Activists Hold Funeral For Frozen Chicken In Store

[Daloon]

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhjcq72tKL4vZcSmfQ

Game set match.

[Ahldagor]

Lol, wut?

[katrik]

Lol is this real

[ErlickBachman]

Hope that dude never steps foot into a KFC...

[Baler]

https://i.imgur.com/tSX0NSL.gif

[Lhancelot]

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhjcq72tKL4vZcSmfQ

Game set match.

I love the passion.

[Cecily]

If I didn't think they were serious, that's the type of thing I'd like to participate in.

[Barkingturtle]

I'm an animal rights activist. I'm familiar with the group who performed this demonstration and interact with their members on a weekly basis. I know the members of this forum are smart people who realize that eating animal parts and secretions is terribly detrimental to our personal health and that animal agriculture is destroying the planet. I mean, you're all well-educated woke folks, so I don't need to explain all this in detail.

That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all a quick question. I don't personally involve myself in these supermarket funerals because I'm not sure about the efficacy of these sort of demonstrations. I see a couple "lol's" and "wtf's" and frankly that's sort of what I expect. But I wonder, what sort of demonstration do you believe would be helpful in getting you to abandon the comfort of your cognitive dissonance to start making better choices based on facts and logic, rather than defaulting to the social programming with which you've been raised?

[Cecily]

Probably videos of chickens getting electrocuted or cows getting rods punched through their foreheads might be more effective. This... is just ridiculous if you're seriously protesting, but as a humorous way to fuck with society these funerals have some potential. Needs a funnier front man though.

[Cecily]

I'm an animal rights activist. I'm familiar with the group who performed this demonstration and interact with their members on a weekly basis. I know the members of this forum are smart people who realize that eating animal parts and secretions is terribly detrimental to our personal health and that animal agriculture is destroying the planet. I mean, you're all well-educated woke folks, so I don't need to explain all this in detail.

I really enjoyed how well constructed and manipulative this paragraph is by the way. You're an excellent writer.

[Lhancelot]

I'm an animal rights activist. I'm familiar with the group who performed this demonstration and interact with their members on a weekly basis. I know the members of this forum are smart people who realize that eating animal parts and secretions is terribly detrimental to our personal health and that animal agriculture is destroying the planet. I mean, you're all well-educated woke folks, so I don't need to explain all this in detail.

That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all a quick question. I don't personally involve myself in these supermarket funerals because I'm not sure about the efficacy of these sort of demonstrations. I see a couple "lol's" and "wtf's" and frankly that's sort of what I expect. But I wonder, what sort of demonstration do you believe would be helpful in getting you to abandon the comfort of your cognitive dissonance to start making better choices based on facts and logic, rather than defaulting to the social programming with which you've been raised?

Out of context, what the guy in the funeral procession preaches actually doesn't sound crazy to me. I actually can empathize and agree with the sentiment.

The problem is, in the context of it all preaching those words to people who culturally have been indoctrinated to eat meat, and view those bundles of wrapped chickens as the begining and end of all not realizing even what a chicken looks like with feathers that runs around as a living creature etc., it's fruitless.

Especially trying to express the feelings of these little bundles of food that are manufactured for consumption that hardly even resemble an animal at all... The majority of people cannot empathize with it. The ones who might are not going to break rank in the store and join in the protest either, as they would be ridiculed mercilessly as the protesters are.

The only way to convince people that eating meats is bad, is flood them with information regarding WHY it's bad for THEM. Sadly, the majority of people don't give a shit about those chickens. But, they do give a shit about their own lives.

As Cecily said, you can flood their brains with images and stories of how the animals are slaughtered as that can work for the few meat eaters who actually love animals and can empathize with the animals to sway their desire to eat processed meats.

[Barkingturtle]

Probably videos of chickens getting electrocuted or cows getting rods punched through their foreheads might be more effective.

I tend to agree. Chickens are actually hung upside on a track which carries them so that their throats are dragged across a long blade. Then they are plunged into boiling water, often still alive, before they can bleed out.

Personally, my activism consists primarily of visiting slaughterhouses and taking pictures of the animals being unloaded from their trucks. It changes people, in my experience. We do this once or twice a week. Anyone in the Denver area is invited to come along and should message me for more info.



The only way to convince people that eating meats is bad, is flood them with information regarding WHY it's bad for THEM.


You might be surprised. I have an insurmountable trove of scary trivia concerning the personal and environmental health impacts of our flesh addiction, but people just pay it no mind. On the other hand, nobody can seem to ignore footage of a pig being anally electrocuted or a cow being hung by their ankle after having their throat slashed. Myself, I'm into non-violent demonstration and I do sort of feel like confronting people unexpectedly with the gory truth about their choices is is a violent action, but it's just so fucking effective sometimes.

I mean, I dare anyone to watch this movie (http://www.nationearth.com/) and come back here and rationalize what we as humans are doing to the other species on Earth.

[Lhancelot]

I tend to agree. Chickens are actually hung upside on a track which carries them so that their throats are dragged across a long blade. Then they are plunged into boiling water, often still alive, before they can bleed out.

Personally, my activism consists primarily of visiting slaughterhouses and taking pictures of the animals being unloaded from their trucks. It changes people, in my experience. We do this once or twice a week. Anyone in the Denver area is invited to come along and should message me for more info.




You might be surprised. I have an insurmountable trove of scary trivia concerning the personal and environmental health impacts of our flesh addiction, but people just pay it no mind. On the other hand, nobody can seem to ignore footage of a pig being anally electrocuted or a cow being hung by their ankle after having their throat slashed. Myself, I'm into non-violent demonstration and I do sort of feel like confronting people unexpectedly with the gory truth about their choices is is a violent action, but it's just so fucking effective sometimes.

I mean, I dare anyone to watch this movie (http://www.nationearth.com/) and come back here and rationalize what we as humans are doing to the other species on Earth.

I already understand humans are violent and vile creatures. Not only versus animals, but to other humans. My point is, I hate to sound pessimistic, but, that's humans.

When it comes to personal ideologies, it's simply impossible to alter them when they are so ingrained within people.

When it comes to eating meat, you are fighting a pattern of behavior that goes back since the dawn of man. This pattern of behavior is intertwined with culture, religion, and for many a personal enjoyment.

When you top all of that off with the vast amount of money being made off the slaughter of animals for consumption, you are faced with an impossible task if you plan to stop it.

It's like fossil fuel useage. That's not good for the environment, is it? Are you also protesting that?

What about illegal wars pushed by larger countries onto the smaller ones, purely done for the profit of selling arms and/or to "rebuild" the smaller country that is destroyed?

My point is humans are awful creatures and I hate the majority of what we have done to this planet. If I sat and thought on all the evilness humans inflict on this planet I literally would enter a depression I'd never exit from.

I respect your plight and fight for animals, but I feel it's about as effective as having 100 mile an hour winds blowing into your face and trying to spit.

You are riding this train, the tracks have been laid and nothing you do will alter the route you are going.

[Kaino]

98% of people don't even technically count as conscious as in that everything they do is driven by the most biological and primal drives to satisfy immediate needs, trying to get them too understand hypocrisy or cruelty is equivalent to trying to teach an aboriginal calculus

activism is a spook mates

[Fasttimes]

I had chicken and fish for lunch, thanks thread.

[paulgiamatti]

I already understand humans are violent and vile creatures. Not only versus animals, but to other humans. My point is, I hate to sound pessimistic, but, that's humans.

When it comes to personal ideologies, it's simply impossible to alter them when they are so ingrained within people.

When it comes to eating meat, you are fighting a pattern of behavior that goes back since the dawn of man. This pattern of behavior is intertwined with culture, religion, and for many a personal enjoyment.

When you top all of that off with the vast amount of money being made off the slaughter of animals for consumption, you are faced with an impossible task if you plan to stop it.

It's like fossil fuel useage. That's not good for the environment, is it? Are you also protesting that?

What about illegal wars pushed by larger countries onto the smaller ones, purely done for the profit of selling arms and/or to "rebuild" the smaller country that is destroyed?

My point is humans are awful creatures and I hate the majority of what we have done to this planet. If I sat and thought on all the evilness humans inflict on this planet I literally would enter a depression I'd never exit from.

I respect your plight and fight for animals, but I feel it's about as effective as having 100 mile an hour winds blowing into your face and trying to spit.

You are riding this train, the tracks have been laid and nothing you do will alter the route you are going.

I hate it when you do that thing where you skip a line after every sentence. Paragraphs, man. Paragraphs!

[Barkingturtle]

I'm sorry some of you guys have had such poor experiences with other humans. I find that many people are willing to listen and learn. I mean, I spent thirty years as an omnivore and then I changed, so I give most people the benefit of the doubt.

And honestly, huge change is already occurring all the time regarding animal rights. The dairy industry is flat out dying. Meat consumption is waning and plant-based replacements are growing in authenticity and therefore popularity among meat-eaters. Lab-grown meat is right around the corner, too, which while still causing cancers and heart disease and diabetes will at least require less suffering on the part of animals and the environment. The fashion industry is moving away from fur. SeaWorld is breathing its last gasps. Veganism is predicted by several business journals to be the mega-trend of 2018. So, change is happening, but like any social movement this is a long, hard road.

But the best people I know are animal rights activists. People who are just fucking on fire, possessed by their need to get involved. I trust that one day soon they'll end these cruel and destructive practices completely.

[Kaino]

I'm sorry some of you guys have had such poor experiences with other humans. I find that many people are willing to listen and learn. I mean, I spent thirty years as an omnivore and then I changed, so I give most people the benefit of the doubt.

And honestly, huge change is already occurring all the time regarding animal rights. The dairy industry is flat out dying. Meat consumption is waning and plant-based replacements are growing in authenticity and therefore popularity among meat-eaters. Lab-grown meat is right around the corner, too, which while still causing cancers and heart disease and diabetes will at least require less suffering on the part of animals and the environment. The fashion industry is moving away from fur. SeaWorld is breathing its last gasps. Veganism is predicted by several business journals to be the mega-trend of 2018. So, change is happening, but like any social movement this is a long, hard road.

But the best people I know are animal rights activists. People who are just fucking on fire, possessed by their need to get involved. I trust that one day soon they'll end these cruel and destructive practices completely.

you're projecting a 2% mentality on the other 98%, pure ignorance tbh fam

[Fasttimes]

Animals are meant to be consumed. Bring me the sushi asap.

[Barkingturtle]

you're projecting a 2% mentality on the other 98%, pure ignorance tbh fam

I don't know if your numbers add up. I'm just saying, I actually leave my house and talk to people about this stuff and they're more receptive, particularly in-person, than you'd guess. I admit though, I don't typically participate in a lot of internet "activism" because--believe it or not--people are way more likely to get defensive when you challenge aspects of their identity online, despite the benefit of anonymity. Or maybe because of it. It's fascinating.

