User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-03 at 9:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny you're retarded dude
You guys are the ones who destroyed our reverence for our cultural traditions, destroyed our belief in our gods, destroyed our sense of identity, destroyed our ability to advocate for our own rights, and THEN declare that we now have moral obligations.
Why?
And why are the people who still have their own sense of identity exempt from those obligations? -
2018-03-03 at 10:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick In retrospect, I can see why calling it a goat was a mistake: it's in part because it is a cow, but mostly I regret saying "goat" because you cannot seem to get past the fact that I misidentified one mammal for another, very closely related one. Maybe if they hadn't hacked its legs off while it was still alive and rolled it onto the ground, I would've recognized by its height that it was a cow.
i reckon you're a vegetarian because of your inability to distinguish between different types of meat. i can imagine your neighbor knocking at your door to ask if you've seen his lost dog and you're like 'no pal, but i just made a really nice lamb curry if you want some? we got plenty here'
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-03 at 10:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i reckon you're a vegetarian because of your inability to distinguish between different types of meat. i can imagine your neighbor knocking at your door to ask if you've seen his lost dog and you're like 'no pal, but i just made a really nice lamb curry if you want some? we got plenty here'
everyone knows that dog doesnt taste like lamb. it tastes like bald-eagle. -
2018-03-03 at 10:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 You guys are the ones who destroyed our reverence for our cultural traditions, destroyed our belief in our gods, destroyed our sense of identity, destroyed our ability to advocate for our own rights, and THEN declare that we now have moral obligations.
Why?
And why are the people who still have their own sense of identity exempt from those obligations?
You have this idea of what I beleive, what cultural current I represent, and have been bitching about it for most of this thread, but you're just wrong.
The idea I've defended here is that the treatment of animals in the meat industry is unacceptable. You've imposed this whole state-atheism anti-traditionalist xenophilic boogeyman archetype on me and it just demonstrates how totally blinded by stereotypes you are.
I haven't said a single thing about belief in gods, identity or advocacy of rights. It's you who are trying to drag in these wholly unrelated topics because you apparently are unwilling or unable to discuss the ethics of food production. -
2018-03-03 at 10:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You have this idea of what I beleive, what cultural current I represent, and have been bitching about it for most of this thread, but you're just wrong.
The idea I've defended here is that the treatment of animals in the meat industry is unacceptable. You've imposed this whole state-atheism anti-traditionalist xenophilic boogeyman archetype on me and it just demonstrates how totally blinded by stereotypes you are.
I haven't said a single thing about belief in gods, identity or advocacy of rights. It's you who are trying to drag in these wholly unrelated topics because you apparently are unwilling or unable to discuss the ethics of food production.
so what you're wanting really is better treatment of farm animals, better regulation of the industry?
. -
2018-03-03 at 10:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist so what you're wanting really is better treatment of farm animals, better regulation of the industry?
Yeah, pretty much. There's an argument to be had over whether there's any ethical way to raise an animal in order to kill it for meat (like if we raised a human being and took really good care of it and gave it a good life and then killed it for meat when it was middle aged, would that have been OK? I'm not committed to an answer one way or the other) but at very least if we could raise farm animals in some semblance of their natural environment we'd have made a step in the right direction. -
2018-03-03 at 10:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick In retrospect, I can see why calling it a goat was a mistake: it's in part because it is a cow, but mostly I regret saying "goat" because you cannot seem to get past the fact that I misidentified one mammal for another, very closely related one. Maybe if they hadn't hacked its legs off while it was still alive and rolled it onto the ground, I would've recognized by its height that it was a cow.
Holy fucking lol
I get the feeling Issue gets all of his observations of the world off the internet. -
2018-03-03 at 10:36 PM UTC
-
2018-03-03 at 11:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Wrong
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ethics
now please fuck off
The idea that animal cruelty happening in other cultures poses some kind if dilemma is 100% fabrication. No one, at any point in this thread, has argued morally indefensible actions are pardoned by being part of a cultural tradition. You've invented this idea.
Wrong.
While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.
Now leave off out of this and fuck them. -
2018-03-03 at 11:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.
So what you're using is that using the terms can be used interchangeably, but somehow magically I'm wrong for using them interchangeably and the only way to actually use them is the way you've described which has no relation to common usage?
You are mentally impairedThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-04 at 12:41 AM UTCNigger nigger niggef
-
2018-03-04 at 1:43 AM UTC
-
2018-03-04 at 1:54 AM UTCeat shit niggas
Why Fire Makes Us Human
Cooking may be more than just a part of your daily routine, it may be what made your brain as powerful as it is
Every animal on earth is constrained by its energy budget; the calories obtained from food will stretch only so far. And for most human beings, most of the time, these calories are burned not at the gym, but invisibly, in powering the heart, the digestive system and especially the brain, in the silent work of moving molecules around within and among its 100 billion cells. A human body at rest devotes roughly one-fifth of its energy to the brain, regardless of whether it is thinking anything useful, or even thinking at all. Thus, the unprecedented increase in brain size that hominids embarked on around 1.8 million years ago had to be paid for with added calories either taken in or diverted from some other function in the body. Many anthropologists think the key breakthrough was adding meat to the diet. But Wrangham and his Harvard colleague Rachel Carmody think that’s only a part of what was going on in evolution at the time. What matters, they say, is not just how many calories you can put into your mouth, but what happens to the food once it gets there. How much useful energy does it provide, after subtracting the calories spent in chewing, swallowing and digesting? The real breakthrough, they argue, was cooking.
