Bitcoin Forum

We as a society will not respect the rights of animals because we don't recognize human rights properly yet.

 :D

Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it.

Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything.

While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Rape isn't healthy.

Video could have been better but the conditions some of these animals lived in sucks, eating both plants/animals is largely unavoidable for most of population.  Stay away from mass produced meat where possible imo. 

As a man I say this, fuck you.

p.s. Unless their plan is to make it so that we're capable of ingesting rocks and minerals, fuck them too

You're right, many animals (battery chickens come to mind) are bred in very poor conditions, and I don't agree with this. I try to eat free-range and organic meat where possible, to support the practice of better conditions for animals and also because it tastes better.

This is one area where I think a small amount of government intervention could be a good thing - a true free market system would favour the cheapest (and therefore worst) possible living conditions for animals.

Ditto that, I always try and eat organic when I can as well, it'll be better for you as well because they haven't put nasty chemicals in it either or growth hormones and the like, I have noticed a genuine difference in the meat.

For those who can afford it, get the cheapest chicken meat from a 99 cent store AND some free range chicken meat from wholefoods. Cook them both and compare. The happy chicken tastes better.

Regarding the we were built to rape concept. I would say we are among the tiny group of creatures who does not rape, kill or eat its partner after copulation.


Most of the animal kingdom is built for rape (does not matter which sex). Not mankind.

Then why is Bill Cosby always so happy?

We're talking about animals here, not plants, right?

What's worse, killing animals for food? Or killing them for pleasure? Humor me in this.

The American Indians killed the buffalo for food, and for their hides. They limited their kills to what they needed to live.

The white-eye sportsmen hunted buffalo for fun - but also at times, to clear grazing land for cattle.

Many viruses are little living animals. Yet many of these hypocrite animal rights activists get vaccinated so that they can kill off viruses.

Why don't they figure out ways so that they can save all the bacteria and viruses in their own bodies, rather than killing them off with their immune systems and medicine? There's gotta be a way to keep from slaughtering all those tiny animals.

And, now, since you probably didn't think of this before, don't go out and commit suicide for all the deaths you are causing. Such a thing might increase certain animal lives in your body for awhile. But it would ultimately destroy the lives and potential lives of many others.

Look.

Before the Great Flood of Noah's day, people were supposed to eat plants. After the Flood, God gave them permission to eat animals, as well. Man, to keep from becoming downright murders of all kinds of animals, have bred certain of the animals for food - cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc.

Quit protesting what I do with my property. Maybe if you would learn how to take care of your own, and learn how to think straight, as well, you would realize that you are being used by politics to mess with peoples' lives.

:)

I love to eat animals that love to eat plants. I love to eat plants through the tasty flesh of plant loving animals :)

Most plants are difficult to digest. Most animals are not. The only thing you need from the plants is a dose of phyto-nutrients now and again. And the best place you can get these is from plankton.

:)

I don't really care what you're eating, as long as you don't spread misinformation like most vegans do.

Natural News is full of it.

Many people can vegetables. Some can fruit. Does iCan can meat?   ;D

iCan everything ))))

 :D  :D  :D

WARNING ! You have the teeth of a jackass. :D

http://img.techpowerup.org/141123/dumbass.jpg

How many vegans do you see at your friendly neighborhood cancer ward ?

Compare your teeth, claws and digestive system to that of any true carnivore, then get back to me.

That blood/flesh smoke coming off of your dead animal carcass is getting you soo high, you don't know wtf is goin on !

Let it be eaten
As a species we eat a lot of things so well calling it inhumane is not quite true.
If there was one species that specifically ate humans and only humans then we would call it inhumane but if we eat 100's or thousands of species for our food its considered normal, then who is really the inhumane species.
Nom now now go off to get the Colonels Fried Chicken  ;)

From http://mmsnews.is/mms-newsletters/171-vegetarianism-facts-and-fallacies-04-22-2013 :

Go to the article to read more. It is really quite interesting. And it almost proves that most vegetarians in modern countries are essentially starving themselves to death.

:)

That quote sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. lol Show us this "expert's" sources. (Sorry but, I do not trust your link.)

9 years on, I am definitely not a starvin marvin and neither is Freelee, the Banana Girl. ;)

http://www.30bananasaday.com/
http://thebananagirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/428739_259217927500130_131607490261175_576007_499135898_n1.jpg

WARNING !! The following quote may cause you to spontaniously STFU.  :-*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Baboumian

It is less of what we eat and more of how we eat it.  You take in the energy of the food you consume.  Eat animals that suffered, and their negative energy will pass onto you.  Eat an animal that lived a happy life with a habitable environment and a loving care taker, and their energy will be passed to you in a positive light.

And blessing food, by meditating for the being to become light, shows respect and love that the being's spirit will feel and reflect onto you.

It's less about saying words, but feeling gratitude and love towards the being you are consuming.

Factory farming is a loveless practice and completely unnecessary for our survival.

When the day comes that I have chickens, I will show them much love and it will be passed on through their eggs and lives.

Yes happy animals taste better.

Do you hate people who eat meat? I love bananas too.

Yes. If only we could eliminate the shock of death in animal systems when we slaughter them, they might be twice as nutritious, way more than plants, that have always been happy to be eaten, but don't provide enough nutrition to people.

:)

Yes, I know that the guy, Jim Humble, doesn't have the best grammar, sentence structure, and spelling. But the content of his article is terrific. Is the content true? Only way to tell is to look up the articles and books in his bibliography.

The question isn't really about some strong man in Germany - a guy who has great self-disciplines. The question is more about how average people are affected by what they eat. What do the statistics show? Are there studies done on the general health and life expectancy of average vegetarians and non-vegetarians? If there are, are some studies done between average folks, on similar kinds of average jobs, showing how they are affected on their jobs?

In addition, even if vegetarians were in better shape all around, why should that take away from a person's right to do what he wants with his own property? I am not saying that vegetarians can't protest, as long as it doesn't adversely affect those being protested against. After all, folks should be allowed to do their own thing, even protesting, right? It would certainly be wrong for meat eaters to forcefully take your pet cow and eat it against your will.

:)

I will never get how those people think...

Zu leben um zu sterben? Na irgendwie trifft das auf jeden Menschen auch zu. Kommt drauf an was man dazwischen draus macht aus der Zeit die man kriegt. Unschön ist es natürlich schon wenn man jung sterben muss und vielleicht nicht mal ein schönes Leben hatte.

Ich sehe das philosophisch. Es gibt praktisch kein Leben dass nicht nur deswegen überlebt weil es anderes Leben verschlingt. Solange mir die Kuh nicht zeigen kann dass sie auch lebt ohne sich das Leben von Gras und Pflanzen einzuverleiben sehe ich es als notwendiges Übel des Lebens. Niemand überlebt ohne Leben zu nehmen. Punkt. Wäre schön wenn es anders wäre, geht es aber nicht.

They are ok with using violence to get taxes. Why not use violence to get dinner on my plate?

google translation :

So lets take that next evolutionary step. Shall we ? :)

Ram Bahadur Bamjan is "the Bhudda Boy".  --> http://youtu.be/v29clGMWU84

You know beings that are at peace don't feel pain when they die?

To live to die? Well somehow this applies to every human being also. Depends on what you make of it between them from the time you're gonna get. Ugly it is of course if you have to die young and maybe not even had a good life.

I see the philosophical. There is virtually no life that survived not only so because it devours another life. As long as I can not see the cow that she lives without the life of grass and plants incorporate I see it as a necessary evil of life. No one survives without taking life. Point. Would be nice if it were otherwise, but it does not work.

You actually don't need food to survive.  There are highly spiritual people on this planet that live off the sun's energy.  All you truly need is energy, it doesn't have to be from food.

Not saying these people have never eaten another being, just pointing out that it's not a hard coded necessity.

*lol* Im sorry for the german.

dank... i know which people you mean. Unfortunately you wont find someone who really can do this. Even the big guru's that claim they can do it were found cheating. So as of now i dont see a solution.

What i wrote in german is: Living only to die? I guess that even is true for every human. I think its important what you do with the time you get. Its not nice if one has to die young and maybe even didnt had a nice life of course.

I see it philosophical. Practically every lifeform only survives because it devours other life. As long as the cow cant show me, that she can life without devouring the life of grass and plants, i have to see it as a necessary evil of life. Noboday survives without taking other life! It would be nice if it would be different but it isnt.

Everyone lives off the sun's energy, but it is by eating food. All food, whether plant or animal, provides energy that originated from the sun. Plants photosynthesize to grow, we eat them. Or plants photosynthesize to grow, animals eat them to grow, we eat them. Don't spread nonsense though. You actually do need food to survive.

I know who you're talking about but don't let one speak for all.  There is the man who went 16 days in a medically supervised study without water.  He was surveyed 24/7.

There is something to it.  Death isn't a requirement of existence, rather a byproduct of life on earth.

I'm not saying it's wrong to eat, just that it's somewhat of a fallacious practice.  If you can see, you are the universe eating the universe.  Silly isn't it?

Refer to my avatar for an illustrated example of oroboros. (Didnt realize that when I picked it).

I'm just saying that just because we feel the need to eat today, doesn't mean we will tomorrow.

There's infinite love in the universe, plenty of energy for all.

Thanks for the reply.

In the New Testament in the Bible, Jesus talks about his church like wheat, planted in the field. He talks this way on several occasions. He even talks about the harvest of the people of earth, at the end of the age, that will be done by the angels. Do you think that maybe God planted us here so that He can harvest us on the last day, and eat us after we are in Heaven with Him? Jesus uses this kind of thinking in a metaphorical way. What does it really mean?

:)

umm..

Communion, as it is celebrated by some/many christian cults is nothing more than a mock human sacrifice.

"who wants mo Jesus ?!" ;)

http://img.techpowerup.org/141124/images.jpg

Maybe it was a way to explain to not yet enlighten beings the concept of the structure of the universe?
"From dust to dust" This could be a way to explain very simply the nature of things? We don't see dust creating life. Even less possible to study or see it 2000 years ago. You cannot observe this. Now we know what we call reality is a cloud of uncertainty...

Although to the cloud of atomic uncertainty defined as Wilikon good chicken always tastes like good chicken. That also is part of a rich, emotional life :)

Now I'm hungry for chicken, and all I have is hamburger.   :D

I am getting ready...


Before...

https://i.imgur.com/T5fXnES.gif


During...

https://i.imgur.com/TDK2H1k.jpg



And...

https://i.imgur.com/c01L232.jpg

Surprised the old "is fish meat?" debate hasn't been wheeled out yet.

Ron Swanson on Vegan Bacon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXhJPey3i_A)

Ron Swanson Yoga (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFXWQfEx-Jw)

Ron Swanson - The food my food eats (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU3Oo3r9b9s)

Bacon Shortage PSA with Ron Swanson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjR0AYf4pSM)

Firstly, jesus didnt establish a church.