[hyejin]

I'm sorry some of you guys have had such poor experiences with other humans. I find that many people are willing to listen and learn. I mean, I spent thirty years as an omnivore and then I changed, so I give most people the benefit of the doubt.

And honestly, huge change is already occurring all the time regarding animal rights. The dairy industry is flat out dying. Meat consumption is waning and plant-based replacements are growing in authenticity and therefore popularity among meat-eaters. Lab-grown meat is right around the corner, too, which while still causing cancers and heart disease and diabetes will at least require less suffering on the part of animals and the environment. The fashion industry is moving away from fur. SeaWorld is breathing its last gasps. Veganism is predicted by several business journals to be the mega-trend of 2018. So, change is happening, but like any social movement this is a long, hard road.

But the best people I know are animal rights activists. People who are just fucking on fire, possessed by their need to get involved. I trust that one day soon they'll end these cruel and destructive practices completely.

😍😍😍😍

[Cecily]

I like chicken. It's a good staple food for low calorie eating, and I'm not adult enough to eat a bunch of vegetables. I've pretty much stopped eating red meat though and don't particularly miss it.

[Barkingturtle]

I like chicken. It's a good staple food for low calorie eating,

I guess it's a good staple if your dietary goals include having your chest cracked open or engaging in a conversation with your doctor about the growth he's found on your colon. One reason I elect to avoid products derived from animals is because I greatly enjoy my life, love my family, my work, my home etc and I want to live as long as possible. Basically the same reason I no longer smoke cigarettes or meth, but with the added benefit that I'm not causing suffering in sentient beings by supporting a barbaric industry with my petty consumer choices. All that said, I don't want to force my perspective on anyone, and I understand as well as respect and appreciate your decision to die prematurely for whatever reasons you deem appropriate. <3

[Cecily]

I'm sensing a slight bias in your opinion on the subject. Have you considered chickens are delicious?

Again, I'm greatly enjoying your prose. You raise a wonderful, emotionally charged argument. "Well if you don't mind dying early or love your family..." Fantastic subtext. It strikes a me little dirty though and I do try to not get life advice from former meth heads so I can't count you as a reliable source of information.

[Darkatar]

But I wonder, what sort of demonstration do you believe would be helpful in getting you to abandon the comfort of your cognitive dissonance to start making better choices based on facts and logic, rather than defaulting to the social programming with which you've been raised?

Right, we should default to -your- social programming. Uh-huh.

[Barkingturtle]

Right, we should default to -your- social programming. Uh-huh.

Well, only if you care about your personal health, the health of the planet, and the well-being of all sentient creatures. Then yeah, you should absolutely accept my programming.

Seriously man, examine carefully the sentence you quoted. It's almost as if your precious dissonance is so profound it has actually impacted your ability to read. Are you arguing against making decisions informed by facts and logic? Do you have fact-based reasons why one should eat animal parts and secretions? Are you aware of the health effects of meat consumption? The environmental catastrophe that is animal farming? Have you bothered to educate yourself? Do you believe there is an ethical way to kill someone who does not wish to die? Have you ever even given any of this any thought, or have you simply accepted the circumstances of your cultural upbringing? Would you eat a dog? Why or why not?

[Raev]

Are you arguing against making decisions informed by facts and logic

If you have actually posted any facts and logic in this thread, they are buried under an avalanche of pompous status signaling prose. If you do have real facts, then by all means post them.

Hint: you need an actual randomized controlled study, not a 'we sent out a bunch of questionnaires and ran regression analysis'.

[waltjig]

Well, only if you care about your personal health, the health of the planet, and the well-being of all sentient creatures. Then yeah, you should absolutely accept my programming.

Seriously man, examine carefully the sentence you quoted. It's almost as if your precious dissonance is so profound it has actually impacted your ability to read. Are you arguing against making decisions informed by facts and logic? Do you have fact-based reasons why one should eat animal parts and secretions? Are you aware of the health effects of meat consumption? The environmental catastrophe that is animal farming? Have you bothered to educate yourself? Do you believe there is an ethical way to kill someone who does not wish to die? Have you ever even given any of this any thought, or have you simply accepted the circumstances of your cultural upbringing? Would you eat a dog? Why or why not?

I remember when I first saw What the Health on Netflix. I stopped eating meat for like one whole week

[Lhancelot]

I'm sorry some of you guys have had such poor experiences with other humans. I find that many people are willing to listen and learn. I mean, I spent thirty years as an omnivore and then I changed, so I give most people the benefit of the doubt.

And honestly, huge change is already occurring all the time regarding animal rights. The dairy industry is flat out dying. Meat consumption is waning and plant-based replacements are growing in authenticity and therefore popularity among meat-eaters. Lab-grown meat is right around the corner, too, which while still causing cancers and heart disease and diabetes will at least require less suffering on the part of animals and the environment. The fashion industry is moving away from fur. SeaWorld is breathing its last gasps. Veganism is predicted by several business journals to be the mega-trend of 2018. So, change is happening, but like any social movement this is a long, hard road.

But the best people I know are animal rights activists. People who are just fucking on fire, possessed by their need to get involved. I trust that one day soon they'll end these cruel and destructive practices completely.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say and share your sentiments.

Originally I didn't see how this type of activism could be effective. But you know what? Had they not did it, we wouldn't have a thread discussing it either.

It's true, veganism is definitely becoming popular though. Already many professional athletes are turning to veganism which I found interesting. Mostly professional basketball players so far that I have seen... They all look different than they did a year ago too. Less fat on them, more lean. Damian Lillard and Kyrie Irving are two off the top of my head that have gone vegan, and both are elite point guards who clearly consider their minds and bodies as first priorities for their game.

[Mead]

I guess it's a good staple if your dietary goals include having your chest cracked open or engaging in a conversation with your doctor about the growth he's found on your colon. One reason I elect to avoid products derived from animals is because I greatly enjoy my life, love my family, my work, my home etc and I want to live as long as possible. Basically the same reason I no longer smoke cigarettes or meth, but with the added benefit that I'm not causing suffering in sentient beings by supporting a barbaric industry with my petty consumer choices. All that said, I don't want to force my perspective on anyone, and I understand as well as respect and appreciate your decision to die prematurely for whatever reasons you deem appropriate. <3

Veganism, the cure for cancer. One of the saddest cases of cancer I've ever seen was a staunch vegan. This person also opted out of real treatment. You couldn't imagine the end result.

I'm glad you don't smoke cigarettes and meth anymore. You should probably promote that around here.

This is also my new favorite thread.

[Pokesan]

if you eat meat you have to be on board with eating human meat there's no way around it

[Mead]

if you eat meat you have to be on board with eating human meat there's no way around it

I got something meaty and extra rare for you to eat

[Pokesan]

I got something meaty and extra rare for you to eat

*applies Chaboo eyeliner*

let's do this

[Nilstoniakrath]

I'm an animal rights activist. I'm familiar with the group who performed this demonstration and interact with their members on a weekly basis. I know the members of this forum are smart people who realize that eating animal parts and secretions is terribly detrimental to our personal health and that animal agriculture is destroying the planet. I mean, you're all well-educated woke folks, so I don't need to explain all this in detail.

That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all a quick question. I don't personally involve myself in these supermarket funerals because I'm not sure about the efficacy of these sort of demonstrations. I see a couple "lol's" and "wtf's" and frankly that's sort of what I expect. But I wonder, what sort of demonstration do you believe would be helpful in getting you to abandon the comfort of your cognitive dissonance to start making better choices based on facts and logic, rather than defaulting to the social programming with which you've been raised?

Showing actual mistreatment of animals can be very effective.

This virtue signaling bullsh!t, on the other hand, is absolute nonsense and only subjects your side to much-deserved ridicule and mockery.

[Patriam1066]

"I used to smoke meth"

"Listen to my health advice"

Barkingturtle you're a smart guy please tell me that admission was just a humorous exaggeration of the deleterious effects you believe meat has on the human body. Really hope I missed the subtlety and nuance

[Lhancelot]

"I used to smoke meth"

"Listen to my health advice"

Barkingturtle you're a smart guy please tell me that admission was just a humorous exaggeration of the deleterious effects you believe meat has on the human body. Really hope I missed the subtlety and nuance

Well let's be honest here, he was probably just being honest about himself. I don't fault people for sharing with others their past plights etc. Don't fault him for showing he is human and not perfect but striving to improve himself as evidenced by where he was in life to where he is in life now.

[Evia]

I've been vegetarian for 12 years. Off and on vegan...but that's the ultimate goal.

The first couple of years I sounded alot like barkingturtle. Online, at school, at work, I was constantly talking about it. Because it was so insane to me that we as a culture slaughtered helpless animals to eat their flesh and nobody batted an eye about it. In fact, I was the "weird" one because I questioned the practice. Fast forward though and now I actively avoid talking to anyone about any of my beliefs. At the end of the day it gets exhausting and frustrating arguing or debating with things their not interested in realistically spending some critical thinking on. I gave up trying to educate people and just accepted that some people see what I see and some don't.

[Lhancelot]

I've been vegetarian for 12 years. Off and on vegan...but that's the ultimate goal.

The first couple of years I sounded alot like barkingturtle. Online, at school, at work, I was constantly talking about it. Because it was so insane to me that we as a culture slaughtered helpless animals to eat their flesh and nobody batted an eye about it. In fact, I was the "weird" one because I questioned the practice. Fast forward though and now I actively avoid talking to anyone about any of my beliefs. At the end of the day it gets exhausting and frustrating arguing or debating with things their not interested in realistically spending some critical thinking on. I gave up trying to educate people and just accepted that some people see what I see and some don't.

That's me when it comes to all the controversial topics people get into discussing.

Its great to see idealistic people like Barkingturtle, and perhaps they do touch others with their idealism but for me it's just far too draining trying to convert others to believe what I believe.

I rather focus my energies into things I have more control over, and spend my time discussing not debating with people topics like religion, politics, etc.

I also don't think to myself that only I hold the light. I have to accept the fact that my perspective isn't the only perspective that is correct, it's just the correct perspective for me.

[Barkingturtle]

I can tell by the responses mentioning my status and virtue signaling that I came across as more adversarial in this thread than I intended. My apologies. I run hot and absurd on the internet. This is honestly the most I've ever discussed animal rights on a forum, because I know I'm acerbic and prone to insults and I don't feel that represents the compassion-based advocacy I perform in real life very well. It also gives people an opportunity to critique my tone rather than confronting my message, so that's just draining. Really, my most important activism is done at home and offline, since my wife and I recently launched a small-scale animal sanctuary and it's been keeping us pretty busy. We've rescued ten animals so far, from hoarding situations and shelters. I have a rooster living in my house. He's addicted to the educational sitcom classic Saved By the Bell and I'm not even fucking around here.