Wrangham, who is in his mid-60s, with an unlined face and a modest demeanor, has a fine pedigree as a primatologist, having studied chimpanzees with Jane Goodall at Gombe Stream National Park. In pursuing his research on primate nutrition he has sampled what wild monkeys and chimpanzees eat, and he finds it, by and large, repellent. The fruit of the Warburgia tree has a “hot taste” that “renders even a single fruit impossibly unpleasant for humans to ingest,” he writes from bitter experience. “But chimpanzees can eat a pile of these fruits and look eagerly for more.” Although he avoids red meat ordinarily, he ate raw goat to prove a theory that chimps combine meat with tree leaves in their mouths to facilitate chewing and swallowing. The leaves, he found, provide traction for the teeth on the slippery, rubbery surface of raw muscle.
Food is a subject on which most people have strong opinions, and Wrangham mostly excuses himself from the moral, political and aesthetic debates it provokes. Impeccably lean himself, he acknowledges blandly that some people will gain weight on the same diet that leaves others thin. “Life can be unfair,” he writes in his 2010 book Catching Fire, and his shrug is almost palpable on the page. He takes no position on the philosophical arguments for and against a raw-food diet, except to point out that it can be quite dangerous for young children. For healthy adults, it’s “a terrific way to lose weight.”
Which is, in a way, his point: Human beings evolved to eat cooked food. It is literally possible to starve to death even while filling one’s stomach with raw food. In the wild, people typically survive only a few months without cooking, even if they can obtain meat. Wrangham cites evidence that urban raw-foodists, despite year-round access to bananas, nuts and other high-quality agricultural products, as well as juicers, blenders and dehydrators, are often underweight. Of course, they may consider this desirable, but Wrangham considers it alarming that in one study half the women were malnourished to the point they stopped menstruating. They presumably are eating all they want, and may even be consuming what appears to be an adequate number of calories, based on standard USDA tables. There is growing evidence that these overstate, sometimes to a considerable degree, the energy that the body extracts from whole raw foods. Carmody explains that only a fraction of the calories in raw starch and protein are absorbed by the body directly via the small intestine. The remainder passes into the large bowel, where it is broken down by that organ’s ravenous population of microbes, which consume the lion’s share for themselves. Cooked food, by contrast, is mostly digested by the time it enters the colon; for the same amount of calories ingested, the body gets roughly 30 percent more energy from cooked oat, wheat or potato starch as compared to raw, and as much as 78 percent from the protein in an egg. In Carmody’s experiments, animals given cooked food gain more weight than animals fed the same amount of raw food. And once they’ve been fed on cooked food, mice, at least, seemed to prefer it.
In essence, cooking—including not only heat but also mechanical processes such as chopping and grinding—outsources some of the body’s work of digestion so that more energy is extracted from food and less expended in processing it. Cooking breaks down collagen, the connective tissue in meat, and softens the cell walls of plants to release their stores of starch and fat. The calories to fuel the bigger brains of successive species of hominids came at the expense of the energy-intensive tissue in the gut, which was shrinking at the same time—you can actually see how the barrel-shaped trunk of the apes morphed into the comparatively narrow-waisted Homo sapiens. Cooking freed up time, as well; the great apes spend four to seven hours a day just chewing, not an activity that prioritizes the intellect.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/
smithsonian, yeah.
. -
2018-03-04 at 2:21 AM UTCWas anybody debating about the nutritional value of a raw food diet?
-
2018-03-04 at 3:24 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-04 at 4 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=170_1396117152
This guy doesn't look to be in pain either.
your rite.
spics have a very different set of nervous systems from us. -
2018-03-04 at 4:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So what you're using is that using the terms can be used interchangeably, but somehow magically I'm wrong for using them interchangeably and the only way to actually use them is the way you've described which has no relation to common usage?
You are mentally impaired
No, I said that while they are used interchangeably it is incorrect to do so dumbass.
See: regardless, irregardless -
2018-03-04 at 4:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist its never good to fuck around with natures order of things, nothing good will come of that. by all humans stopping eating meat is removing the no1 apex predator from the
yea ... but theres nothing natural, apex or beta about obese niggers and faggots consuming a fuck ton of factory made ground beef of cow and non-cow origins and reconstituted chickens substrates.
nothing.
if anything its carnality against the order of nature.
you want to be a natures apex predator ???
take off your clothes and your vietnamese made bomber jacket, make yourself some spear and go into your british woods and hunt yourself some british meats.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-04 at 4:12 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-04 at 4:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You have this idea of what I beleive, what cultural current I represent, and have been bitching about it for most of this thread, but you're just wrong.
The idea I've defended here is that the treatment of animals in the meat industry is unacceptable. You've imposed this whole state-atheism anti-traditionalist xenophilic boogeyman archetype on me and it just demonstrates how totally blinded by stereotypes you are.
so is meat eating morally acceptable to you if i raise feral chickens and cocks in my backyard, let them roam and reproduce freely in the ''wild'' and then comsuming them when needed ???