Second, you are already eating yourself.  The harvest is a conscious ascension into the higher dimensions aka heaven.

You cant be serious.  An ascended being can manifest any food, person or any other fathomable entity at will, and you think jesus wants to turn a bunch of humans into light beings to eat them?  He walked through and was crucified to eat other light beings (which would not feel pain of being eaten), which he could already manifest before he descended to earth?

Doesn't make a shred of sense, but I can't recall the mind of ego ever making much sense.

The only harvest is for spiritual energy.  Our planet is currently being harvested for fear by lower dimensional beings.  Jesus lives this life to walk the planet, teach love, be painlessly crucified as he is at complete peace and enlightened at that point, then he comes back as a human and throws a kick ass music festival and shreds a guitar as a rock god.

Then after the infinitely powerful feedback loop of conscious energy is created, he levitates from the power of love and the crowd follows as they the impossible happen before them.

Then he chills with a bunch of beautiful people and has a great time in heaven, the higher dimensions.

If you were jesus, would you not do the exact same?  What better way to ascend than with a levitating guitar god at a million plus person music festival?  Is there any better way to celebrate conscious ascension into heaven?

Quoting Ron Swanson = automatic victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions  ::)

It must be all us vegans who are to blame for these astronomical healthSCAMcare costs ! :P

Keep chewing on that carcass, buds..  If you stay healthy, what will the health scam pros do for a living ?

C'mon, dank. Plants enjoy being eaten, because they instinctively know that this is the way to become a greater life form.

The greatest animal-like life form, the humans, the only ones with real souls, are more important than the rest of the animals. Because of sin, humans, now, get to eat meat, so that they can survive. Humans are more important.

Try manifesting in a practical way anything that you speak. Philosophically you might be able, for awhile. But, you're gonna die. And all your philosophy will be gone when that happens.

:)

No. It ain't you. What has happened is, you are being deluded and misled by politics, so that modern medicine can make more money.

:)

wtf ??? I'm not the one suckling on that big pharma riddled teat ! ;)

Who will lose when diabetes is cured ?

Simply Raw Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days  -->  http://youtu.be/2pjkC71exKU

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/how-our-vegan-diet-made-us-ill-848322.html

Think I'll give it a wide berth and stay fit and healthy in my omnivore diet that nature intended.

Pretty classic example of why no one takes vegans seriously.

lol, I love Ron. My favorite was when he was talking about his mysterious wealth.
"I don't know how MUCH money I have, but I know how many POUNDS of money I have."

He is a gold bug for sure :D

Your judgement can't fade someone who has done the impossible several times.  You might to read that link you posted.

Have a nice delusion, shill.

You are just "dank from the bitcoin forum", you are not Jesus or ever will be.
Just trying to pry open your very very tightly shut eyes.

Anyone else noticed dank always derails threads onto the stuff he wants to talk about?

The FSM is cuter than Yoda.   ;D

The real question is does Ron have Bitcoins?

dank and shill
     went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water.

dank fell down
     and broke his crown (just look at his avatar),
and shill came tumbling after.

 ;D

No. He hates computers and anything that keeps tracks of his ID...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABY3GLf7wU4

BUT if bitcoin devs can make Ron loves bitcoins then it is over... (as in bitcoin made it)  ;D

That story is a propaganda piece. lol ..

No one goes 3 years on ANY diet then suddenly wakes up and realizes the children have become sickly.

Either the story is completely made up or, mom recently made some bad changes to her family's diet.

Using your best blood thirsty savage voice, plzzz elaborate. ::)

Obviously your going to say that as you don't like what it says. If the article had been pro vegan you would of jumped on it, trumpets blowing. It was pointless you commenting.

Way I see it why take the risk? Certainly with kids anyway.
Best thing is to eat a well balanced all round diet. Everything in moderation. And of course exercise.

Never seen anyone get ill from that.

I read somewhere that the length of different parts of our digestive system is somewhere in between the lengths typical for both carnivores and herbivores, so that humans are adapted to be omnivores. Don't know if this is true or not.

Many Frozen Chickens have had a rich emotional life.

Hillary....Pelosi....

This analogy is really not fair to the frozen chicken...

You obviously decided to omit the most important part of my quote. Which btw, you obviously have no legitimate response to.

I suggest you read the article again. It explains how the mother felt something was wrong over time, and the children degraded slowly, particularly in the third year.
Did you bother reading it or just quickly scanned it reading just the parts you want and ignoring the bits you don't want to see?

Here's an article that shows a vegan diet can be successful:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2298032/Is-feeding-children-raw-vegan-diet-nuts-This-family-says-helped-beat-asthma-acne.html


What this shows me is what a razor thin tightrope you have to walk to get it right. If you want to walk it fair enough, but don't force children to do it. I don't agree with that.

I think that using your BTC stake to buy some good healthy tasty clean food from your local producers could be a good and positive way to contribute to the world you want to live in. Then you could convert more of your fiat progressively to BTC and as such maintain the stacking. By buying ultra optimized industrial chicken you buy an industrial product, not food, and contribute to the unloving industries survival, by buying a beautiful chicken having had a rich and emotional life, if possible freshly killed, in BTC you contribute to the loving industries growth. What you buy will affect the world you live in, like all actions even the smallest one.

The healthSCAM pros would go out of business if they had no return customers. 99% of whom btw, are blood addicted meat eaters.

What does your scientific method say about those numbers ?

From your earliest days as an infant, you were indoctrinated into the lifestyle of a speciesist. Forced.. coersed .. same thing. But I'm sure thats "ok". ;)

Ever wonder why many/most children have a natural resistance to eating meat ?

I believe vegans/vegetarians should stop promoting their cause by using fear mongering and scare tactics.


What are you talking about?


I can honestly say I've have never in my life heard of any such thing.
My children eat meat fine, if anything it's the veg I have to make sure they clear up!!!

most children have a natural resistance to eating meat

Did you mean babies/infants? The one who's teeth haven't grown yet or did you mean "most children" as in... the majority of children in the world with teeth?

one day we will evolve past food in the current format, at the moment i dont know how some poor city located family would attempt a vegetarian diet.

They could start by stopping being ignorant and shop their organically vegetarian food at wholefood http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/values-matter

And if they can't afford it, they should die rather than eating meat...

Love+Peace+Meat Free

 ;) :) ;)

Ron Swanson - Nature is amazing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL_azA78Hi0

Yeah, besides, all those people who live in the sewers should eat the fungus and lichen that grows on the sewer walls, and leave those poor rats alone.

 :D

Activists Hold Conference in Support of “Queer Animal Liberation”


An animal liberation group called Direct Action Everywhere recently hosted an event in which a variety of presentations were given, which included titles such as “Trickle-Up Queer Animal Liberation” and “LGBTQ and Animal Liberation.”

Trickle=Up Queer Animal Liberation





The video compilation, posted by Daylight Disinfectant, starts off with a young, uhh, supposedly female who talks about her kielbasa, and why she didn’t have any love for the sausage. “How could I justly seek my own liberation, while denying that to others?” she pondered. She later shows a picture of her girlfriend with a “cow”, which shows them “connecting” and the cow “really enjoying himself.” “My goal is total animal, queer, and trans liberation” she says at the end of her presentation.

The next presenter talks about how animal liberation begins with your cat.

The third presenter starts off by saying “I’m going to talk about some of the ways in which the struggles for LGBTQ and animal liberation intersect with each other”, and uses a picture of primate bonobos having sex, with a baby bonobo between them. “I’m not sure if the adults are the same gender or sex, or if they are opposite sex, but like humans, they are one species that have sex for pleasure, and they form a variety of relationships with each other, both opposite sex and same sex relations, and also have multiple partners.” She goes on to talk about “human supremacy“, and ends with the statement “The LGBTQ rights and animal right movements must work together to achieve human and nonhuman equality”




Finally, we have a presentation on “respecting gender identity”, saying “Gender expression is not necessarily fixed. It can vary from day to day even hour to hour. Some people even have a different gender identity when they wake up in the morning“…”These animals cannot tell us what their gender identity is, so, unfortunately, we have to make some assumptions based on their anatomy. It’s imperfect, but I think it’s much better to call an animal she or he to respect that that animal is a person just like humans or people”

“It’s a reminder that this animal is a person, and we should respect them as an individual.” They later go on to refer to a chickens and goats as persons, and they seem to be perplexed by the gender of a snail. They end by praising Sweden’s education system which teaches children at a young age to use gender neutral pronouns.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX-1wvVDr2k



http://www.progressivestoday.com/activists-hold-conference-in-support-of-queer-animal-liberation/



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I LOVE animals. Snakes and spiders, not so much.
For an animal to be a person just like humans or people (what is the difference, I am not really sure), it would be easier for humans and people to be like animals, if you want to try to even start leveling the plane field.

The best part is, they don't realize how humans they are acting, by pushing and imposing their human paradigm, a distinct concept or thought pattern, on animals. They don't even realize a cow is a 90% human invention, just like dogs, after hundreds and hundreds of very selective breeding.


I shall call this:

Trickle-down Devolution (Wilikon) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)


 :D ;D :D

I love animals, too. Cats, if properly trained, make for good target practice. People in some countries eat them.

 ;D

Some funny stuff. :D

Where do LGBT issues and animal liberation intersect? Your mind, that's where.

But on a side note: Chickens do have an emotional life, it's really all they have. The emotions of animals are the same emotions we feel. They feel loss, joy, etc. That does not keep me from slaughtering and eating them, but I do recognize their lives and I am thankful that they were there to feed me.

On the other hand, how do we really know that animals have emotions?

I tend to think that emotions can only be felt or had by creatures that have a literal soul. I think animals are essentially robots (cyborgs?) that are built to efficiently mimic emotions at times. The fact that animals save lives at some times, simply proves that they are controlled by outside forces that use them for the saving of lives.

:)

There was this cute calf on my land, but belonging to a neighbor. Very young, very curious. It would come near my door and look at me watching TV. I would try to stand up verryyyyy slowly so I could touch it, but it would run away so fast, every time.
No doubt this animal was playful and was trying to understand the meaning of me sitting doing nothing. But it was still not enough for that calf not to be turned into food later in its life.  :)

Robots. All robots, designed by God to give us enjoyment in this life.

:)

No matter what we believe, I understand the meaning of giving thanks before eating anything as a form of respect of Nature. So called primitive cultures always thanks the spirit of the animals they are killing for food. It is an ultimate form of respect and understanding of how precious life is.


I many not wear their skin and antlers while jumping in a cab after diner though... :)

You might like this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

This video shows a San bushman practicing the "persistence hunt". This guy gives thanks at the end of his hunt. Man does he earn it. Amazing technique.