But I digress. I think it's important to realize that the goal of the group in the OP's video is not to convert people to veganism. They intend to close ALL slaughterhouses through legislation. The movement is about gaining personhood for animals so that they are granted basic rights. And it's already working. Courtroom precedent has been set, with judges in several cases determining that animals are people, too. I'd guess that within thirty years we will stop killing animals for food.

What will that look like? Well, for the guy who demanded facts earlier in the thread, that will mean we stop killing 50 BILLION land animals each year for food. It will mean we stop killing a TRILLION marine animals annually. It will open up a third of the Earth's unfrozen surface which is currently reserved for the grazing of livestock. It will likely slow the destruction of the Amazon, where 9 of every 10 tress felled comes down to make room for animal farming. It will greatly reduce greenhouse emissions, since animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all modes of transportation--combined. It will devastate big pharma, who currently sells 4 times as many antibiotics for use on the animals you eat than they sell for human use(yikes your food must be super sick, huh?). It will free up a third of the world's water. Did you know it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef? 1000 gallons for a gallon of milk? 900 gallons for a pound of cheese? Nearly 500 gallons for a pound of eggs? I could literally go on all day with this type of terrifying data.

Shocking fucking shit, huh? So now imagine taking the time to educate yourself about this stuff and then having people bitch about your tone and your virtue signaling and other inconsequential garbage. Like, I'm talking about the fate of fucking humanity here and motherfuckers are all too eager to critique my branding. If you feel I'm signaling, perhaps it's simply a reflection of your own guilt? A subconscious acknowledgement of your complicity in the most outrageous system of destructive oppression man has ever devised. It fucking ought to be. I mean, I think twice as hard about every action in which I engage, every purchase I make, in order to minimize the suffering I cause others. Does this not make me more virtuous than someone who bases their decisions solely on personal gratification and convenience? Of course it does. But this isn't signaling, this is simply a dude trying to live a life with a hint of virtue. And it's just laughable that people would attempt to silence someone they know is invested in promoting equality--across species, even--by suggesting I intend to elevate myself above others through the act of promoting equality. This is the cognitive dissonance at work, friends.

I can't tell you how often people try to turn our own decency and empathy against us in this movement. I photograph animals on slaughter-trucks and the drivers sneer and say, "you're scaring them." The animals have eighteen inches of intestine prolapsed, red and glistening, and I'm scaring them. The animals have never seen the sun until they're loaded onto trucks to and transported to slaughter--and this motherfucker cares if I'm scaring them? You're participating in the worst holocaust ever committed in the history of Man--and I'm supposed to believe you care about the victims of my virtue signaling? Stop it.

You're better than this and I believe you can be even better.

[Lulz~Sect]

Is pizza cruel or just less cruel? 2-3 dinners a week are a Margherita slice.

[Barkingturtle]

Dairy is pretty awful when it comes to cruelty. I mean, momma cows aren't milk machines. We forcibly impregnate them and then abduct the calves so we can steal the milk. The calves are slaughtered at about six months. This is veal. When Momma dries up, we repeat the process, until they are finally "spent" at about 4 years old, at which time we slaughter them. A cow's natural lifespan is about 20 years, by the way. Virtually all the animals we eat are killed as babies.

But yeah I eat pizza fairly often, just with non-dairy cheese. It's only cruel to my waistline, really.

[Lhancelot]

But yeah I eat pizza fairly often, just with non-dairy cheese. It's only cruel to my waistline, really.

I know the feeling. ^

I respect you for your personal ethics and knowledge on the topic.

I just wonder how many people are not more active, perhaps it's just easier to put heads in sand and not know the truth?

Maybe it's too painful for those who are ultra empathetic to the plight of the animals?

Perhaps it seems too impractical and too big an impossibility to get away from the economics and reality of how modern man farms animals for meat and other animal based products?

[Lulz~Sect]

Haven't we been milking cows for millenias though?

[Pokesan]

a seat on the tallest horse in the world isn't worth not eating meat. you just gotta accept you're a garbage person(morally) and be ok with it.

:)

[Barkingturtle]

Maybe it's too painful for those who are ultra empathetic to the plight of the animals?


Just imagine how painful it is for the animals!

Obviously activism isn't for everyone, but we can and should all make better choices. The hopelessness you describe is understandable, but huge changes can still occur within our society. I mean, here in America women have barely held the right to vote for a hundred years. Humans were considered property just fifty years before that. As civilization evolves it does so to continue itself into the future, same as any organism. And the future is going to be kinder all around--else it ain't gonna come, at all.

[Lojik]

The thing is that logic, reason, and numbers don't convince people, even intelligent people. It's just the same dumb shit that does convince people: what are my friends doing, what are other people my age/race/gender/nationality doing, what does soandso authority figure who i like think of said subject, how can i rationalize my past behavior or reconcile it with my other beliefs, etc. When you approach people directly with an opposing viewpoint and valid reasons you're going to get rebuffed. It's all about going about it in an indirect way and making the other person(s) feel like they figured it out on their own.

Meatatarian society (which I am guilty in participating in) will probably die off at some point since it's just not sustainable, the only question is how bad will the effects be on the environment before anything meaninful changes.

Also nutritional science is very young in relation to how old human society is, and what is considered good nutrition v. bad nutrition changes depending on the source. In 100 years when we have a lot more data to work with on long term health effects and nutritional sources I think we'll get a better view of what, exactly, would be an ideal human diet. Maybe in like 10-20 years google can start collecting data on exact environmental conditions for people as they develop, and better measurements on what foods are being consumed to allow better regressional type analysis.

[Raev]

What will that look like? Well, for the guy who demanded facts earlier in the thread, that will mean we stop killing 50 BILLION land animals each year for food. It will mean we stop killing a TRILLION marine animals annually. It will open up a third of the Earth's unfrozen surface which is currently reserved for the grazing of livestock. It will likely slow the destruction of the Amazon, where 9 of every 10 tress felled comes down to make room for animal farming. It will greatly reduce greenhouse emissions, since animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all modes of transportation--combined. It will devastate big pharma, who currently sells 4 times as many antibiotics for use on the animals you eat than they sell for human use(yikes your food must be super sick, huh?). It will free up a third of the world's water. Did you know it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef? 1000 gallons for a gallon of milk? 900 gallons for a pound of cheese? Nearly 500 gallons for a pound of eggs? I could literally go on all day with this type of terrifying data.

Since you did not mention the health effects of eating meat anywhere in that long post I'm going to assume you don't have anything.

Anyway, I think you are conflating industrial agriculture with meat consumption. I grew up in Iowa. On the way to the nearest city I would drive by one farmer who raised cows in their own feces. Literally. I can only imagine how many antibiotics he used.

I'm strongly against industrial agriculture. It burns huge quantities of oil and water and it produces low quality food. I think giving antibiotics to non-humans should be illegal: our flooding of the environment is training a generation of highly resistant superbugs. And I put my money where my mouth is by buying as much food as I can from local farmers.

But I think industrial agriculture is just as bad for plants. Massive quantities of herbicides and pesticides pollute the environment. NPK fertilizers drain trace minerals from the soil, and deficiencies in things like selenium are one reason everyone is so unhealthy nowadays. We have 50 different flavors of soybeans that are created in a lab - our ancestors were not eating this junk. It's the same story.

Unfortunately, industrial agriculture is cheap and delicious, and most people either can't or don't want to pay for less efficient use of the land. I have some hope, though. After Western Civilization collapses I think we might rebuild it in a more sustainable, less libtardy fashion.

[Barkingturtle]

Since you did not mention the health effects of eating meat anywhere in that long post I'm going to assume you don't have anything.

Anyway, I think you are conflating industrial agriculture with meat consumption. I grew up in Iowa. On the way to the nearest city I would drive by one farmer who raised cows in their own feces.

I lived in Des Moines for seven years. It's the only actual city in Iowa, and the whole place smells like boiled pig flesh for the entire month of August. Who do you think you're kidding? And of course they don't put feedlots on highways. They grow corn in highly-trafficked areas because it's a much better visual. Of course the vast majority of corn in Iowa is grown to feed industrial livestock operations elsewhere. So it's all connected and it's only our myopia which prevents from seeing that.

But you want a health-related fact? I mean, your request was completely scatter-shot so I just posted some devastating environmental facts but uh, let's talk heart disease. Let's talk clogged arteries. This happens due to the accumulation of cholesterol. This kind of cholesterol is only contained in the cell-walls of animals. Nowhere else. Humans have no way to metabolize it, so it leeches into our bloodstream and eventually collects in our hearts. It contributes to a condition that kills us MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE and it only gets in our bodies by consuming animal products. If we are talking nutrition, shouldn't we start by eliminating things that kill us? Not convinced consuming animal products is a driver of heart disease. Well, wanna talk about cancer--the number two killer of our people? I mean, everyone knows the World Health Organization has classified bacon as a carcinogen on the same level as cigarettes, right? Right?

Anyway, I think it's disingenuous in 2017 to claim the consumption of animal products is in any way part of a healthy lifestyle, either for yourself or the planet. We know better, but we are all simply struggling to make choices we can live with, some motivated by ethics, some motivated by convenience, some by pleasure, some by fear of social rejection. I simply believe we are capable of evolving to do much, much better, because I see it happening. Namasté.

[Mead]

I've been vegetarian for 12 years. Off and on vegan...but that's the ultimate goal.

The first couple of years I sounded alot like barkingturtle. Online, at school, at work, I was constantly talking about it. Because it was so insane to me that we as a culture slaughtered helpless animals to eat their flesh and nobody batted an eye about it. In fact, I was the "weird" one because I questioned the practice. Fast forward though and now I actively avoid talking to anyone about any of my beliefs. At the end of the day it gets exhausting and frustrating arguing or debating with things their not interested in realistically spending some critical thinking on. I gave up trying to educate people and just accepted that some people see what I see and some don't.

I find a lot of the time people are more accepting of conversation about controversial issues when they don't feel like they're being pressured into buying into something they don't necessarily fully agree with. A lot of vegans I encounter always believe they have all the right answers. I get that they're passionate, but nobody wants to be patronized and annoyed. And no, it's not that other people are oversensitive. It's that they need to find a better way to initiate and talk about the subject if they intend on "educating" people. When you go full retard right from the start people are just going to shut down.

[Barkingturtle]

It's that they need to find a better way to initiate and talk about the subject if they intend on "educating" people.

When we protest in grocery stores, they say we should protest farms.

