pain might have evolved to motivate us to better protect the ones surrounding us, thereby increasing our odds (and that of those genetically close to us) at survival.
History has shown that this sense of empathy isn't sufficient to prevent us from inflicting suffering on those to whom we bear no close relation. I could speculate that empathic emotions can, under certain circumstances, fuel some sort of macaber curiosity, where the persisting feeling of uneasiness is actually a source of dark excitement. Much like when kids use a magnifying glass on ants, or when people post a picture of a clubbed seal. I'm quite certain the universe doesn't care about any of this, but as I said we can form our own ideas about things.
I hold that suffering, especially when brought about for excitement, is an ugly thing. I think it is a sign of character to try to reduce its presence, and to never bring it about for the thing itself.
That being said, I also hold that the death of one organism in favour of another is a very mundane, normal event in the history of life. I'm not saying the thing is a thing of beaty, but we aren't living in a pink universe and at the end of the day I'm not even sure a pink universe would be so suited for mankind, which evolved in something else entirely.
The fact that at times the death of animals is brought about in favour of humans therefore does not strike me as particularily unnatural or problematic. We could try not to live in a world where things like this happen, but I think the goal is almost unrealistic considering the history of things. Even minor setbacks in the desired level of civility would probably revert us to meat eaters in a heartbeat.
More importantly, in the absence of objective morality, one has to ask how the real deed of killing an animal for consumption is altered by the presence or absence of personal necessity. A chicken on the chopping block has no ability to gauge how hungry the person devouring him will be in the end. One could argue that the deed is bad in itself, so that being hungry justifies it rather than changing the event to something good. But then in the same sense, an animal killing another animal would be a bad thing in itself, just justified by the fact that the animals aren't able to make the choice (animals can kill even when they're hungry).
I think its a very subjective choice to argue that the world has been and is riddled with events that are bad in themselves. I think that in the end, there is nothing wrong, unnatural or objectively immoral about animals dying for another. People that are very abhorred by such events might simply be leting their empathic emotions getting the better of them. Much like those on the other side of the spectrum, that indulge in the uneasiness empathy can produce when witnessing suffering.
Of course one can make the personal choice not to eat meat, and that is fine. But I just don't hold that the act is morally wrong, and I like the taste myself. I'm definitely unattracted to suffering for its own cause, but I'm not (over?)empathic enough to oppose the death of any animal to my benefit.
Having a choice doesn't force one to become a vegetarian.
As a specie, we have been eating meat so long that our teeth have evolved to aid in it's consumption. Since our bodies have made this adjustment long ago, I still eat meat without guilt--and if you've ever seen a gazelle attacked by a pride of lions, I would submit that it is a lot more "humane" to stun and kill an animal quickly than to have it suffer having it's butt chewed off while still alive and kicking. I live guilt-free in that environment. But it's also true that humans cannot live by meat alone--I believe Henry VIII died of malnutrition because, as the embodiment of the "English Lion," he decided to eat only meat (I may be wrong here, and if so, I hope someone would correct me). You can live as a vegetarian, but not as a carnivore--you need an varied diet for best health. The big problem here in the states is that we eat something like 50-60% meat when we should be eating 20-25%. Malnutrition leads to bloating, and have you noticed the waistlines of many Americans these days (they look like Henry VIII, don't you think?). Small wonder.
oinquarki wrote:
When I look at the organic fruit and vegetables at the store, it always looks all rotting and beat up and small, but it always costs twice as much.
This may be the worst thing that agri-business has done in the fruits and vegetables arena. Rather than breed--or genetically modify, if you prefer--fruit and vegetables to taste good, they're bred to be big and pretty.
Give me a small, tart apple off the tree in an old fence line any day rather than those big, red, plastic tasting things they sell in the grocery store.
Just look what they've done to strawberries. Many of you young folk don't know it, but strawberries used to taste really good. They were much smaller and not so bright red, though.
Isn't that the truth -- never more evident than when you find them in the wild:
My theory is that strawberries have the same amount of strawberry flavour no matter how big or small. As you can imagine, these are delicious and don't just taste like water.
Another:
lordnazgul
That's really not an argument--sheep, deer, buffalo, etc, all mammalian infants live off of mother's milk. They don't drink milk their entire lives. We're talking adults here. Once weaned (sp?), all animals will conform to their natural diets. BTW, humans are the only animals that drink milk as adults. Domestic pets can also consume milk as adults through constant exposure from humans, but take an adult animal raised away from humans and feed them milk--they are lactose intolerant.
oinquarki wrote:
I see a whole lot more veggie propaganda than meat propaganda.
HessianWarrior wrote:
Give me a break. Vegatables are great with a hunk of Meat. If we were meant to eat only vegatables and grass we would have teeth like a cow or a horse. We as humans have teeth for both.
Not to mention eyes on the sides of our heads as opposed to out front.
TheGrobe wrote:
Isn't that the truth -- never more evident than when you find them in the wild:
My theory is that strawberries have the same amount of strawberry flavour no matter how big or small. As you can imagine, these are delicious and don't just taste like water.
Absolutely. When I was a kid, my brother and I would walk up and down the ditches picking wild strawberries. Sadly, nowadays, the county sprays the ditches with herbicides so motorist have a better view of all the deer criss-crossing the country.
HessianWarrior wrote:
I was never persuaded by advertisers to eat meat. Before Television was even a source of influence I ate meat, like my parents, like my Grandparents and everybody else's Grandparents.
You ate your parents and grandparents?!
Does anyone else here love the drift of these forums? This started off as a question of is trysts trysts, or is this her evil twin? cyborg replacement? CIA black-box op? Now we are discussing dietary evolution (both private and for-profit) vs dietary morality. Ya gotta love it. This could ONLY be through trysts. And yes--SHE'S BACK!
How did they not contract scurvy or other vitamin deficiencies? I'm skeptical too.
[COMMENT DELETED]
trysts wrote:
Conquistador wrote:
If you have a problem with treatment with animals, why not try organic meats then?
I agree that the factory style conditions are pretty awful for the animals. In addition, the nutrients are diminished considerably because of the hormones in the animals. Corn is not good feed for a cow. It makes them very large, but it also is terrible for their health, and the quality of meat is much lower.
Organic meats are small farmers who raise cows on grass and natural free range. These meats are considerably better in nutritional value and they do not contain hormones. The treatment of these animals is also very good.
Organic farmers struggle making money against the factory farm system, and the FDA has gone out of its way to help big business. So why not support them by buying organic?
I didn't stop eating meat because I thought it was "healthier" for me. I stopped because I started to think on my own. I no longer understood why any animal was killed for my diet. I didn't need to eat meat to live, so why would I contribute to other people's choices of making a profit off of killing beings which I had an affinity with? None of it made sense.
I know the society I live in, is profit driven. I know that the meat industry will continue to relentlessly saturate the media with propaganda aimed solely at continuing their profits. Much like how the auto industry did not care to make electric cars, or cars that could run for hundreds of miles off of a gallon of gas. Their ability to advance was stopped solely for profit.
I also know that people have a difficult time about both understanding their freedom, and changing their mind, so there are many people adding to the propaganda-for-profit industries, which would like nothing better than to see people supporting their immoral way they make money.
And since morality is an idea, like freedom, which is a life-long endeavor to think about and learn, I choose to try to do so.
Yes. This is why I'm a vegetarian, but I don't care about anyone else's views really.
mm delicious
What is wrong with you?, ivan!
All that fatty meat would taste horrible without any spice!
Pour some Sriracha over that!
Showing a picture of a bloodied seal is not funny. It's really not.
+1