How about this:

From http://guardianlv.com/2013/05/nasa-confirms-super-human-abilities-gained/
and this from http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/28-08-2006/84110-sunlight-0/
See? We don't really need food at all. Even the plants can go free.

:)

Prove it.

Sorry if I sounded like a tool. I just felt like pretending to be a scientist for some reason

This sounds like a theory coming from a religious background. For the start... a soul is something you have to believe yet. I dont know a soul was scientifically observed. So does this mean you are a robot too? Or does it make you more because you can think about this. Then... why would you think all animals cant have thoughts in that direction? The intellgence of animals are often measured in the intelligence of human childs. Human childs at first dont recognize themself in the mirror. Thats a sign of intelligence that comes later. A good bunch of animals can recognize themself. Though its often even different between the same race of animals.

Consequently people who circumcise childs (without anestetics) claim that babies dont feel pain.

So at the end its all a thing of "Believe" though in fact science can give good hints there. Pain felt by humans isnt much different from many animals, same structure of nervous system. Some scientists even claim plants have emotions. Only because something cant speak doesnt mean we should assume its only acting. Maybe its easier for us to believe that the pain is not real but i think its better to assume they feel it like us and act accordingly. That doesnt mean we should stop to eat since at the end we only can life by doing so.

By the way... why should animals be controlled by outside forces and humans not? If you think so then you could start believing that every human, beside you, is a soulless robot. Only there to act like a human. I dont see a hint that justifies such a view.

If you look into it, you will find that humans have a tiny section in their brains that animals don't have. This section makes it so that people can self-aware to the extreme. Animals might be self-aware one level... or two levels in a few of the more intelligent animals. But if people ever take the time to set their self-awareness going, it becomes something like facing two mirrors towards each other, where you can see in both mirrors, what looks like a hall of mirrors that goes on to infinity. This is like a feedback that takes awareness to points beyond understanding. This is a touching of the soul that animals do not have.

:)

Its always a difference between different kind of lifeforms. Though it was only an assumption that animals dont feel pain. At least nowadays practically no one believes this anymore. Otherwise all forms of cruelty to animals would be perfectly fine since they are only robots mimicking the reaction on pain.

Why shouldnt they feel it? Its the same nervous system that transports the pain signals to the brain and as long as the brain works the pain can be felt and the lifeform reacts. But i think its a very thin edge to say that animals dont feel pain.

By the way... what is self aware? Is a chimpansee who recognizes himself on the mirror not self aware? You say humans can do nice things with... probably meditation and more. So you think animals dont think? I dont see how you can say it so sure that no animal can reach a high point of self-awareness. I mean do you think all humans are the same. There are enough realls stupid persons and there are a good bunch of really big thinkers. Why should it be different with animals? And why do you have the idea that humans have to be better? I wonder where this is coming from. Religion, do you fear only being another form of animal, do you fear to hurt lifeforms and its easier for you to see them as robots or where does it come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Neat article.

Can a computer think? Can it be self-aware? If it is programmed to think or be self-aware, is it really self-aware? Or is it only programmed to act like it is thinking and self-aware, without being self-aware at all? Consider even a highly complex computer.

The kind of self-awareness that human beings have is extremely different than the animals. It goes multitudes of levels beyond what any animal can do. The actuating of it may "tickle" untold numbers of dimensions that even the mindful thinking can't calculate mathematically or in any other way.

:)

Computers compute.. sentient beings comprehend.. ;)

That's exactly the point. Animals are computers, just like AI. They happen to be extremely complex. But people at our core are capable of being masters of anything, if we would only wake up and stop calling ourselves animals.

:)

DEATH THREATS OVER FOIE GRAS




Hermosa beach restaurant owner Sean Chaney is rejoicing despite death threats since returning to serving foie gras. His ability to again sell the dish comes as the result of a judge overturning a ban on serving the French fatty duck liver delicacy.


Chaney called the return to selling the dish an “incredible feeling,” and said, “It’s nice to be vindicated,” reported CBS San Francisco. Chaney had sued the state of California in 2012 over a law that effectively prevented him from selling the controversial dish.

Chaney says, per CBS San Francisco, that the FBI is looking into the several death threats that have been aimed at the restaurant owner. He says of the foie gras controversy, “I think it’s done with respect to animals and I think the farmers are doing the best job they can with today’s standards.”

PETA (People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) protested outside Chaney’s restaurant after the establishment began again selling the ingredient they call a “vile dish.”


http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/01/11/death-threats-over-foie-gras/

Have the stores taken action to stop these events or do they let the protests go on?

The store taking action and a liberal state like Cali responding to those threats seriously are two different things. Until someone gets hurt for foie gras, unfortunately.

I believe in animal rights but I also believe in the right to eat whatever the fuck I want.

Those things seem mutually exclusive to me. If animals have rights, it would seem to me that you cannot kill and eat them. It can still be illegal to be cruel to animals without going so far as to say they have "rights."

It's natural for humans to eat other animals.  We're omnivores by nature.  Despite that, I have a problem with massive farms where they make devices that prevent animals from even moving around at all.

They have security teams to deal with it.


Problem will be when people start to use such "protests" to steal chicken and other stuff because everyone is confused and not paying attention

Animals have rights. They have the right to be eaten by the man or woman that owns them. They have the right to be fed to the kids. They have the right to be sold and resold to other people.

It's kinda like the rights that bitcoins have. They have the right to be used by their owners as money. But government tries to regulate Bitcoin, just like they try to regulate the chickens and other animals.

Wake up and see that when something is regulated, even if it is a "rights group" of some kind that is promoting the regulation, it is NOT the item or commodity or money that is being regulated. Really it is the people who are being regulated.

When people are regulated involuntarily, it is slavery, it is involuntary servitude, it is against the laws of nature and the common law, even though it may be what seems to be a legal code.

Stop getting in my face with your regulation!

:)

What you're describing for animals aren't rights. What you're describing for bitcoins aren't rights either, because inanimate objects don't have rights. Also, I am a meat eater. I was not advocating for animal rights, I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of animals having rights but also still being killed and eaten, just like I was pointing out that the things you're saying don't make sense; you're not describing animals' rights, you're describing man's rights over animals.

So on top of paying taxes for the state of California for security (police, etc.) he has to pay for his own security, because the same state is nudging people to bully that respected citizen.

Son of a gun. I just had chicken 6 hours ago. And now reading the title of this thread, I want more. But I'm all out. Is KFC open yet?

 ???

Then what are human childs then? Until they reach a certain age they cant recognize themself as themself in a mirror. So are they better because? Or are they still robots and you believe they get some kind of soul at the age of a couple years or so?

Or what about humans that are disabled in their mind? Maybe they dont have action in the certain brain areas you think of making up some kind of material soul. Would you hurt them and claim that the pain reaction is only robotic since he cant feel anything in reality?

On the other hand... if there are lifeforms so highly developed that we look to them like animals... would you like they speak about you as being some form of robot? Your pain is only an illusion? I would like to be something better. If iam the "big brother" in nature then i have to care. If iam wrong then nothing happens. If youre wrong then you most probably would have done things you would prefer not having done. Or at least in another way.

The thing is... humans are good in deciding that other life is worth less. They did even with other human colors, races and so on in the past. And they even believed it. For example humans with darker color. They were put into zoos, preparated after dead and so on. Yes, they believed they are no humans.

Im not saying its the same. But what you say sounds to me like a similar mindset. Its maybe easier for you but from my view its very arbitrary. You decide to make a border and you decide that something looks the same but there is a hidden reality behind it that makes that the pain reactions are only robotic reactions and no real reactions. Simply arbitrary.

Anyway... i think you might have your reason why its important for you to think the way you do.

that's fucking ridicules that they do that to some man just working for his business.

It is not ridiculous IF your world view and your concept of multiculturalism in California is based on the amount of take out menus you have near your TV. Chinese food. Check! Mexican food. Check! Italian food. Check!


French food, che.. Hey! What's that!! Foie gras????? OMG! OMG! Facebook! Twitter! Instagram! Ban! Ban! Boycott! Boycott! Delete! Delete! Delete!






https://i.imgur.com/0DSjF4W.jpg

God, the Creator and Maker of everything, gave and gives people the authority for everything, including life of the plants and animals on the earth. God allowed and allows mankind to freely eat the plants and animals.

God never forces a person to eat animals. He doesn't really force people to eat plants either. The only thing He tells us is to treat other people with enough respect that they respect the freedom and property of other people.

Many people disregard the things that God tells them. This does not make them right. It only adds to the liability that they will have when God judges them in the coming judgment of all things.

Children are simply people who are not fully developed in certain ways. Children have souls. Animals do not.

:)

I heard that. You are mistaken. The God of the Bible is the reality. Belief that God is a fable, and that the Bible is a fairytale book is the religion.

:)

do you believe in the bible or not because 99% of your posts dealing with something by tying it to the bible. but just then you called it out as a fable

No I didn't. You simply misunderstand the English I am using.

:)

Say NO to horse meat !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVDwPbGfr2U

And to blood thirsty, savage, warpig god(s). ;)

I hope your sex change operation goes well, after all you do have nipples. 

sorry it just seemed worded weird to me.

So its a religious root where youre arbitrary commitment, about how things have to be, is coming from. Ok. Its not as if religions hasnt shown their wrong sides. Lately the most vocal are the islamic extremists. Personally i think you can believe what you want as long as you dont harm others with it. I dont await you to be cruel to an animal as a good christian, so im fine with that.

Its pretty clear nowadays that the bible was only written by humans, implementing older religious stories and even deciding what books are belonging to the nowadays bible was done by humans only. So its pretty arbitrary to want to believe in this as the unaltered word of god. Especially because if you would have been born in a muslim family you would be convinced the same way that only allah is the real god.

Anyway. Im libertarian as long as you dont hurt others with your believe.

In the evolution religion, survival of the fittest reigns as god. Therefore, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, as long as his thinking isn't overcome by someone stronger than he. By this kind of thinking, this thread is informative. But it isn't the thing that rules the world. In fact, it is way lower than money in strength, except when it combines itself with money.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

:)

EDIT: Look, if evolution is the truth, and money exists, then money is part of evolution. Perhaps at some other time in the future, chicken-life will reign as the strongest of the fittest... if evolution exists, that is.

We should be able to farm what we want and ranch what we want and eat what we want.

Since when is evolution a religion? Its something you can watch in real life. Or what do you think are multi resistant bacteria? They changed their dna to adapt to a hard environment.

Even when its survival of the fittest, thats a law of matter. Though life is able to be more than simple atoms moving. Humans can be emphatic with the feelings of others. Leading to not wanting to hurt other, dont want to make war and so on. So we dont act only on material things. And its the same, on a much smaller scale, with animals. You should check out the emotional connections animals can build with their own kind, see elefants, or with humans. As pets. Life is not only survival of the fittest so its not correct to reduce it on that.

It's funny all these mad veggies coming up with twisted logic like "rape is also natural".