When we protest at farms, they say we should protest slaughterhouses.

When we protest at slaughterhouses, they say we should protest at grocery stores.

The fact is, people don't ever like having their assumptions and ethics challenged. Admitting we've been participating in destructive systems is difficult. We'd rather shoot the messenger. Anything to avoid admitting our complicity, accepting our responsibility. Anything to maintain our cool, cynical detachment. I empathize. It's a bitter pill. I recommend swallowing it the first time.

[Lulz~Sect]

The problem is I enjoy eating meat and dairy products on a higher frequency then just lentils, grains, and salad alone.

[Lojik]

But you want a health-related fact? I mean, your request was completely scatter-shot so I just posted some devastating environmental facts but uh, let's talk heart disease. Let's talk clogged arteries. This happens due to the accumulation of cholesterol. This kind of cholesterol is only contained in the cell-walls of animals. Nowhere else. Humans have no way to metabolize it, so it leeches into our bloodstream and eventually collects in our hearts. It contributes to a condition that kills us MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE and it only gets in our bodies by consuming animal products. If we are talking nutrition, shouldn't we start by eliminating things that kill us? Not convinced consuming animal products is a driver of heart disease. Well, wanna talk about cancer--the number two killer of our people? I mean, everyone knows the World Health Organization has classified bacon as a carcinogen on the same level as cigarettes, right? Right?

Anyway, I think it's disingenuous in 2017 to claim the consumption of animal products is in any way part of a healthy lifestyle, either for yourself or the planet. We know better, but we are all simply struggling to make choices we can live with, some motivated by ethics, some motivated by convenience, some by pleasure, some by fear of social rejection. I simply believe we are capable of evolving to do much, much better, because I see it happening. Namasté.

Isn't bacon a high risk carcinogen because of the nitrates to preserve it, not because of the fact that it's meat? Also, there seems to be a much bigger correlation between cancers and heart disease with sugar consumption as opposed to meat consumption. Since the FDA tried to push the whole low fat craze in the late 70's early 80's obesity has skyrocketed and (if I'm remembering correctly) heart disease has as well. Even though cholesterol is found in animal parts or byproducts, sugar and sugar substitutes mess with our bodies system and we end up absorbing more cholesterol if we eat more sugar. Again, nutrition science is a very young science and I think we need to be careful making blanket statements like eating any sort of meat is bad. We need better studies and a lot more data before we can put forth anything conclusive. Is the way we go about it nowadays morally wrong? Probably. Is it bad for the environment? Most likely. Is eating a lot of meat bad? Again, probably. Is eating any meat only detrimental to your health? Hard to say but probably not.

[Spyder73]

That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all a quick question. I don't personally involve myself in these supermarket funerals because I'm not sure about the efficacy of these sort of demonstrations. I see a couple "lol's" and "wtf's" and frankly that's sort of what I expect. But I wonder, what sort of demonstration do you believe would be helpful in getting you to abandon the comfort of your cognitive dissonance to start making better choices based on facts and logic, rather than defaulting to the social programming with which you've been raised?

Doing things like super market funerals make the group look like extremists and radicals (which most people shy away from). The truth of the matter is less than 1% of the population thinks the way you do. As a meat eater the most effective thing I have seen is showing the cruelty and brutality that happens in slaughter houses.

I personally do not feel animals have any rights. Animals are here to serve humans and that may sound harsh but I am entitled to my beliefs just as you are entitled to yours. Do I kill or hurt animals for no reason? No. Do I beat or fight my dogs? No, because I am not a psychopath who likes to see things get hurt, but I also find it crazy that someone can go to jail for abusing a dog or chicken. They are not the same as us and I don't think that is even debatable.

Most vegans/veggies that have given me their spiel on why eating meat is wrong just come off as sounding pretentious and spoiled to me. Hunting has been the most viable way for humans to survive for thousands of years. Although we are approaching a time and place where 100% of people not eating meat might theoretically be possible, it is very short sighted of you to say its wrong when the human species literally would not be here if our ancestors were not hunters. Higher cognitive development isn't even possible from an evolutionary stand point without all the protein meat contains. Only reason you are able to think for yourself is likely because your great great great great great grand paw killed Babmi to feed his family.

If you find it necessary to mettle in other peoples lives and press your agenda onto others I would recommend showing footage of slaughter houses... it's a pretty good way to make people think twice about what they are eating.

I am just not convinced removing meat from the menu solves anymore problems than it would create.

[Raavak]

Mmmmm.... chicken....

Animals have rights. Right in mah belly!

I understand people's concerns about animals. I grew up in a house where one parent was a PETA member. But I also know there are much bigger problems in the world than the way chickens are slaughtered.

[Raev]

But you want a health-related fact? I mean, your request was completely scatter-shot so I just posted some devastating environmental facts but uh, let's talk heart disease. Let's talk clogged arteries. This happens due to the accumulation of cholesterol. This kind of cholesterol is only contained in the cell-walls of animals. Nowhere else. Humans have no way to metabolize it, so it leeches into our bloodstream and eventually collects in our hearts. It contributes to a condition that kills us MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE and it only gets in our bodies by consuming animal products. If we are talking nutrition, shouldn't we start by eliminating things that kill us? Not convinced consuming animal products is a driver of heart disease. Well, wanna talk about cancer--the number two killer of our people? I mean, everyone knows the World Health Organization has classified bacon as a carcinogen on the same level as cigarettes, right? Right?

There are no facts here, so I will simply argue against this paragraph I found from PETA:

Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, one of the world’s most respected nutrition experts, has been able to make patients who were suffering from clogged arteries virtually “heart-attack proof” by putting them on healthy vegetarian diets and getting their cholesterol levels down below 150. The average vegan cholesterol level is about 146, while the average vegetarian cholesterol level is 177. And the average meat-eater’s cholesterol level is 194. Another nutritionist, Dr. Charles Attwood, points out just how strange it is that more is not done in light of this information: If people were being run down by trucks at the same rate that they’re dying from heart attacks induced by diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy products, drastic steps would be taken.

I find all of these correlation studies to be bullshit, but the ones that have been done indicate that 160-240 is the optimum range for total cholesterol. For example, in the Japan Lipid Study (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/circj/66/12/66_12_1087/_pdf) found effectively no difference in mortality between cohorts under 220.

Furthermore, I've read Esselstyn's papers and they are full of shit. He has a complete intervention that includes things like exercise and stopping smoking.

Anyway, I think it's disingenuous in 2017 to claim the consumption of animal products is in any way part of a healthy lifestyle, either for yourself or the planet.

You are making tons of unsubstantiated claims and appeals to emotion. I'm posting facts that say you are wrong. Which one of us is being disingenuous again?

[Pokesan]

Doing things like super market funerals make the group look like extremists and radicals (which most people shy away from). The truth of the matter is less than 1% of the population thinks the way you do. As a meat eater the most effective thing I have seen is showing the cruelty and brutality that happens in slaughter houses.

I personally do not feel animals have any rights. Animals are here to serve humans and that may sound harsh but I am entitled to my beliefs just as you are entitled to yours. Do I kill or hurt animals for no reason? No. Do I beat or fight my dogs? No, because I am not a psychopath who likes to see things get hurt, but I also find it crazy that someone can go to jail for abusing a dog or chicken. They are not the same as us and I don't think that is even debatable.

Most vegans/veggies that have given me their spiel on why eating meat is wrong just come off as sounding pretentious and spoiled to me. Hunting has been the most viable way for humans to survive for thousands of years. Although we are approaching a time and place where 100% of people not eating meat might theoretically be possible, it is very short sighted of you to say its wrong when the human species literally would not be here if our ancestors were not hunters. Higher cognitive development isn't even possible from an evolutionary stand point without all the protein meat contains. Only reason you are able to think for yourself is likely because your great great great great great grand paw killed Babmi to feed his family.

If you find it necessary to mettle in other peoples lives and press your agenda onto others I would recommend showing footage of slaughter houses... it's a pretty good way to make people think twice about what they are eating.

I am just not convinced removing meat from the menu solves anymore problems than it would create.

your position requires divinity and therefore is laughable :D

[Barkingturtle]

I personally do not feel negroes have any rights. Negroes are here to serve whites and that may sound harsh but I am entitled to my beliefs just as you are entitled to yours. Do I kill or hurt negroes for no reason? No. Do I beat or fight my negroes? No, because I am not a psychopath who likes to see things get hurt, but I also find it crazy that someone can go to jail for abusing a negro. They are not the same as us and I don't think that is even debatable.

Most abolitionists that have given me their spiel on why owning slaves is wrong just come off as sounding pretentious and spoiled to me.

Gee, that was easy.

Seriously though, I know you don't kill animals yourself. No one could handle that, so they pay other people to hurt animals for them. I do not fault you for this cowardice, for it means there is still hope for your redemption. <3

And arguments that rely upon the behavior of pre-historic man are kind of silly, I'm sure everyone'd agree. It is no longer necessary to eat meat. There are other, sustainable, less cruel alternatives for protein-dense foods. Do you model cavemen behavior in other aspects of your day-to-day life? Do you adopt their ethics anywhere else? Are you only eating meat for fear your tribe will reject you? No. Of course not. That would be a regression to our most violent, primal beginnings. That would lower us to the level of animals, which are of course not valuable in any way but as a commodity, right?

I leave you with a quote from Tolstoy, one which counters the caveman argument pretty well, in my opinion: "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."

Thanks friends. Be good to each other.

[Spyder73]

Its not an argument based on prehistoric man - its current man. Again, you represent less than 1% of the population. You have no idea anything about my ethnicity, hunting habits, education level, and you really like to talk in absolutes (SITH). You seem to be doing a lot of projecting and judging and people like you are generally the reason people like me don't take your cause seriously whatsoever.

We are just fundamentally different - I believe animals have absolutely 0 rights - law of the jungle if you will

[Barkingturtle]

We are just fundamentally different - I believe animals have absolutely 0 rights - law of the jungle if you will

I agree we should get to know each other better. You'll have to excuse me, but you sound like so many people I've encountered. Perhaps you can differentiate yourself from the others by answering honestly this question:

What quality, when subtracted from humans, would remove their basic rights in the same way? Take your time--this one's a doozey!

[Pokesan]

i believe spyder73 has 0 rights and im gonna eat him

[Spyder73]

If an animal has a concept of time and actively tracks it then they can come off the menu. Defective humans are protected from this caveat because of the concepts of society and family

[hyejin]

body odor improves significantly with the cessation of flesh consumption. it becomes a rather intoxicating thing with intakes, rest and exercise properly managed :)

did you know that most people have never smelled a person who keeps theirselfs clean?

[Barkingturtle]

If an animal has a concept of time and actively tracks it then they can come off the menu. Defective humans are protected from this caveat because of the concepts of society and family

What a fantastically arbitrary line to draw!

And a rather flawed one apparently, given your need to provide the broad qualification. But I do feel I better understand you now. I don't think there's any need for me to amend any prior posts I've directed your way, though. I don't know. Is there anything else you feel the need to express? Maybe two or three interesting facts about yourself? Or anything I should know about you that would explain the importance you place on time-telling, I guess? Otherwise I'm good.

[Lulz~Sect]

How do you feel about animals eating animals? Serious Q

[Spyder73]

What a fantastically arbitrary line to draw!

And a rather flawed one apparently, given your need to provide the broad qualification. But I do feel I better understand you now. I don't think there's any need for me to amend any prior posts I've directed your way, though. I don't know. Is there anything else you feel the need to express? Maybe two or three interesting facts about yourself? Or anything I should know about you that would explain the importance you place on time-telling, I guess? Otherwise I'm good.

I don't think you need to know interesting facts about my life, however it's stupid of you to draw broad assumptions like I have never killed and cleaned my own food because I am too big of a coward to do so or that I only eat meat because I have been brain washed. My grandma raised chickens on her land and we would kill and eat them often, this type of behavior is normal for me and I don't find a problem with it. I hunt deer every year and I have no problem with people wanting to kill their own food (even if only for a couple of meals per year).

I don’t actually disagree with you as much as it may seem. I am not a psychopath and I don’t like to see creatures suffer. I struggle with the implications of death as much as the next man. But I also don’t live in a fantasy world where a zebra should have the same rights as my sister. I will go home this evening and eat a chicken breast to spite you, so I hope you can live with knowing that your P99 posting has actually killed this day.

[NachtMystium]

I've often attempted a vegan lifestyle, I'm full-on behind it and God on ya'll. Animals eat animals because they have to. Human beings are intelligent enough to substitute our diet with other substantial nutrients. I'm honestly just too lazy and I beat myself up for it, Barkingturtle is right, we are CAPABLE of doing better but it's hard work re-wiring a civilization.

I honestly think it's gonna take a societal collapse before anything is done about the agriculture industry, however I did see some pretty cool faux-meat made from plants I think that supposedly tastes exactly the same - I'll raise this question to Spyder as well: If there was a meat-substitute that tasted exactly the same as the real thing, would you give up eating animals? Also, I have to say you're views on animals not having rights is laughable, you view them as some sort of non-sentient servant.

Cmon ya'll haven't yall seen the story of Jellybean and Mr. G???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv2OGph5Kec

Edit: Also, believe it or not, pigs outperform 3-year-old human children on cognition tests and are smarter than any domestic animal, and animal experts consider them more trainable than cats or dogs.

[mcoy]

All that matters is what we think the taste and texture are:

https://youtu.be/l5y68ErffgM?t=6

-Mcoy

[Mead]

I don't think you need to know interesting facts about my life, however it's stupid of you to draw broad assumptions like I have never killed and cleaned my own food because I am too big of a coward to do so or that I only eat meat because I have been brain washed. My grandma raised chickens on her land and we would kill and eat them often, this type of behavior is normal for me and I don't find a problem with it. I hunt deer every year and I have no problem with people wanting to kill their own food (even if only for a couple of meals per year).

I don’t actually disagree with you as much as it may seem. I am not a psychopath and I don’t like to see creatures suffer. I struggle with the implications of death as much as the next man. But I also don’t live in a fantasy world where a zebra should have the same rights as my sister. I will go home this evening and eat a chicken breast to spite you, so I hope you can live with knowing that your P99 posting has actually killed this day.

I didn't realize we had so much in common Spyder. One of my only vacations this year is a trip up North for deer season. And I just enjoyed the shit out of a couple chicken tenders while catching up on this thread. We should date.

[Nilstoniakrath]

But I digress. I think it's important to realize that the goal of the group in the OP's video is not to convert people to veganism. They intend to close ALL slaughterhouses through legislation. The movement is about gaining personhood for animals so that they are granted basic rights.

I am sympathetic to more humane treatment of animals. But "personhood" for animals? You are a loon.

[Patriam1066]

I killed a deer at 40 yards last weekend with a compound bow

Thanks and God bless!

[Patriam1066]

Doing things like super market funerals make the group look like extremists and radicals (which most people shy away from). The truth of the matter is less than 1% of the population thinks the way you do. As a meat eater the most effective thing I have seen is showing the cruelty and brutality that happens in slaughter houses.

I personally do not feel animals have any rights. Animals are here to serve humans and that may sound harsh but I am entitled to my beliefs just as you are entitled to yours. Do I kill or hurt animals for no reason? No. Do I beat or fight my dogs? No, because I am not a psychopath who likes to see things get hurt, but I also find it crazy that someone can go to jail for abusing a dog or chicken. They are not the same as us and I don't think that is even debatable.

Most vegans/veggies that have given me their spiel on why eating meat is wrong just come off as sounding pretentious and spoiled to me. Hunting has been the most viable way for humans to survive for thousands of years. Although we are approaching a time and place where 100% of people not eating meat might theoretically be possible, it is very short sighted of you to say its wrong when the human species literally would not be here if our ancestors were not hunters. Higher cognitive development isn't even possible from an evolutionary stand point without all the protein meat contains. Only reason you are able to think for yourself is likely because your great great great great great grand paw killed Babmi to feed his family.

If you find it necessary to mettle in other peoples lives and press your agenda onto others I would recommend showing footage of slaughter houses... it's a pretty good way to make people think twice about what they are eating.

I am just not convinced removing meat from the menu solves anymore problems than it would create.

Anyone who hurts a dog, woman, or child shouldn't go to jail, they should be executed

[Patriam1066]

How do you feel about animals eating animals? Serious Q

I lol'ed

Good thread

[Mead]

I killed a deer at 40 yards last weekend with a compound bow

Thanks and God bless!

Pics plz

[Evia]

Anyone who hurts a dog, woman, or child shouldn't go to jail, they should be executed


Yet you recently killed a deer? Genuinely curious why killing a deer and eating it's corpse is Cool and normal, but even hitting a dog should demand the death penalty? Having a hard time finding your logic.

[Raavak]

I killed a deer at 40 yards last weekend with a compound bow

Thanks and God bless!Pictures or it didnt happen.

[Spyder73]

Yet you recently killed a deer? Genuinely curious why killing a deer and eating it's corpse is Cool and normal, but even hitting a dog should demand the death penalty? Having a hard time finding your logic.

Dogs should really be in their own category because they are mans best friend, and your best friend deserves special treatment. I fully support laws that protect dogs and cats from neglect, I tear up every time that Sarah McLachlan commercial comes on.

Also just because I think animals have no rights doesn't mean I think humans have inalienable rights to treat the environment and nature however they see fit. There is a line of acceptable behavior and that's the whole reason we have laws and there isn't revolution every couple of years (because I think most people see the sense in the laws)

If you have trouble distinguishing why hunting a game animal in the wild is different from beating a dog who sleeps in your bed then I don't think we will have much we can agree upon. One is for food and one is sadistic pleasure (or anger? not sure why people beat dogs).

And no, eating dogs is not normal anywhere but sh!t hole 3rd world countries like Vietnam.

[Barkingturtle]

Interestingly, you see people in this thread making arguments against carnism and in favor of veganism, but you do not see the reverse. You see not one meaningful defense of eating meat, and you see not a single effective criticism of veganism. Meat eaters cannot defend their own beliefs because they are indefensible. Deep down the meat eaters know this but it is still too painful for them to admit entirely. They will do anything to avoid confronting their own paradox. Friends, this is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. Rather than reject their cruel complicity in an illogical, destructive system, they opt instead to attack activists and their tactics. They make inane jokes about what they had for lunch. They will tell you that they're going to kill something to spite you. They'll try to turn the conversation away from themselves and toward ANYTHING else. This is a cop-out. It exposes your intellectual atrophy, your moral apathy, your fragile sense of identity, your outright ignorance of even your own motivations and your white-knuckled attachment to your social indoctrination.

Now I'm not sure if there have been any ladies in this thread but right now I'm going to address only the men, because it seems you gents are profusely unaware that the above is not a good look. A man is a man because he is capable of exerting control over his surroundings and circumstances. A meat eater caught in the trap of dissonance is unable to exert control over even himself. Please, friends, have some respect for yourselves. Trust that you are strong enough to practice a modicum of self-discipline. I believe in you. You will feel empowered. Perhaps you will even find the strength to reign in your other addictions, too, wrestling back control of your life from cuck porn and elf pixels. Godspeed.

[swilleville]

I am a hunter, meat eater, and animal lover. I don't abuse animals, i go out of my way to cleanly kill any animal I am harvesting, and I make a point of not wasting any edible part of animals that i shoot. Do i think that the meat industry should be more regulated to lessen the suffering of animal? Yes. Do I enjoy a nice steak, fried chicken, grilled fish, or sweet delicious bacon? Yes. Are "meat substitutes" gross and am i unwilling to eat gross things instead of delicious things? Yes. Oh well

[Barkingturtle]

I am a hunter, meat eater, and animal lover. I don't abuse animals, i go out of my way to cleanly kill any animal I am harvesting, and I make a point of not wasting any edible part of animals that i shoot. Do i think that the meat industry should be more regulated to lessen the suffering of animal? Yes. Do I enjoy a nice steak, fried chicken, grilled fish, or sweet delicious bacon? Yes. Are "meat substitutes" gross and am i unwilling to eat gross things instead of delicious things? Yes. Oh well

Is there a greater example of self-delusion than telling yourself you're an animal lover while killing animals?

Can you name another object of love which it is okay to destroy?

Like, "I love baseball, so every now and then I burn down a ballpark."

"I love kids, so I make sure I kill them humanely."

"I love this country, so let's have a civil war."

Also, meat substitutes are gross but you buy some burger from the store and you literally got to cook the bacteria out of it because it's so full of puss and shit and piss and blood. Makes sense!

[Patriam1066]

Deer are pests. They are killed in numbers so as to be sustainable. I eat the meat and thank Ahura Mazda, the god of Persians, for his bounty

Thanks and God bless!

[Lojik]

As with all genius Caligula was merely ahead of his time. But let's be real Incitatus would probably be a better president than donald.