All so called evolutionary changes can be attributed to built in programming more easily than they can be attributed to evolution. At its core and base, evolution says that life came about by random, accidental change of some inanimate material into life. Nobody knows that this is what happened. Scientists haven't shown that this is what happened. They will not attest to knowing that this is what happened. That's why evolution is a theory. Nobody knows.

Even though this is true - you can find that this is true by looking at the basic scientific papers by those who have done the work - multitudes of people have decided that they want evolution to be true without proof, and without even the best evidence. They have their priests in the propagandists who lead the ignorant into believing in something that is not true and that has no foundation.

Believe the evolution BS if you want, but if you are true to self, check the basics of it. It is all built on "if" and "maybe" at its base and core. Evolution is a religion.

:)

Its a theory, right. And personally i have a hard time too to believe that it happened randomly. The thing is only that the things that happened can be shown. But no one can show the hand of god creating a creature or its yet to be shown that the world is built in a different way since the sole matter view scientists have.

So when you say there is no proof... im not so sure. Its pretty stable to declare the changes in lifeforms. Though there is no proof that gods hand came into play and made everything in an instant. So whats more certain? Some observations about the development of lifeforms who can be connected by certain changes over a huge timeframe or a story from a book that was written 2000 years ago only? I mean whats the difference in me declaring the all mighty flying spaghetti monster created all humans and all life? Its no different than the claim an all mighty presence has nothing better to do then create humans. Im always surprised how little religious people question what they believe. I know its very hard to get to a viewpoint that is not contaminated by believes... but still... Even when they know that its made up, they want to believe. Its fine for me but i think there are better ways to become a better person than thousand year old rules from very different times.

There are two major things to look at when considering God or a god. These are: 1) the fundamental idea of God; 2) the interpretations of religions regarding God or god.

Fundamentally there is this. In our own modern world, the monkeys and apes, the dolphins, the birds (even the birds that talk), don't make any complex machinery. Only man makes complex machinery, even though some of the animals use simple, what we would call primitive tools - some primates crack open nuts with rocks, etc. In the eyes of animals (if they could think a little like us) man would be the god.

The thing that is interesting is that all - 100% - of the technology of man, no matter how advanced man's complex machinery is, comes from man's observation of what already exists in nature. In fact, some areas of nature are way more "advanced" than man has been able to understand. To see this, all one need do is watch the Youtube videos that depict the operations of living cells.

Cellular life is machinery in action that man has yet to completely unravel the mysteries about. Yet, this machinery is in abundance all over the world reproducing itself, while man has yet to master the art of building machinery that can reproduce (Yes, a few robots have been built that can more or less reproduce, but nothing approaching the complexity of nature by a long shot).

The point? Since all man's technological abilities come from nature, and since man has really only just started to catch up to nature, and since it is shown when comparing animals to man that the more the advanced form of life, the more complex the technology... consider the capabilities of the One Who put the technology into nature... the same nature that man gets all his technology from. Even if it happened to be only nature itself, then nature is God.

Since there is mass entropy in nature at the same time there is highly advanced complexity, God probably exists, at least in part, outside of nature.

In addition to the above, there is virtually no evidence that pure random exists. Everything operates by cause and effect, action and reaction. Only in some higher forms of quantum math is there any evidence whatsoever for the idea that there can be something such as pure random. The better the scientist, the more he(she) is able to find the cause behind some effect. What does this mean? It means that even our thinking and machine-making has been programmed into the way the universe is unfolding. And it also means that in some way, God has given us the ability to reach out to Him.

Think about these things in depth. A simple reading of this post will not suffice in doing justice to what is written here in simple words.

The next question is, Has God given us a method to find Him, to read about Him, to contact Him (perhaps simple prayer)? Has He shown us one of the religions that stands head and shoulders above other religions, and even above what a religion could possibly be, so that we can understand that this religion definitely came from God, and is God talking to us? Check the religions out. Compare the histories of the different religions. Because the history of the Judeo-Christian religion is one (the Bible and the whole history of how it came into being) that stands out way above what could exist naturally without the guidance of God.

:)

[wili_bot on]




[wili_bot off]

So only because human can build machines you make a arbitrary border to say that animals are machines. I think thats completely arbitrary. What about the very first humans. They did not build machines. They only had the potential to do it. Even now most humans only can build simple machines. So what are those humans? Do they have less soul in your imagination? Its all about potential. And i think its arbitrary when you decide that animals dont have such potential. Its understandable when not believing things can develop to become better of course. But its still arbitray to make a border there.

In fact there are cases of animals that learn new behaviours. Simple use of machines they didnt know before. And animals of the same kind can learn from those individuals. So whats the difference to a human inventing the wheel? Others do the same and some day they think its better when the wheel isnt made from wood only, steel has to be around it to make it more stable. And so on. Its not that a nowadays human invented the car he build. He only is using what others invented before him and he might add something to it.

So yes, humans are special in their ability. But to say that animals only are robots because they arent as good is going to far.

Where did humans see wheels in nature so that they could copy? Not everything was shown by nature so you can only simply copy it.

Its not that i dont believe in higher existence. There are for sure. At least its hard to imagine that humans are the most developed species at all. I believe one could take all of life together and say its god. But its fascinating how humans go around and claim to know what "god" wants. They collect stories in a book and then they claim they know better than all and we have to do now what they say. Like IS in iraq in its most loud expression. Though at the end no one can proof that he knows the will of everything in existence. So those claims has to be taken with caution.

Im not sure why nature is proof that god build it. Is it smart to say "i dont understand how it happened... there has to be some allmighty person who made it" or is it smarter to say "we dont know yet how it came to this"? You know people in the past believed that lightning bolts come from god. They simply took the simple explaination for their missing knowledge. So no, only because nature if full of wonders doesnt say there was a person who made all this personally. Because if there is you would need to ask yourself who made god then. Or is that the point where you would claim that god came into existence from itself? Then why happened this with god but not with nature? Its simply arbitrary. The easy explainations of humans that miss knowledge.

You write under the assumption that there is a god. What if there is none? If you speak about the will of whole life in existence then its no question that god exists in some kind. But if not then all those people praying are nothing more than lunatics who speak with their invisible friend. Who doesnt even answer. Or at least they interprete or claim that he answers sometimes. Or interprete things. If it would be possible to measure and repeat such contact with god then it would be proven. But till then its only a believe that dont yield results. At least not beside people trying to become better persons to be liked by their vision of god. Thats a good effect, at least as long as you dont belong to some radical group like dschihadists or so.

:)

pretty much anything you can think about could be classified as a theory.

It's funny all these militant corpsemunchers coming up with twisted logic like "these teeth are kinda pointy compared to the others therefore cancer is healthy". 

I think the most important thing we all need to think about here is that chicken just tastes good. If prepared well, it is just downright tasty.

If not for the fact that meat tastes really good and I do not like most vegetables, I would also be a vegetarian. But this fact remains, so it is so.

FTFY.  Bon appetit!

 ;D

all true

When did the vegetarian movement started?


Before recorded history

Vegetarianism dates back to a time before recorded history. Many anthropologists believe that most early humans ate primarily plant foods, being more gatherers than hunters. (See articles by David Popovich and Derek Wall.) This view is supported by the fact that the human digestive system resembles that of other plant-eaters rather than that of carnivores. (Forget about "canine" teeth -- other herbivores have them too. But no meat-eater has molar teeth, like humans and the other plant-eaters.) The early human as plant-eater view is also supported by the fact that humans on meat-based diets contract major ailments such as heart disease and cancer much more frequently than people eating vegetarian diets. [more on the topic of plant-eating being natural]

Certainly humans started eating meat at some point before recorded history, but only because unlike animals, humans are capable of that kind of experimentation. However, this short period of meat-eating is not nearly long enough to have had an evolutionary impact on us -- hence the fact, for example, that animal foods will raise human cholesterol while dogs fed solid bricks of butter maintain the same cholesterol level.

Early vegetarians

The Greek mathematician Pythagoras was a vegetarian, and vegetarians were often called Pythagoreans until the word was created. (The term "vegetarian" was coined by the British Vegetarian Society in the mid-1800's. The Latin root of the word refers to the source of life.) Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, and George Bernard Shaw were also vegetarians. (A modern legend is that Hitler was a vegetarian, but in fact he was not, at least not in the traditional sense of the word.)

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/history.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I understand why I never liked that guy


https://i.imgur.com/CUenCXt.jpg


 :D

True. Though that borders "what is reality at all". We mostly can judge on our past observations if things are right or wrong or likely more near to the truth. At the end its all theory thats more or less likely. Only thing with religion is that its a theory that cant be observed like that. Its a believe. There is no prayer that can repeatedly heal cancer or something like that. Religion simply is far outside of the truth likeliness of science.


So we are back to a claim you cant back with anything. Its like me stating that the allmighty spaghetti monster made all mankind. I cant proof it and i wont be able to find a proof. So do you. The problem is you maybe act on those believes.


So its a past high culture that is hidden by science? Conspiracy theory or what is this? Of course people in the past made inventions. But they didnt have a car or a notebook. Which means humans build their machines on the knowledge others brought them. Its the same with animals. They see how an animal of their kind is opening a shell with a rock and they start using it the same way. They learn from others and at some point an animal will find an even better way. This doesnt proof that humans have souls and animals are soulless robots.


Where is your proof for this claim? I can throw around statements the same way you do. They still dont get valid only by repeating them.


And who are you to say that they dont have souls only because they didnt reach the same level as humans yet? If you would see it as potential then you wouldnt go around and claim that other life forms are soulless creatures that dont feel pain. You would be way more cautious.


You really should watch some documentations sometimes. Animals all over the world learn new things. But even if they wouldnt. You should assume that it takes a lot more time to learn more. Only because humans made the jump by developing a more stable nutrition, leading to a higher brain capacity and so on, doesnt mean that animals, with enough time, wont be able to reach higher levels.

What are you speaking about? Animals learn how to crack shells. They didnt know how to do it before. One of them found out and the others learned from him. Please inform yourself about animals using tools. Its not only about highly specific tasks they learn from humans. Its natural development.


And? What does it say that it would take a long time? If you would have a brother and he is 10 years younger than you, then he is quite stupid. But you dont go around and claim he is a soulless robot who doesnt feel pain. Because with enough time he will become smart enough. What does time matter when its about potential? But the fact that you claim something or someone not as far developed as you must be a soulless robot without feels of pain is really strange. I mean i know religious people and how they think so i understand it but its still not understandable for humans that werent indoctrinated with "believes" that cant be proven.


Where is your proof? If i claim you were designed by god to be a slave because you belong to race x of human kind... how could i be wrong? Its the same arbitrary claim you do. You cant proof it. Its a believe. But you think you can act on this believe. And thats hefty.