[swilleville]

I consume animals for sustenance. I have pets, never kill an animal that I am not going to eat, and go out of my way to make sure that, at least on the meat that i personally harvest, I dispatch as painlessly as I can. I never said that meat is always sanitary. I said that meat substitutes tastes like shit, blood, and bacteria... well they don't taste good anyway. I appreciate you being passionate about it and I understand your standpoint. Maybe I have been conditioned to eat meat and "brainwashed" by society, but I enjoy eating meat. Does that make me self serving? I guess you could argue that. I was raised hunting and am respectful and reverent of nature. I don't get a perverse sense of pleasure from the hurting of an animal, but I do enjoy the outdoors and I will continue to hunt and fish for the rest of my life. I've tasted my vegan friends foods... They can say what they want about chickpea tuna salad substitute, vegan brownies made with applesauce, and different types of meat substitutes tasting the same, but it doesn't make it true. They usually have god awful textures, bland flavors, and are generally unappetizing. I have canine teeth for a reason. Man is a omnivore.

[Spyder73]

Interestingly, you see people in this thread making arguments against carnism and in favor of veganism, but you do not see the reverse. You see not one meaningful defense of eating meat, and you see not a single effective criticism of veganism

I think you like to make things fit your narrative. I understand your arguments and simply disagree with your conclusion that we should stop eating meat. Veganism is unhealthy compared to a balanced diet and I am not going to eat handfuls of pills daily to get the nutrients I need.

[Patriam1066]

The problem is I enjoy eating meat and dairy products on a higher frequency then just lentils, grains, and salad alone.

[Barkingturtle]

Veganism is unhealthy compared to a balanced diet and I am not going to eat handfuls of pills daily to get the nutrients I need.

I can give you recipes to fulfill your nutritional requirements if that's what you want to pretend your objection is now. I don't take any pills. I mean, any. I haven't needed so much as a Baby Tylenol in like six years. Because I virtually never get sick any more. Because my immune system isn't compromised. But I know you're not really interested in nutrition, so let's not even pretend, k?

Y'all motheruckers really rollin' out some of the Self-Justification Greatest Hits at this point:

"It tastes good."

This is pretty pathetic, right? Are you a baby? I mean, we're such victims of our own taste-buds that we're just forced to kill things? Why can't we simply control ourselves? Practice some discipline? What makes our desire for gratification more important than a life? Motherfuckers claim they're immune to social programming, yet they can't resist obeying their tiny little taste-bud overlords? Yooooooo.

"I was brought up this way."

Just because we've done things a certain way in the past does not make them right or acceptable today. Again, are you a baby? Do you just do what your Daddy done? When we are able to do better, we should. Pertinent examples include child labor, women's suffrage, civil rights, blah blah blah fuck this shit is obvious.

"My canines are for biting meat."

Then bite some raw meat with them, for fuck's sake. You ever actually see a lion's mouth? Your canines are more suited to cracking nuts than tearing meat. I mean fuck, we're not lions or wolves or sharks. We're monkeys. And while chimps do eat some flesh(about 2-3% of their diet) they are more ethically pure than humans. They don't practice speciesism and will occasionally partake in cannibalism.

And as an aside, do the people elevating dogs to a place just below the heights you reserve for humans know that pigs have been determined to be the fifth most intelligent animal on Earth, ahead of even canines? Did you know chickens possess many magnitudes more neurons than dogs, making them capable of forming a greater number of memories, enabling them to retain more than a dog could ever hope? Did you know the reason you love dogs so much is that they perform specialized facial expressions solely for the purpose of cultivating your care? Is there any manipulation you won't fall for? Even dogs are exerting mind-control over your flimsy fucking psyches. YIKES!

When the conversation lurches like this from one crumbling, brainless argument to the next I'm not exactly excited to keep debunking myths and faulty thinking for the ten-thousandth time. I get it, guys. I've eaten meat, too. For a few years I owned a fucking ranch, even. I grew up in Colorado and I hunted. I've slaughtered animals, I've bred animals, I've exploited animals. I understand how hard it is to imagine changing something about yourself you think is so important. I understand why this topic makes you so defensive. I understand exactly what you're going through. And I wouldn't still be revisiting this thread if I didn't believe--as I've stated multiple times--that people are capable of doing better.


That said, I'm not sure how much longer I'll respond. It reaches a point where your most common response is what you had for lunch or how you killed an animal or some other childish attempt to offend me. It's like meat-eater's tourette's, you can't even help yourself. And I want to help you do better, and in order to do so I should remove myself from the conversation so you no longer feel a need to debase yourself this way. At some point, I'm just lending you a platform upon which you can pile abuse because it distracts you from coping with your other, more serious, moral failings.

[Raavak]

Interestingly, you see people in this thread making arguments against carnism and in favor of veganism, but you do not see the reverse.
Please don't feed the trolls.

[swilleville]

I agree you should follow your earlier statement that essentially went something like "i usually don't post online because i tend to be a raging asshole that venomously spews hate towards anyone that I don't agree with while maintaining that my viewpoint is the best viewpoint because i feel that it is." It is fine man I won't lose any sleep over this conversation that I have kept civilized while you have flown off the handle increasingly throughout every new message you type. Pro tip: if you want to change peoples minds then don't start by telling them that their mind is obviously inferior to yours and that they are horrible people because they feel differently than you. It makes you seem like a dick. You are obviously an articulate and passionate person about the topic and I respect your standpoint. I just choose not to follow it. I have had deer, dogs, horses, goats, cows, chickens, and rabbits as pets throughout my life. I eat deer, goat, cow, chicken, and rabbit. I don't eat dog, cat, or horse because I have no desire to. I'm not controlled by my taste buds... i just choose not to eat things that aren't appetizing. I haven't gotten defensive about anything so far as I can tell. Sorry this conversation made you upset.

[Pokesan]

maslow ranks food more important than feeling selfrighteous

[Barkingturtle]

Pro tip: if you want to change peoples minds then don't start by telling them that their mind is obviously inferior to yours and that they are horrible people because they feel differently than you.

I haven't done any of this. I've done the opposite, in fact, repeatedly reminding people that I believe in their ability to make better choices. Perhaps you are simply coming to these conclusions on your own? Maybe you're just feeling guilt? I admit and have apologized for being acerbic. But seriously, get over it. You're tough enough to kill things and eat their flesh, you can handle my mean words on the internet from time-to-time. As I've said, I think it's just easier for you to focus on my tone than your own moral paradoxes.

I'm not controlled by my taste buds... i just choose not to eat things that aren't appetizing.

K. I choose not to eat things that are unsustainable. I choose not to eat things if it means they'll die.

How can you even begin to argue that your stance deserves the same sort of respect as mine? I'm serious. How can you argue that "appetizing" food is more important than ethical, sustainable food? It boggles the mind, to be sure. And talk about selfish.

Let's just call a spade a spade here, boys. I am obviously more curious about and educated on this topic than basically anyone else in this thread, right? My arguments are well-reasoned and have yet to be disputed in any real way(saying "I disagree" isn't a counter-point, bros). I am also more ethically consistent. These things aren't really up for debate, are they? So why is it that everyone feels so righteous in opposition? Is this simply a sign of the times, that when confronted with inconvenient truths we retreat to wrap ourselves in ignorance? We just plug our ears and repeat, "I don't wanna so I ain't gotta?"

I mean, the only argument anyone really makes here is "I eat meat because I want to."

Does this hold water? Is this just the easy way out? Is "I want to" an acceptable justification for anything, really? I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We can do better. I can do better.

Unless we just don't want to, of course.

[Raavak]

There are plenty of good reasons to eat meat, but you are hardly worth the time.

[Patriam1066]

maslow ranks food more important than feeling selfrighteous

[Barkingturtle]

There are plenty of good reasons to eat meat, but you are hardly worth the time.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've obviously demonstrated that I respect everyone here enough to engage in an adult conversation, so it's disappointing you're unwilling to reciprocate. I guess I'll never know what sparkling gems of insight you might have shared if I had only been worth the time. :(

[Lojik]

What about my cats? I love them...should they be vegan?

[Barkingturtle]

What about my cats? I love them...should they be vegan?

Eating your cats is not vegan, no. I can't believe you even have to ask.

Have you read a single word of this thread?

[Raev]

This thread is a great example of r/k theory. R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance. To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance, you need to fuck a lot and avoid conflict. This ensures you produce the maximum number of children who don't pointlessly injure themselves competing over infinite resources. Meanwhile, K-selected people (modern conservatives) are genetically optimized for periods of scarcity and have the inverse tendencies.

Any sort of conflict or competition or ranking triggers R-selected people, because these people are naturally less evolutionarily fit than their k-selected counterparts, and they know they are the bottom of the barrel. This is why liberals constantly talk about 'XXX for everyone'. Free healthcare. Free education. Participation trophies. Success for all. Don't blame the victim. Anything that involves effort on their part is immoral. What liberals really want is an infinite field of grass with no predators upon which they can reproduce infinitely. Contrast this with the Declaration of Independence, which talks about the pursuit of happiness. The founders, like all ancients, were k-selected. After all, they didn't have nearly infinite food and computers to do all of their annoying tasks for them.

Animal rights are simply another manifestation of these r-selected neuroses. A liberal sees someone killing an animal, and thinks 'oh god, that guy looks dangerous. He is both willing an able to kill that animal; if times get tough that could be me. Let's take away his gun and get him on a high estrogen soy based diet like me, so he won't be a threat' Since they are emotionally incapable of rising to our level, they try to pull us down to theirs with nonsense like 'peoplehood for animals'.

[Pokesan]

eating pussy can't be vegan, you're consuming the secretions of an animal. it's the same as dairy.

the reciprocal is completely vegan however, if you're a prude about it.

you've given me alot to think about.

[Lulz~Sect]

snickers softly

[Mead]

I can give you recipes to fulfill your nutritional requirements if that's what you want to pretend your objection is now. I don't take any pills. I mean, any. I haven't needed so much as a Baby Tylenol in like six years. Because I virtually never get sick any more. Because my immune system isn't compromised. But I know you're not really interested in nutrition, so let's not even pretend, k?

Talk about being delusional. Every vegan thinks the same bullshit until they actually get sick. Judging by most of your posts in this thread I think it's safe to say you have no credible medical knowledge. Please prove me wrong if you do.

[Fasttimes]

No veagan diet, no veagan powers.

[Spyder73]

Your arguments are regurgitated crap you have read on the internet. 99% of the population disagrees with what you are saying so if it makes you feel better to place death on a pedestal please continue ranting about how all sentient beings (such as cows, frogs, crocodiles) deserve personhood.

What about homosexuality? What would happen if the entire population decided to go gay? We can have everyone altered at birth. No more hormones facilitating bad pairings, presumably no more domestic violence. With modern advances we could impregnate women and open up baby growing silos where parents who were ready to have a baby could go an adopt one. Just because I prefer women doesn't mean I cant make the hard choice and choke down a d!ck does it? This would solve loads of problems around the world such as unwanted pregnancies, child abuse, population control... only those ready for parenthood would be adopting. This to me is what I hear when I read you spewing about veganism.