I dont see how this goes against what i wrote. I only said humans invent things above things other humans invented before them. If you rais a group of humans without knowledge of science and teachings or tech then they most probably will only be able to build very simple tools. Still better than the ones animals use but animals show potential to build machines too.


 :o So the ability to imagine that there is something hidden that you cant explain is a sign of intelligence. Im not so sure. An animal most probably wont worship lightning bolts as thrown from god thor. And we know animals would be the smarter ones by not doing so. Im not sure why you feel superiour to animals because you very hard believe in an imaginery friend whose existence you neither can proof nor show. Fantasy for sure is worth something but fantasy leading to "iam better than the rest" is somewhat dangerous. Happened too often in human past that human races were seen ans animals, put into zoos, it was claimed they dont feel pain and and and.


*lol* Now you really made me laugh out loud. Your believe is really sweet. I would lead you to certain documentaries where clearly is show scientifically that each book of the bible was written by certain humans if i would know the english versions. And if you would follow the history of the bible you would find pretty much that your believe is build on very weak foots.

On top... would you have been born in an islam family you would say the very same about the koran.

But since you wrote this i have to admit that you are a hardcore believer. Its useless to discuss on that level. I wouldnt get anything from it and most people of that kind are feared that they could have been believed the wrong thing. They need the order in order to have a system to understand live. Since otherwise the chaos remaining would be too hard to accept.


So only because you cant understand why something exists you think there must have been some allmightly alien who made it. Ok. Its no different from old vikings who thought god thor throws the lightning bolts around. Because... who other than a god could do such thing?
So only because you claim there must have been an allmighty person who did it... it still becomes no claim who proofs itself. Its only your believe. So if an airplane is crashing in amazonas and the humans living there believe god has sent it, because who other could have build it is the same like a beautiful waterfall who built itself into a mountain. God must has build it personally, because who could have done it otherwise. Sorry but thats a really childish view of life where one doesnt see themself as a fully grown person but as a child who needs parents. Most probably its too hard for many humans to accept that things simply happen because other parts of life moved things into a certain direction. All mighty gods who did everything we cant explain are really something from the past and not really top notch of human development. And you know that.

[The stuff of nature is extremely complex. Nobody can will himself to grow another arm. If you lose an arm, there is no way you can get it back. Yet, science is finding out that an arm is loaded with technology. Scientists are starting to duplicate some of the complex technology that exists in an arm. It is technology. Technology has a technology inventor and maker. It just doesn't pop into being, over a long period of time or short.]
[/quote]

Oh right. Since when was the last time that god build back a cut arm of a human? If a human arm grows naturally its not god building it slowly. Otherwise he would do it again. Its nature, following the rule that has proven valid. And scientists can copy the mechanisms who has proven advantageous in nature. Where is god there? I guess it can only be seen when seeing something and believing it must have been created in an instant. Without a long aging development to get to that status. A working arm for example.


You keep spouting around believes. Its funny. Though there is nothing to back it beyond that believe. Should i speak to you about how great the allmighty spaghetti monster is? I guess you would have fun trying to convince me that my god is the wrong god because... you believe so. :)


*sigh* Of course. An allmighty person that cant be seen nor interacts. But it must have been there because i cant understand why all life is working together that great that its like a huge machine. There must be a person who did this. Sorry... this thought scheme doesnt make sense.


So youre a friend of god? Will you tell me that your prayers work? Or is it more like the usual when you became healed then it was god, when you didnt then it was gods will? Sorry. Even if there is a god. It does not make sense to believe or pray to him when there is nothing coming out of it. There is life, yes, thats undeniable. And maybe some form of life is able to heal. But its still only a part of live. No person behind life. Though at the end its even irrelevant if there are life forms who might be able to heal when you cant reach them. And im 100% sure you cant reach anything with your believe. Maybe you can calm yourself with prayers. Thats it. The rest is some form of live in a social community. But nothing worthy besides some more or less ethical rules.

Its not that im not spiritual. Im only not gullible. Its way too easy to catch gullible people in sects, scientology or more or less dangerous religions. But proving what exists, whats nonsense, whats only believe is important. With you i only see believes, proven by nothing. But dangerously you judge others with your believes. Though thats how religious people work mostly.

Yes. It is way more easy to pick on the words of each other than it is to investigate what the other is saying with the words. And, I don't only mean you. I mean myself as well.

One point in my belief system is, spiritual people are gullible. They have to be. Why? Simply because nobody knows the future. Everyone lives on faith, hoping that tomorrow will be as good as today, or even better, but not really knowing anything about the future. Non-spiritual people simply take it as it comes, and go on with their lives.

I guess that's enough detail between us. At least until we can examine what the other is saying in detail.

Have a nice life.

:)

nice thread to read but im still going to have breakfast in KFC .........

2 Biscuites, 2 Apple Turnovers, and a Side Salad, right?    :D

1 Zinger fillet burger
1 Portion spicy wings
1 Mash potato in gravy
1 Large  fries
1 Large  Coke

and then go drink coffee for good health   :D

It is called survival of the fittest. That is what our world revolves around.

Our governments have more guns, that is how they are able to tell us what to do and jail us if they want to jail us or kill us if they want to kill us.

Humans have more power than animals. That is why we can kill them and eat them.

If you are outraged about this, are you equally outraged about our governments being able to steal money from us and kidnap us?

If animals had more power than humans, then things would be different.

We live in an anarchist world, if you want to protect animals, protect them with guns from the other humans (or convince those with the most guns, ie the government, to protect the animals from humans).

Just curious bro, what kingdom of life do you think you belong to?  Plants?  Fungus? 

Do you have more power than your infant child?  Then by your logic you must have killed and eaten it. 

Also consider that your family might be able to help you if you let them live.  Just because you can kill something does not mean that doing it is beneficial to you. 

Speaking of survival of the fittest, if you cared about longevity you might be interested to try considering your health. 

He said can, not must.

Good point, thank you.  My apologies to Elwar for misinterpreting. 

No problem, the argument can also go the other way. Us libertarians complain about the government and yet we are willing to use force against those that have less power than us (animals). It makes you wonder, if you were actually in charge would you do anything differently? Especially considering you already have that choice and you choose to use force.

Something to think about. I will not try to justify my eating meat. I can probably count the number of vegetables I like on one hand and those are mostly of the potato chip/nacho chip variety. I know it is unhealthy but I try to expand my tastes as much as I can hope to. I have also at times phased in meat substitutes but those processed frankensteins are probably not all that much healthier than the meat version.

I wonder if, by protecting all animals from being eaten by mankind, that includes insect too?

https://i.imgur.com/lQSZ0AD.jpg

And that is the main decider, at what point do we plant our flag and say "at this point on we do not kill"?

I would think that most of us would not kill a monkey that can actively speak sign language just to fill our bellies.

Even vegetarians choose at what level of life they are willing to kill. Do you swat at a mosquito or step on a bug? What about living viruses? Do you bring out the holocaust inducing bleach to eradicate bacteria and other living organisms? Is there a certain configuration of living cells that is ok to kill and not ok?

You might plant your flag and say that anything with a smaller brain than maybe 1000 cells can be killed but anything more than that is off limits. This is the same as a meat eater saying we will not eat something with the intellect of a monkey or horse or house pet, but beyond that everything is fair game. Or being willing to kill a human based on some pre-defined justification.

First the ability to do so needs to be established, then the willingness to do so.

More than this, what limits are there to freedom?

A vegetarian activist might attempt to require all people to become vegetarians. At such a time a meat-eating-only activist might oppose the vegetarian. Then government steps in and what is the result? Loss of freedoms, and more taxes.

Hold to your sacred ideals. Preach to others with the hope of turning them to your way of thinking. But at the end of the day, freedom for all with the following limitations:
1. Harm nobody;
2. Damage the property of nobody else;
3. Fulfill your contracts.

"But, but, but, animals are somebodies." They might be to each other. But they are not to people. Animals are not "somebody" with regard to people. There is a huge difference between people and animals. You don't think so? Be faithful to yourself if that's what you think, and stop living in a house, stop wearing clothes, don't cook your food, and drink from the river.

:)

EDIT: And, I wasn't picking on Elwar. I was simply extending what he had commented.

It is obvious we need a guidance from the anti meat eaters. They can tell us if we can eat an insect or a jelly fish...  8)

A lion doesn't consult with a zebra when its hungry, the are advantages to bring the dominant species ie. "top of the food chain"

 ::) ::)We need to impose our humanity and our codes to the animal kingdom by making humans the same as animals, even lions and insects... ::) ::)

You're right, there is a difference between a member of a set and the set itself.  Kinda hard to put your finger on the difference though.   

-- bon appetit

Thank Goodness the animals know the difference.  :)

If your swimming you can be eaten by a shark or a Crocodile....

Animals would eat us if they could.... I have no Meat guilt at all... Mmmmm delicious animals :)

Survival of the fittest in a sense and also a reminder to stay out of their elements
Then again humans win since we eat shark fins and have Alligator Gumbo as a species we sure eat a lot of different species
Nom.

Yes, thank goodness we do.  It would be difficult if we often confused oranges with fruit, or bitcoin with money for example. 

Vegetarian restaurant owner did not want to kill cockroaches on moral grounds





The owner of a popular Dickson vegetarian restaurant was morally opposed to wiping out a cockroach infestation because it would have involved "killing little insects".

Kingsland Vegetarian Restaurant was on Thursday fined $16,000 for eight food safety breaches.

ACT Health inspectors discovered the live and dead cockroaches in the kitchen of the northside eatery in April 2013.

The threat to public health through contaminated food meant the inspectors shut the "unhygienic" restaurant the next day.

But on Thursday the ACT Magistrates Court was told that the restaurant, which is still trading, has since fixed the problems and won awards for its vegetarian and vegan fare.

Kingsland Vegetarian Restaurant owner Khanh Hoang was originally charged with 12 breaches of the Food Act.

He pleaded guilty to eight offences and appeared for sentence in the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday afternoon.

Court documents said the northside eatery – which specialises in vegetarian cuisine – had been granted an operation certificate in December 2012.

Inspectors raided the restaurant four months later after a public tip-off to discover the breaches, which included a cockroach infestation, incorrect food storage, a dirty kitchen and equipment and obstructed and faulty handwashing facilities.

Court documents included pictures that show a number of live and dead cockroaches around the kitchen, including close to cooking equipment.

At the time, no action had been taken to fix the insects' access points or eradicate the infestation.

Court documents said: "The presence of insects is a key indicator that surfaces are unclean and food is left unattended."

The toilet did not have an air-lock or self-closing door, which meant it opened directly into the kitchen.

Food had been stored in uncovered containers inside the dishwasher and freezer.

Parts of the walls and floors had not been cleaned for a considerable period and had a thick accumulation of grease, dirt, and other material.

Surfaces and equipment – such as stove top and dirty pots, pans and trays – had been left uncleansed, and covered in dirt, food waste and debris.