Just because an ideal is theoretically possible doesn't make it correct, doesn't make it better than the way we have done it in the past, and it doesn't give spoiled brats who are afforded the privilege of choice the moral high ground. The world has a circle of life and death and honestly I think your lines of criticism are just as arbitrary as the narrative you accuse me of pushing.

[Patriam1066]

Horrifying post on many levels Spyder, please seek help from Christ this Halloween

[Spyder73]

Trigger level RED RED RED

[Evia]

This thread is a great example of r/k theory. R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance. To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance, you need to fuck a lot and avoid conflict. This ensures you produce the maximum number of children who don't pointlessly injure themselves competing over infinite resources. Meanwhile, K-selected people (modern conservatives) are genetically optimized for periods of scarcity and have the inverse tendencies.

Any sort of conflict or competition or ranking triggers R-selected people, because these people are naturally less evolutionarily fit than their k-selected counterparts, and they know they are the bottom of the barrel. This is why liberals constantly talk about 'XXX for everyone'. Free healthcare. Free education. Participation trophies. Success for all. Don't blame the victim. Anything that involves effort on their part is immoral. What liberals really want is an infinite field of grass with no predators upon which they can reproduce infinitely. Contrast this with the Declaration of Independence, which talks about the pursuit of happiness. The founders, like all ancients, were k-selected. After all, they didn't have nearly infinite food and computers to do all of their annoying tasks for them.

Animal rights are simply another manifestation of these r-selected neuroses. A liberal sees someone killing an animal, and thinks 'oh god, that guy looks dangerous. He is both willing an able to kill that animal; if times get tough that could be me. Let's take away his gun and get him on a high estrogen soy based diet like me, so he won't be a threat' Since they are emotionally incapable of rising to our level, they try to pull us down to theirs with nonsense like 'peoplehood for animals'.


WOW someone is drinking that 'left/right division' tactic Kool-Aid HARD!

[maskedmelon]

i still get nauseous preparing meats and I would without a doubt stop eating meat if I had to kill animals. i couldn't do it. i can't even fish.

first I had trouble with worms. not because they are gross and slimy either. i picked them up plenty when I was little, but generally preferred to look at them in my palm because they seemed calmer that way. i had trouble with the idea of putting it on a hook. even with someone else doing it for me, it bothered me to look at the worm there and made me feel bad. so I used powerbait (that stuff in the jar that is colorful and smells liek butt). It worked great. i never had to impale a worm (never actually managed to do it myself) and could bait my own hook.

so then I finally caught a fish. I was excited. I reeled it in and saw the hook in its mouth and felt bad as my dad removed it with pliers. the fish looked terrified. of course all fish do, it's just their natural expression, but still to me it looked afraid. I was horrified when my dad pulled out a stringer and shoved it through the fish's chin. i pleaded that we just put it through the flappy part in the side of it's head, but my dad explained to me that that was his gill and he would suffocated if we did that. he assured me the fish was fine and couldn't feel anything as he dropped it back into the water on the stringer. "See," my dad told me "he's fine. He's ready to swim off and meet his buddies." only he couldn't do that :c i baited my hook and put my line back in the water before returning to the fish. I watched him there. he didnt look happy at all.

we fished a while longer and caught a couple more before I began pleading with my dad to let them go. i started crying and he agreed and we let the fish go. we didn't fish much more after that and when we did, it would turn out similarly. as I got older, i tried to get over it, but never really was able to. i stopped crying about it, but still felt bad for the fish and ultimately began declining to go even though it was one of the few activities we did together and the rat of the experience was always fun and somewhat adventurous. i lieked all the gear (despite its grizzly purpose) and assembling my line and stuff and waking up when it was still dark and stopping by the convenience store to purchase snacks. it was all good. but I didn't liek catching fish. i didn't liek hurting them or the worms.

i still get upset when I step on a slug or worm. They come out a lot in the early morning when it rains and I am extraordinarily absent minded, so inevitably, one ends up beneath my shoe and I feel bad.

I eat meat though. i eat it because it tastes good and generally doesn't look anything liek the animal it came from and i do not have to harvest it myself. most importantly though, i do not feel it is wrong simply because the thought of killing an animal makes me feel bad. there are many people who do not feel bad about it. There are also many things that make me feel bad that should not. for example, i feel bad winning in situations of real competition for resources such as business. it makes my job difficult, but I hold the needs of my people above my own. whether it's my family or co workers or employer, the needs of those closest to me are more important than those further from me. i also feel bad about killing plants or breaking things or interrupting people, but none of those things are inherently bad. They can be conditionally bad, but they can also be conditionally good.

the point is, feeling bad about something does not make it wrong. everything exists to be consumed, be it by cumulative error and time or other entities. life is only sustainable with death and abstaining from one source of life is no more inherently virtuous than abstaining from another.

you also deny creatures purpose by refusing to eat them. prey animals exist to be eaten. it gives them a reason to exist however humble it may be. what would you propose we do with them? release them all to them all into the wild that each might find its end in the jaws of another predator? perhaps we should safeguard them, purging the world of all predacious creatures that they might find their end with starvation following a period of lameness due to a broken limb or lack of teeth due to gum disease. certainly that would be preferable to execution?

just be thankful for their sacrifice and put their energy to productive use by exercising your superior cognition to forge a path toward universal cessation and an end to the misery of existence.

[Spyder73]

This thread is a great example of r/k theory. R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance. To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance, you need to fuck a lot and avoid conflict. This ensures you produce the maximum number of children who don't pointlessly injure themselves competing over infinite resources. Meanwhile, K-selected people (modern conservatives) are genetically optimized for periods of scarcity and have the inverse tendencies.

Any sort of conflict or competition or ranking triggers R-selected people, because these people are naturally less evolutionarily fit than their k-selected counterparts, and they know they are the bottom of the barrel. This is why liberals constantly talk about 'XXX for everyone'. Free healthcare. Free education. Participation trophies. Success for all. Don't blame the victim. Anything that involves effort on their part is immoral. What liberals really want is an infinite field of grass with no predators upon which they can reproduce infinitely. Contrast this with the Declaration of Independence, which talks about the pursuit of happiness. The founders, like all ancients, were k-selected. After all, they didn't have nearly infinite food and computers to do all of their annoying tasks for them.

Animal rights are simply another manifestation of these r-selected neuroses. A liberal sees someone killing an animal, and thinks 'oh god, that guy looks dangerous. He is both willing an able to kill that animal; if times get tough that could be me. Let's take away his gun and get him on a high estrogen soy based diet like me, so he won't be a threat' Since they are emotionally incapable of rising to our level, they try to pull us down to theirs with nonsense like 'peoplehood for animals'.

well put

[Lojik]

This thread is a great example of r/k theory. R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance. To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance, you need to fuck a lot and avoid conflict. This ensures you produce the maximum number of children who don't pointlessly injure themselves competing over infinite resources. Meanwhile, K-selected people (modern conservatives) are genetically optimized for periods of scarcity and have the inverse tendencies.

Any sort of conflict or competition or ranking triggers R-selected people, because these people are naturally less evolutionarily fit than their k-selected counterparts, and they know they are the bottom of the barrel. This is why liberals constantly talk about 'XXX for everyone'. Free healthcare. Free education. Participation trophies. Success for all. Don't blame the victim. Anything that involves effort on their part is immoral. What liberals really want is an infinite field of grass with no predators upon which they can reproduce infinitely. Contrast this with the Declaration of Independence, which talks about the pursuit of happiness. The founders, like all ancients, were k-selected. After all, they didn't have nearly infinite food and computers to do all of their annoying tasks for them.

Animal rights are simply another manifestation of these r-selected neuroses. A liberal sees someone killing an animal, and thinks 'oh god, that guy looks dangerous. He is both willing an able to kill that animal; if times get tough that could be me. Let's take away his gun and get him on a high estrogen soy based diet like me, so he won't be a threat' Since they are emotionally incapable of rising to our level, they try to pull us down to theirs with nonsense like 'peoplehood for animals'.

So you're saying that since we have progressed somewhat since other more hobbesian societies that conservatism will become more and more outdated?

[Raev]

WOW someone is drinking that 'left/right division' tactic Kool-Aid HARD!

This is actually a very typical r-selected response. All of those claims of 'success for everyone' don't work unless the r-selected people are considered part of the group. It's also noteworthy that you utterly failed to apply logic and reason.

That being said, I wrote this post in a rather trollish way. In reality, r/k is yin and yang. The problem is that birth control and computers have pushed modern millenials so far r that they have become utterly incompetent, and Western Civilization is going to collapse as a result. I'm a little salty about that.

So you're saying that since we have progressed somewhat since other more hobbesian societies that conservatism will become more and more outdated?

Well, I think there are two ways to look at that. The first way is that we 'progressed' aka became lazy slugs too far too fast, hence our 100 trillion unfunded liabilities in the US and are due for a major reversion to the Hobbesian mean. The second way is . . . well, have you seen WALL-E? Would you find that kind of life fulfilling?

[Lojik]

This is actually a very typical r-selected response. All of those claims of 'success for everyone' don't work unless the r-selected people are considered part of the group. It's also noteworthy that you utterly failed to apply logic and reason.

That being said, I wrote this post in a rather trollish way. In reality, r/k is yin and yang. The problem is that birth control and computers have pushed modern millenials so far r that they have become utterly incompetent, and Western Civilization is going to collapse as a result. I'm a little salty about that.

But if this happens the r/kelly conservative norms are more likely to survive in a post-apocalyptic world...win?

[Raev]

Sir, I am also the soft child of civilization. So I am not thrilled about this. But yes, I think it's quite likely that we will experience some sort of dramatic collapse that kills a lot of people. What happens when we can't borrow money on a 20 trillion debt at 0.5% interest any more? If we balance the budget, we have to cut over 1 trillion a year, and realistically that will be social programs since they take up most of it. What will the 45 million people on foodstamps do? Hint: they won't sit there and starve to death. I think eventually order is restored, but probably not before our inner cities explode. At that point the survivors (which may or may not include yours truly) will take prating clowns like Barkingturtle out back and beat them with a hose.

Anyway, I think that's about enough trolling for one day.

TLDR: vegetarians are the weak

[hyejin]

This thread is a great example of r/k theory. R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance. To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance, you need to fuck a lot and avoid conflict. This ensures you produce the maximum number of children who don't pointlessly injure themselves competing over infinite resources. Meanwhile, K-selected people (modern conservatives) are genetically optimized for periods of scarcity and have the inverse tendencies.