A missing tap handle meant the hand washing basin could not supply warm running water.

The restaurant was banned from selling food, but cleared to open six days later when the breaches had been corrected.

Mr Hoang attended an interview with the Health Protection Service in June 2013, where he admitted he had been aware of the cockroach infestation but did not carry out pest control measures as it involved "killing".

But pictures tendered in court by defence lawyer Adrian McKenna on Thursday showed the kitchen now in a pristine state.

Mr McKenna said the restaurant has not breached any food standards since 2013.

The lawyer said his client had passionate vegan values but accepted, in hindsight, that his morals had been misguided.

Mr Hoang now brought in a pest control team on a regular basis, has since won awards, and appointed a food safety supervisor.

Magistrate Maria Doogan described the restaurant in the new pictures as immaculate.

She found the offences to be mid-range and convicted and fined Mr Hoang $2000 on each count.

Ms Doogan said she took into account his limited capacity to pay the fine and loss of reputation.

She gave Mr Hoang  one year to pay the total of $16,000 in fines.


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/vegetarian-restaurateur-did-not-want-to-kill-cockroaches-on-moral-grounds-20150201-1313kf.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...owner did not want to kill cockroaches on moral grounds...", but had no moral issues putting at risk the life of humans who paid for his food.

Let's hope this was a very, only, unique, never again, case of a vegetarian restaurant that did this, all the way in australia. If not, then...

 ;)

That's just too silly. After all, how could you keep roaches out of all the food. Sooner or later a customer would kill one by eating it.

 ;D

Next time he should open a thai vegetarian restaurant. Simply say the roaches are part of the dish, encouraging his customers to play with them...

 8)

... and, of course, pay for them.    ;D

As a punishment only, to help you toward the path of enlightenment. A true vegetarian like this character would not accept blood money (or whatever that white goo is when you step, or chew, on roaches) for those crimes...

I'll bet it was delicious.

I bet. Like a cakeroach...

 ;)

The white goo talked about atis the frosting.

 :D

As long as it is gluten free...

 :)

It's not generally the gluten that is unhealthy for you. Rather it is the combination of all the poisons they spray on the grain just before harvest time, so that they get only the strong grains with almost no weeds, combined with the gluten, that is making everyone sick. So, the benefit is in eating the roaches, because the roach bodies are not much affected by the poisons, but break them down into harmless substances.

"Gluten fed roaches are actually good for you."   ;D

:)

Based on that conclusion, the restaurant owner will have a case for being wrongfully targeted by anti roach-eating deniers and get millions...
... To immediately be sued by P.I.T.A. and lose all those millions...

 :)

Upon losing the suit, collapse the corporation, set up a new one with the assets of the old, and let the P.I.T.A. re-sue.

:)

The whole point is not tell each other how to eat! If you want to eat meat or veggies, that is your business.
The problem begins when we preach to each other who is right and who is wrong.

You should re watch the video in the first post while reading out loud what you've just wrote... You'll then get the full experience of this thread.

 :)

Where do these people come from? Is this supposed to be a joke or is it serious? It seems too ridiculous to be real?

Someone should chop-up these people and put them in the hamburger meat in that store. Then they will have served a purpose

in this world. Otherwise, they are just a waste of oxygen.

Isn't that what the pink slime was that everyone was complaining about in the hamburger last year? these people?   :D

Lots of people complained back then, and a lot of companies, including Walmart, quit selling hamburger with pink slime in it.

:)

Pink slime is perfectly safe. If these people were in it then the pink slime would have had a sauteed-hipster-with-alfalfa-sprouts after taste...


http://agricultureproud.com/2012/03/12/what-is-pink-slime-and-is-it-safe/

Riiiight.    Soylent Green.     :D

Vegan MYTHS Debunked with Lierre Keith


This week, we sat down with Lierre Keith, author of "The Vegetarian Myth" to learn about why Vegans are wrong. She can be found at http://www.lierrekeith.com


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSz4AmaMcs&feature=em-subs_digest

Our hospitals are full of meat eaters because ... ?

What will all you healthscam workers do if/when people stay healthy ?

They, just like the private banksters, big oil, the military industrial complex ect. all have a strangle hold on your life's resources.

They, do not want us to know how easy it really is to free ourselves from their 2000 year old reign.

Want milk ? Drink your mom's !

;)

HippieTech gets the +1
Bon appetit!

2000 years ago... The birth of logic, science, philosophy and veganism?

Thank you Pythagoras!

The story behind that guy is another glaring example of how little we really know about our ancient past as some/many of their accomplishments are unmatched and/or can't be explained, to this very day. eg. mathematics, engineering, astronomy ect.

Humanity's addiction to flesh and blood started out very much the same as that junkie's first dose of crack, meth, ect., eons ago.

The Garden of Eden was a butcher shop. The red apple, a slab of bloodied meat.

What does it matter? After the Great Flood at the time of Noah, where only the 8 people of Noah and his family survived in the ark, God formally gave mankind the right to eat meat. The only rule about it was that they wouldn't eat meat with its blood still in it.

Many people pick on this idea of draining the blood out of the meat, as a flaw in the religious side of the meat-eating idea. They suggest that nobody can get every last blood cell out, so the meat-eaters will be disobeying God at least a little by eating any meat. They also say that God's commands are contradictory regarding this.

Such people don't realize that, while a strict law was the rule of thumb before the Flood - people were much more mentally able in pre-flood days; they didn't need a Bible to remember what God was all about - God realized that people were failing through gradual entropy. He realized that never again were they going to be able to keep the strict laws. So, He gave them the semblance of strict laws, so that they could obey within their abilities, showing reverence for God in their hears, minds, and spirits where it really counts. He had it in mind already back then what He was going to do to save them without strict obedience - Jesus.

At a later date, the People of Israel asked God for strict laws - at the time God gave the Ten Commandments through Moses on Mount Sinai. God was pleased that they would ask for such a thing, since He is essentially a God of strict legality - that's why Jesus had to die for the sins of the world. God gave the people of Israel the mental makeup so that they had the ability to keep the strict laws if they only would try. That is why, even to this day, Jews are very clever in their dealings. Their cleverness came from God so they could obey His strict laws.

:)

Not exactly on topic here, nor reflecting the views of Hashman per se,  but I happened to come across this while the thread was up, so hey hey hey why not link. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJkQb0nuUGA

Kinda on topic here, not reflecting the views of Wilikon per se,  but I happened to come across this while the thread was up, so blah blah blah why not link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JkT9cJrgKc

From the Upcoming Album "Hatchets and Broccoli"

 ;)

Boo yeah.  Thanks!!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yw5Mf9RlW0

You are welcome

 :)

Ok so what i gatheres so far is that i cant eat meat, i cant eat veggie, than please tell me what i can eat ? Its a pretty simple answer for this question in nature, where there is an obvious ladder of power, and humans are on very top. So if tigers in jungle can eat a gazelle, why cant i eat a pig? or are all those tree huggers saying the whole nature is wrong, but theyre right.
I eat what i want , when i want, and im sorry if that offends anyone, but it is as it is.

cheers

Sure doesn't offend me.  What you want to eat is exactly what you should eat and what you will eat.   I do the same. 

You can also eat a bus, 100 hot dogs in a minute, or drip lemon juice into your eyes, if that's what floats your boat.  Ladder of power and all that.   

I still think that the chicken would have a richer, more emotional life after being eaten. Of course, better even still if it were eaten alive.

 ;D

Why healthy eating may be the new eating disorder: Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition'




Orthorexia nervosa is the term coined for the 'health food eating disorder'

Sufferers may be 'plunged into gloom' by eating a piece of bread

They may become anxious about when their next superfood hit is coming

Exaggerated focus on food can be seen in raw, clean and paleo dieters


Orthorexia nervosa, the 'health food eating disorder', gets its name from the Greek word ortho, meaning straight, proper or correct.

This exaggerated focus on food can be seen today in some people who follow lifestyle movements such as 'raw', 'clean' and 'paleo'.

American doctor Steven Bratman coined the term 'orthorexia nervosa' in 1997 some time after his experience in a commune in upstate New York.

It was there he developed an unhealthy obsession with eating 'proper' food.


'All I could think about was food,' he said. 'But even when I became aware that my scrabbling in the dirt after raw vegetables and wild plants had become an obsession, I found it terribly difficult to free myself.

'I had been seduced by righteous eating.'

Bratman's description draws parallels with many modern dietary fads that promise superior health by restricting whole food groups without a medical reason or even a valid scientific explanation.

Raw food followers might meet regularly to 'align their bodies, minds and souls' by feasting on 'cleansing and immune-boosting' raw foods.

Such foods are never heated above 44˚C, so 'all the living enzymes in the food remain intact'. No gluten, dairy or 'sugar' is allowed.

Clean eaters may follow similar regimes, removing gluten, dairy and even meat from their diets.

You might overhear a discussion about 'superfood green smoothie' recipes after a yoga class that also happened to 'cleanse your gall bladder'.

And finally, around the corner, paleo pushers may 'beef up' together with a Crossfit class, followed by a few steaks.

Again, with paleo, there is no gluten – or any grains for that matter – and no dairy or other such 'toxins' are allowed.

There is a blurry line separating 'normal' healthy eating and orthorexia nervosa, but one way to define the condition is when eating 'healthily' causes significant distress or negative consequences in a person's life.

They may be 'plunged into gloom' by eating a piece of bread, become anxious about when their next kale, chia or quinoa hit is coming, or eat only at home where 'superfood' intake can be tightly controlled.

Such behaviours can have a significant impact on relationships with family members and friends, let alone on their mental health.

Orthorexia nervosa is not a clinically recognised eating disorder but researchers have developed and tested questionnaires in various populations to get an idea of its prevalence.

Italian researchers developed the ORTO-15 questionnaire in 2005, with a cut-off score below 40 to signify orthorexia nervosa.
 
Scores above 40 can still signify a tendency to pathological eating behaviours and/or obsessive-phobic personality traits.

Questions include: 'Does the thought about food worry you for more than three hours a day?' and 'Do you feel guilty when transgressing your healthy eating rules?'

Using this questionnaire and cut-off value of 40, another Italian research group reported a prevalence of orthorexia nervosa of 57.6 per cent, with a female-male ratio of two-to-one.

However, using a cut-off value of 35, the prevalence reduced to 21 per cent.

Most studies have been conducted in population sub-groups that may be at increased risk for orthorexia nervosa, such as health professionals.

Again using the ORTO-15 and a cut-off value of 40, the prevalence of orthorexia nervosa in Turkish medical doctors was 45.5 per cent, in Turkish performance artists it was 56.4 per cent (81.8 per cent in opera singers to 32.1 per cent in ballet dancers) and in ashtanga yoga teachers in Spain, 86.0 per cent.

Using another questionnaire, the Bratman Test, 12.8 per cent of Austrian dietitians were classified as having orthorexia.

You can test your own tendencies towards orthorexia nervosa using this Bratman test here and access support services via the National Eating Disorder Collaboration page and Body Matters Australasia.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html

UC Berkeley Students Protest For Cows’ Rights On Mother’s Day: “Dairy Cows Are Raped” For Milk…






Mother’s Day held special significance this year for an animal rights group at UC Berkeley and other Bay Area activists, who claim that exploiting the breast milk of “another’s mother,” namely a calf’s, is unfair and disrespectful.

On May 10, the Berkeley Organization for Animal Advocacy (BOAA) at UC Berkeley protested the consumption of mother cows’ milk at Andronico’s Community Market and Safeway, two dairy and meat-selling grocery markets in the San Francisco Bay area.

A group of about 20 students and alumni marched through the grocery markets consecutively, chanting lines such as “animals feel pain, just like us,” and holding signs that read “dairy cows are raped and forcibly impregnated” and “dairy cows are exploited for their breast milk.”

“Every time you drink the milk of a mother cow, there is a baby calf who isn’t,” BOAA organizer Reilly Gardine said in the group’s press release.

“There is no humane way to forcefully impregnate a cow and separate her from her baby, only to steal her milk,” Mike Harvey, another BOAA organizer, said in the press release.


http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6505

Here we go again - "cows & cows & cows" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FavUpD_IjVY.

:)

OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display.

Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose.

Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries.
There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest.

Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival.

There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence.

Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food.

C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved.

:)

The mother stops producing milk after a while so I think I will stick to cows.

OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion.

When are you jokers going to wake up and see that evolution as it stands now is one of two things. It is either religion, or it is sci-fi. Why? Because the amount of evolution that has been proven to exist is relatively small.

There is NO proven evolution process that takes inanimate material to life. In fact, the theory for it isn't complete. The evolution that has been scientifically proven has so many holes in it in this way, that we don't even have a complete working "scenario" whereby evolution could become life. Lot's of ideas. Some reasonable theories. But no start to finish scenario where all the parts have been proven. Not really even close. Not even complete start to finish theory.

However, if we had a working scenario, then we still would have to prove that it was the one that happened. Probably by the time somebody DOES come forward with a complete, working flow of evolution, there will be several such working flows, all of them diametrically opposed to each other, as to how evolution could have happened - gone from inanimate to life. The one that is the truth (if somebody even has the right one) will still need to be proven that it is the one that really did happen. We might totally need a time viewer for that.

The point is, those who believe that evolution is truth based on the evidence so far, hail it in a form that at least approaches religion (certainly isn't philosophy). The rest of us call it science fiction. Wake up.

:)

Mention evolution and it doesn't take long for the angry Christians to start their hand wringing. LOL :D


Observe how he deliberately changed the theory of evolution so that meant something that it doesn't.
Theory of evolution says nothing of the origin or point of evolution. It describes how new species come into existance.

^^Yep, he's totally close-minded and incapable of taking on any information - I've explained to him a couple of times that evolution and the emergence of life itself are 2 different things, yet he still doesn't distinguish them.

Doing so wouldn't even violate his beliefs/ethics, so I don't know why he doesn't learn. I don't think I've ever seen him admit he was wrong, ever.

 ::)

New Zealand legally recognises animals as 'sentient' beings






A change to New Zealand law has recognised what pet owners and scientists have known for years - that animals have feelings.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which passed its final reading on Tuesday, states that animals, like humans, are "sentient" beings.

"To say that animals are sentient is to state explicitly that they can experience both positive and negative emotions, including pain and distress," said Dr Virginia Williams, chair of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.

"The explicitness is what is new and marks another step along the animal welfare journey."

The bill also bans the use of animals for the testing of cosmetics.

Dr Williams said the legal recognition of animal sentience provided a stronger underpinning of the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.

Nelson SPCA manager Donna Walzl said the changes were "wonderful".

"It's great to finally see it brought into legislation. It's awesome."

She said pets that came to the SPCA's attention often exhibited human-like emotions.

"You can see that they do have separation anxiety and that's showing emotion. It's almost a human emotion," she said.

"It's the same with the animals that we see that are neglected and have real, true animal welfare issues. They suffer for it. You can see it in their eyes. It's quite sad, really."

A submission on the bill by SPCA Auckland said a declaration of sentience was needed "because most New Zealand law treats animals as 'things' and 'objects' rather than as living creatures".

Walzl said she hoped that recognising animals as sentient beings would add "more weight" to abuse and neglect cases in court.

"Hopefully there will be some sterner penalties out there and that obviously creates a bigger deterrent for people to do those things."

The bill also provides for a penalty scheme to enable low-to-medium level offending to be dealt with more effectively, and gives animal welfare inspectors the power to issue compliance notices, among other measures.

New Zealand Veterinary Association president Dr Steve Merchant said the bill greater clarity, transparency and enforceability of animal welfare laws.

"Expectations on animal welfare have been rapidly changing, and practices that were once commonplace for pets and farm stock are no longer acceptable or tolerated. The bill brings legislation in line with our nation's changing attitude on the status of animals in society."

The bill was introduce to parliament by primary industries minister Nathan Guy in May, 2013.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/68363264/New-Zealand-legally-recognises-animals-as-sentient-beings

Bolt to the head. No pain, just delicious tender meat. Circle of life bitches, kudos to the human race for getting to the top of the food-chain.

This is it. Animals may have and exhibit intelligence. But no animal attempts to advance his own reasoning or life-style beyond what is built into him - instinct. Only human beings have the ability to extend their intelligence into all kinds of new regions.

In New Zealand, under common law, if you own the animal, you can eat it. If you subscribe to formal citizenship rather than simple domicile, you might get governmental flack. And if you don't know how to stand as a man/woman in common law, you might lose in court. But if you know how to stand, you win.

:)

Notice how he doesn't know that the formation of life from inorganic materials is part of the standard evolutionary process. However, no-one has proven that the things that are called evolution in the sense that BO is saying, are not simply programed-in methods that living creatures have for adapting to climactic and other conditions.Science simply hasn't become that capable, yet.

:)

I believe BADecker is referring to Abiogenesis where life began from nothing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Yes, correct, there is no proof of evolution, that's why we call it a theory. Obviously.  ::)

Implementing the word "Abiogenesis" is simply a recent way that evolutionists have attempted to split up evolution theory, because they are having such a difficult time proving any of it exists. How many years has it been, now, since Darwin?

:)

I am totally NOT against the idea of some group of scientists actually finding a possible method or complete scenario or complete flow regarding evolution. While I am not actually hoping for it, I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody found a complete way that evolution could have happened, from the start of inorganic to life, to the life that we have today. In fact, I would like it if several of these methods were found.

It would prove that God had created mankind so great that they could even find out how to make life evolve. Of course, then there would be the problem of proving that evolution actually did the job, and not God.

:)

Tell you what, why not rewrite the bible (which is okay because it's been done before) and add a bit of evolution into the story line.
You can then fully believe the theory 100%. :D

Of course the Bible has been completely rewritten, many times. Before the making of the printing press, that was the only way to spread the Bible, write it. Since we have printing presses these days, and since one can actually print it on his home computer printer, why would I want to waste my time rewriting the Bible?

Once there is very much evidence, a thing can be considered proven. Because of the evidence, God has essentially been proven, as has the Bible. Examining the history of how the Bible came into existence might be a bit difficult - so that you can see the evidence, that is. But the evidence for God is all around us and has been shown in a big way at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

You can't see the evidence if you don't look.

:)

The Bible does not mention darwin's theory but I would (personally) read this as if a man was trying to explain to an ant what the fabric of life was 'coming from', atomic dust particles:

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”


Are we really all made of stardust? (http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52)


That will be it as far as my Sunday's teaching...

 :D

Earth dust, like the stars are.

:)

"Vegan Feminist" Professor Asks Women to Stop Getting Naked to Support Veganism





The Vegan Feminist Network, which says its mission is to "eradicate oppression from the Nonhuman Animal rights movement and improve inclusiveness through dialogue and educational resources," has warned women to stop stripping off their clothes in favor of veganism.

The article, titled Dear New Vegan, was written by Corey Lee Wrenn, who teaches Sociology at Colorado State University. In the piece, Ms. Wrenn explains to women what they might experience now that they've decided to stop eating meat or animal products.

"You may start to realize that being vegan is one thing, but being vegan and female-identified is another one altogether," she writes. It continues later, emphasis hers, "If you decide that simply being vegan isn’t enough and that you want to get involved with activism, you are going to come up against more male violence."


If you become an activist, Ms. Wrenn details, you have to be careful of male vegans, as they "control" the movement. And let's face it, the article says, "You might start to think that getting naked for the cause is “liberating.”"

But you need to be careful. Wrenn warns, "It may not be men directly telling you to get naked (women are in on it, too), but the patriarchal norms of the movement have created an environment where women are simply expected to become sex objects “for the animals.”"

If you start wanting to take off your clothes, "woah, stop." You need to "think again," Ms. Wrenn writes. She continues (emphasis theirs), "Consider also that only thin, white, cis women are allowed to “empower” themselves for other animals, and that turning men on sexually is not the same as turning men on to veganism. Empirical research shows that facilitating the oppression of women does not challenge the oppression of other animals."

At the end of the piece, Wrenn adds, "P.S. If you are a woman of color, that’s a whole extra set of challenges. As a white woman myself, I can’t speak to the depth of these challenges, but I can tell you that the vegan movement can be a really nasty “color blind” place at times."

http://www.thesocialmemo.org/2015/07/vegan-feminist-professor-asks-women-to.html


--------------------------------------------------------
Is eating female plants a sign of patriarchy oppression? Should light skin fruits and vegetables check their privilege before getting eaten?

Hitler was a vegetarian.

This is a joke right? Because it's pretty funny.

Yes! Stop getting naked you Vegan Feminists. Plants don't taste as good when they are in shock!

:)

We are ugly bags of mostly starwater. ;)
https://youtu.be/gBuyqM5u2GY

Which btw, has memory and structure.
https://youtu.be/YwaNfNcurvQ

Now think about what that dark pagan blood ritual sacrifice/ dinner is doing to your body's water.

All I meant is, that when you read the account of the creation in Genesis in the Bible, it seems to say that all material in the universe was one big chunk. Then God separated it into whatever different kinds of bodies exist in all space. But... when God does this, He does it from a standpoint of the earth, that all the materials came from the earth, this earth.

:)

Why salad is so overrated



As the world population grows, we have a pressing need to eat better and farm better, and those of us trying to figure out how to do those things have pointed at lots of different foods as problematic. Almonds, for their water use. Corn, for the monoculture. Beef, for its greenhouse gases. In each of those cases, there’s some truth in the finger-pointing, but none of them is a clear-cut villain.

There’s one food, though, that has almost nothing going for it. It occupies precious crop acreage, requires fossil fuels to be shipped, refrigerated, around the world, and adds nothing but crunch to the plate.

It’s salad, and here are three main reasons why we need to rethink it.

Salad vegetables are pitifully low in nutrition. The biggest thing wrong with salads is lettuce, and the biggest thing wrong with lettuce is that it’s a leafy-green waste of resources.

In July, when I wrote a piece defending corn on the calories-per-acre metric, a number of people wrote to tell me I was ignoring nutrition. Which I was. Not because nutrition isn’t important, but because we get all the nutrition we need in a fraction of our recommended daily calories, and filling in the rest of the day’s food is a job for crops like corn. But if you think nutrition is the most important metric, don’t direct your ire at corn. Turn instead to lettuce.

One of the people I heard from about nutrition is organic consultant Charles Benbrook. He and colleague Donald Davis developed a nutrient quality index — a way to rate foods based on how much of 27 nutrients they contain per 100 calories. Four of the five lowest-ranking foods (by serving size) are salad ingredients: cucumbers, radishes, lettuce and celery. (The fifth is eggplant.)

Those foods’ nutritional profile can be partly explained by one simple fact: They’re almost all water. Although water figures prominently in just about every vegetable (the sweet potato, one of the least watery, is 77 percent), those four salad vegetables top the list at 95 to 97 percent water. A head of iceberg lettuce has the same water content as a bottle of Evian (1-liter size: 96 percent water, 4 percent bottle) and is only marginally more nutritious.

Take collard greens. They are 90 percent water, which still sounds like a lot. But it means that, compared with lettuce, every pound of collard greens contains about twice as much stuff that isn’t water, which, of course, is where the nutrition lives. But you’re also likely to eat much more of them, because you cook them. A large serving of lettuce feels like a bona fide vegetable, but when you saute it (not that I’m recommending that), you’ll see that two cups of romaine cooks down to a bite or two.

The corollary to the nutrition problem is the expense problem. The makings of a green salad — say, a head of lettuce, a cucumber and a bunch of radishes — cost about $3 at my supermarket. For that, I could buy more than two pounds of broccoli, sweet potatoes or just about any frozen vegetable going, any of which would make for a much more nutritious side dish to my roast chicken.

Lettuce is a vehicle to transport refrigerated water from farm to table. When we switch to vegetables that are twice as nutritious — like those collards or tomatoes or green beans — not only do we free up half the acres now growing lettuce, we cut back on the fossil fuels and other resources needed for transport and storage.

Save the planet, skip the salad.

Salad fools dieters into making bad choices. Lots of what passes for salad in restaurants is just the same as the rest of the calorie-dense diabolically palatable food that’s making us fat, but with a few lettuce leaves tossed in. Next time you order a salad, engage in a little thought experiment: Picture the salad without the lettuce, cucumber and radish, which are nutritionally and calorically irrelevant. Is it a little pile of croutons and cheese, with a few carrot shavings and lots of ranch dressing?

Call something “salad,” and it immediately acquires what Pierre Chandon calls a “health halo.” Chandon, professor of marketing at INSEAD, an international business school in Fontainebleau, France, says that once people have the idea it’s good for them, they stop paying attention “to its actual nutritional content or, even worse, to its portion size.”

I won’t be the first to point out that items labeled “salad” at chain restaurants are often as bad, if not worse, than pastas or sandwiches or burgers when it comes to calories. Take Applebee’s, where the Oriental Chicken Salad clocks in at 1,400 calories, and the grilled version is only 110 calories lighter. Even the Grilled Chicken Caesar, the least calorific of the salads on the regular menu, is 800 calories.

Of course, salad isn’t always a bad choice, and Applebee’s has a selection of special menu items under 550 calories (many chain restaurants have a similar menu category). Applebee’s Thai Chicken Salad is only 390 calories (although it has more sodium than the Oriental Chicken Salad). Other chains, like relative newcomer Sweetgreen, have a good selection of salads that go further toward earning their health halo: more actual vegetables, less fried stuff.

I asked Bret Thorn, columnist at Nation’s Restaurant News and longtime observer of the restaurant industry, about salads. “Chefs are cognizant of what’s going on in the psychology of diners,” he said. “They’re doing a kind of psychological health washing,” not just with salads, but with labels like “fresh” and “natural,” and foods that are “local” and “seasonal.” “A chef is not a nutritionist, or public health advocate,” Thorn points out. “They make food that customers want to buy.”

And we want to buy things that are fried or creamy or salty or sweet, or all of those things. Which doesn’t mean that the right salad can’t be a good choice for a nutritious meal. It just means that it’s easy to get snookered.

Salad has unfortunate repercussions in our food supply. Lettuce has a couple of No. 1 unenviable rankings in the food world. For starters, it’s the top source of food waste, vegetable division, becoming more than 1 billion pounds of uneaten salad every year. But it’s also the chief culprit for foodborne illnesses. According to the Centers for Disease Control, green leafies accounted for 22 percent of all food-borne illnesses from 1998-2008.

To be fair, “leafy vegetables,” the CDC category, also includes cabbage, spinach and other kinds of greens, but the reason the category dominates is that the greens are often eaten raw. As in salad.

None of this is to say that salad doesn’t have a role in our food supply. I like salad, and there’s been many a time a big bowl of salad on the dinner table has kept me from a second helping of lasagna. The salads we make at home aren’t the same as the ones we buy in restaurants; according to the recipe app Yummly, its collection of lettuce-based salads average 398 calories per serving (although a few do get up into Oriental Chicken territory).

An iceberg wedge, with radishes and bacon and blue-cheese dressing, is something I certainly have no plans to give up. But as we look for ways to rejigger our food supply to grow crops responsibly and feed people nutritiously, maybe we should stop thinking about salad as a wholesome staple, and start thinking about it as a resource-hungry luxury.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/why-salad-is-so-overrated/2015/08/21/ecc03d7a-4677-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

It's not. Phytonutrients. We need them, if only in miniscule amounts. They come from salads and other sources.

One of the problems keeping us from living an exceedingly long, healthy life is that we don't get enough varieties of phytonutrients. There are millions of "varieties" of phytonutrients in the world. There are probably many forms that have been lost off the planet as plant species die off and are lost. Each of these is different, and each contributes to health in its own way. None is unnecessary. Sure, the body has work-arounds. But eventually we die, partly because of the lack of certain phytonutrients from green plants... salads.

The problem isn't the so-called uselessness of salads. The problem is the lack of higher quantities of the nutrients in the salads to make up for the phytonutrients that have been lost due to plants becoming extinct.

One company called AIM International (http://www.theaimcompanies.com/) sells a product they call BarleyLife. This product essentially is barley grass juice that has been dehydrated in such a way that the phyto- and other nutrients remain active.

There are other companies that are using this process with all kinds of food plants. Another is VEDEN (http://www.veden.com/). Their flagship product, VEDEN, is a combination of all kinds of plant foods, salad plants included, reduced to concentrated powder form.

It isn't that salad foods are not good for us. The problem is the lack of varieties, which can be made up somewhat by consuming much more of what is available.

:)

The easiest way for me to boost the amount of phytochemicals in my body: I bought a blendtec...


 ;)

Sorry. Not concentrated enough. In the distant past, the earth was so healthy, and the plants were abounding with so much nutrition, that people were healthy enough to live for hundreds of years.

:)

Get one, not Vitamix. You won't regret it, not even in a hundred years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOTleF3WAMU

 :)

A blender, even a good one, won't help much with getting more nutrients. The best it will do is aid in digestion a little. The thing we need is concentrated nutrients, so we can actually get more of what we need. VEDEN.

:)

Of course, why only blend vegetables and fruit? Chicken and other meats blend very well in some blenders. Think of making vegetable meat mush in your blender. Very tasty, and already chewed for you. Works exceptionally well for people who haven't made it to the dentist in a while, but really need to go.

 :D

http://www.blendtec.com/warranty?gclid=CK6EjJnvxscCFdgSgQodbWoPhg

No. I do not work nor get a commission from them...

 :)

Greetings blood thirsty savages. :)

You underestimate the flesh tearing capabilities of human gums. :P

http://img.techpowerup.org/150826/meatyteeth.jpg

I really hope it will be much healthier, and not that gmo crap,or a world where you take your kids to McDonalds for daily lunch.
No real chicken at those places.
Fruit and veg is my type of food with the occasional chicken.


Americans buy more chicken than any other food at the center of the plate. Chicken consumption per capita has increased nearly every year since the mid 1960’s, while red meat consumption has steadily declined. (http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/)

Could you imagine what world consumption is.

Again, another imposing alien beliefs and the will (vegetarianism), no good will not.  :-\

You have a nice family album there. Thank you for sharing...

 :)

Well i can't imagine my life without meat. Not any kind of meat though, only farm raised. In my country there are many farms and the animals on those farm eat grass and natural food, not some chemically made food so the animal for example a pig will gain 100 kilograms in a month.
Also, there are many hungry people on this planet, first find a way how to feed them and than try to fight for the animal right.

Well, be sure to thaw this frozen chicken out before you cook it.    :D

Sometimes, I look back at my posts and think about how intelligent I was back then, what happened?

Sometimes I consider my previous posts and think about how much the threads in here have clarified my thinking for myself, and the way to express such thinking.

:)

Oh my god, same!

It's especially fun to do on forums

True. But what are animal rights? Aren't animal rights in the wild simply the way animals instinctively act under whatever circumstances they find themselves in, according to their nature? And in captivity, aren't animal rights completely subservient to their owners' authority in every way?

A merciful owner has mercy on his animals, and even love for them. If he eats them, he kills them swiftly so that they feel little pain.

If a society restricts its members from eating animals or treating their animal property how they want, it is a society of slavery among people. In a land of freedom, people have right to do with their animal property and other property as they desire. It is when people do NOT have freedom to do with their animal property what they want, that people are like animals before their society or government.

Since society and government are made up of people, what gives them the right to decide how other people should treat their own property?

:)

That's exactly what I go by. Kill animals swiftly so you can eat them.

Disclaimer: Human beings are animals.

Humans are not animals. When you look in Genesis, you find that God created the animals, but that He made man in His own image, including breathing the breath of life into man. Man and animals, though similar in may ways so that they can inhabit the same planet, are different.

:)

I was giving a biological definition

If that's all there was to people, it might work.   :)

What are you even talking about. What does Genesis have to do with all this

People are not animals! Thus, you can't use the same logic on people that you might use on animals.

:)

Then what are they? Plants? Bacteria? Fungi?

Was I really supposed to answer?

People are people a.k.a. human beings. They are greater than the animals, not as powerful as the angels, creatures that God made, and creatures, the only kind of which God came to as one of... in His form as Jesus, the Christ.

:)

Biologically, an animal is defined as an organism with animal cells. Like humans.