Any sort of conflict or competition or ranking triggers R-selected people, because these people are naturally less evolutionarily fit than their k-selected counterparts, and they know they are the bottom of the barrel. This is why liberals constantly talk about 'XXX for everyone'. Free healthcare. Free education. Participation trophies. Success for all. Don't blame the victim. Anything that involves effort on their part is immoral. What liberals really want is an infinite field of grass with no predators upon which they can reproduce infinitely. Contrast this with the Declaration of Independence, which talks about the pursuit of happiness. The founders, like all ancients, were k-selected. After all, they didn't have nearly infinite food and computers to do all of their annoying tasks for them.

Animal rights are simply another manifestation of these r-selected neuroses. A liberal sees someone killing an animal, and thinks 'oh god, that guy looks dangerous. He is both willing an able to kill that animal; if times get tough that could be me. Let's take away his gun and get him on a high estrogen soy based diet like me, so he won't be a threat' Since they are emotionally incapable of rising to our level, they try to pull us down to theirs with nonsense like 'peoplehood for animals'.

i'm optimized proudly for the acquisition and maintenance of abundance. ^^

I smell less like nitrogen fertilizer, I'm better looking, I spend less money on food. My cooking takes way less time. My staples keep indefinitely and are always on hand, so I only visit the grocery store weekly OR LESS while cooking every meal that I eat. I am not required to sterilize counters and dishes with harsh chemicals after cooking -- a wipe will do. It is very difficult for me to overconsume. Helpless entities with their own subjective experiences do not have terror and torture injected into those experiences so that I can eat yum-yum candy. Abandoning the cycle of addiction, hedonism, and self-harm has conferred a tremendous competitive advantage to me and the time (LOTS of it), energy, health gained or conserved can be invested into the people I love. Unlike a meat-eater, I am committed to loving the people in my life fully.

Obviously the return to a more primitive state could necessitate my eating meat again to subsist. I would not have a problem with that. If we're really getting as sub100k redneck-family-dinner-table as your post I'll regrettably have to present the flip side: during the most risky period of the development of scarcity, when supplies dwindled to grain stores, I would be experiencing no withdrawal from meat. I am clearly no less optimized for than you are for scarcity and I probably also own more guns. :D

About the source of vegetarianism culturally you're exactly right, dum-dum. Just like virtue and computer video games, conscious vegetarianism derives from sentience. It's a manifestation of that little bright-white kernel of you aside from the fat body and rumbly tummy that your mom loves. Don't curse the divine.

[Fasttimes]

i'm optimized proudly for the acquisition and maintenance of abundance. ^^

I smell less like nitrogen fertilizer, I'm better looking, I spend less money on food. My cooking takes way less time. My staples keep indefinitely and are always on hand, so I only visit the grocery store weekly OR LESS while cooking every meal that I eat. I am not required to sterilize counters and dishes with harsh chemicals after cooking -- a wipe will do. It is very difficult for me to overconsume. Helpless entities with their own subjective experiences do not have terror and torture injected into those experiences so that I can eat yum-yum candy. Abandoning the cycle of addiction, hedonism, and self-harm has conferred a tremendous competitive advantage to me and the time (LOTS of it), energy, health gained or conserved can be invested into the people I love. Unlike a meat-eater, I am committed to loving the people in my life fully.

Obviously the return to a more primitive state could necessitate my eating meat again to subsist. I would not have a problem with that. If we're really getting as sub100k redneck-family-dinner-table as your post I'll regrettably have to present the flip side: during the most risky period of the development of scarcity, when supplies dwindled to grain stores, I would be experiencing no withdrawal from meat. I am clearly no less optimized for than you are for scarcity and I probably also own more guns. :D

About the source of vegetarianism culturally you're exactly right, dum-dum. Just like virtue and computer video games, conscious vegetarianism derives from sentience. It's a manifestation of that little bright-white kernel of you aside from the fat body and rumbly tummy that your mom loves. Don't curse the divine.

You sound like someone without vulak pixels. Sorry for your loss.

[Raev]

I'd be genuinely curious to see a good logical argument why r/k theory is wrong. I find it highly predictive. So far no one in this thread has even tried.

I am actually a big fan of fermented foods. A quick google search (http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/the-truth-about-non-fermented-vs-fermented-soy-protein.html) suggests fermentation does not remove the soy isoflavones.

Also, people who write like Csihar "oh, this is really complicated, you couldn't possibly understand, I won't bother writing anything, you moron" are without exception pretentious tools who are projecting their own ignorance.

And *now* I'm done for the day ;p

[Baler]

https://i.imgur.com/830iaoq.gif

[Pokesan]

r/k sounds like some autistic libertarian garbo so im not surprised raev is into it

good trader tho

[swilleville]

Not to stir the pot here... but while we are on the topic of not killings things because it is more convenient, I would love to hear this guys stance on abortion.

[Lhancelot]

I like Csihar. His posts make me think harder.

I don't understand why political extremists always have to interject political theory into every discussion and argument. How does every topic of discussion always turn into a "libtard" or "cuckservative" debate?

It reminds me how religious people funnel their religious beliefs into every possible topic you could discuss with them, which only narrows their perspective by only granting them the freedom to think within the tiny constraints of what their belief system allows them to believe. Ironically religious zealots see their rudimentary perspectives that are minimalised significantly by their religious beliefs as all knowing and the unquestionable truth.

I see all religious and political extremists as the same, neither think logically or objectively thanks to their personal choices to live in ignorance and darkness due to fanatical beliefs that do not allow them to ever see the other side of the fence. This is sad, because often times there is some truth to the different perspectives.

Personally I find it extremely presumptuous for any person to hold their own belief system as 100% true and everything else and all other belief systems as 100% garbage.

[Rader]

Not to stir the pot here... but while we are on the topic of not killings things because it is more convenient, I would love to hear this guys stance on abortion.

LOL, he is a huge fan of abortion, of course, all vegans are.

[Barkingturtle]

Abortion is an issue of body autonomy. Fetuses are not people, they are simply clumps of cells which are 100% reliant upon their host. Pretty simple, really. We require organ donors to opt-in so that we can harvest their bits at life's end because we understand that is wrong to tell someone what to do with their body--even after death. We should probably extend similar rights to living, pregnant women, right?

As it applies then to animal rights, it's rather simple, too. Animals have a right to not have you cut their body up and eat it. Der der.

Lot of posts in this thread since I last visited and I won't pretend that I've read any of them past the most recent page, really. I do see this discussion of r/k nonsense and I have to admit it's just another fascinating example of dissonance to see people whose food requires magnitudes more resources claiming they are more prepared to survive a period of scarcity. Like where the fuck you gonna find a thousand gallons of water to produce that pound of beef in your post-apocalyptic fantasy world? Truly a stunning lack of self-awareness going on there. To further debunk the myth, I'll share a couple interesting facts about myself that prove my unmitigated ruggedness.

1) I've spent more than 100 nights in the past three years tent-camping in the Colorado Rockies.

2) I'm looking to purchase a remote mountain property this next Spring where we will build an off-grid home complete with an underground greenhouse to eventually grow all our own food.

3) I single-handedly dominated this thread until the cavalry of kinder, gentler vegans arrived.

Frankly, I don't sense anyone in this thread would be a threat to me if we were set against one another in a contest of life-and-death. I'm clearly capable of imposing my will upon you all. If you had something and I wanted it, I would take it. Basically, you're very fortunate I'm filled with so much empathy and compassion, because if I were more self-centered I'd likely enslave the men of your family and impregnate the women.

[maskedmelon]

It's wrong to characterize vegans as simple products of r-selection. Csihar is right in the there is more to veganism as with every other social issue and empathy certainly plays a role, but not so straightforward as we might expect.

the purpose of my last post was to illustrate that there are highly empathic people who do not practice veganism. we could chock it up to social programming or we could think critically about why that might be.

many people follow their feelings. many others do not. why?

the best reason that I can offer is that those who reject their feelings in whole or in part, do so because they have witnessed the destructive capacity of allowing them to lead. as a result people naturally grow wary of their feelings and become dubious of conclusions which closely align with those feelings no matter how well reasoned.

in the case of veganism we see this in both directions. we see it in people with great empathy who reject the idea as well as in people of little empathy who support it. both have, at least in part, rejected their feelings in pursuit of bettering themselves.

[Spyder73]

Abortion is an issue of body autonomy. Fetuses are not people, they are simply clumps of cells which are 100% reliant upon their host. Pretty simple, really. We require organ donors to opt-in so that we can harvest their bits at life's end because we understand that is wrong to tell someone what to do with their body--even after death. We should probably extend similar rights to living, pregnant women, right?

As it applies then to animal rights, it's rather simple, too. Animals have a right to not have you cut their body up and eat it. Der der.

Lot of posts in this thread since I last visited and I won't pretend that I've read any of them past the most recent page, really. I do see this discussion of r/k nonsense and I have to admit it's just another fascinating example of dissonance to see people whose food requires magnitudes more resources claiming they are more prepared to survive a period of scarcity. Like where the fuck you gonna find a thousand gallons of water to produce that pound of beef in your post-apocalyptic fantasy world? Truly a stunning lack of self-awareness going on there. To further debunk the myth, I'll share a couple interesting facts about myself that prove my unmitigated ruggedness.

1) I've spent more than 100 nights in the past three years tent-camping in the Colorado Rockies.

2) I'm looking to purchase a remote mountain property this next Spring where we will build an off-grid home complete with an underground greenhouse to eventually grow all our own food.

3) I single-handedly dominated this thread until the cavalry of kinder, gentler vegans arrived.

Frankly, I don't sense anyone in this thread would be a threat to me if we were set against one another in a contest of life-and-death. I'm clearly capable of imposing my will upon you all. If you had something and I wanted it, I would take it. Basically, you're very fortunate I'm filled with so much empathy and compassion, because if I were more self-centered I'd likely enslave the men of your family and impregnate the women.

TLDR - Unemployed vegan must move off grid into woods to escape eviction in Colorado. Supports killing babies but not chickens. Delusions of making rationale points that others find arbitrary, fabricated, or irrelevant.

[Lhancelot]

It's wrong to characterize vegans as simple products of r-selection. Csihar is right in the there is more to veganism as with every other social issue and empathy certainly plays a role, but not so straightforward as we might expect.

the purpose of my last post was to illustrate that there are highly empathic people who do not practice veganism. we could chock it up to social programming or we could think critically about why that might be.

many people follow their feelings. many others do not. why?

the best reason that I can offer is that those who reject their feelings in whole or in part, do so because they have witnessed the destructive capacity of allowing them to lead. as a result people naturally grow wary of their feelings and become dubious of conclusions which closely align with those feelings no matter how well reasoned.

in the case of veganism we see this in both directions. we see it in people with great empathy who reject the idea as well as in people of little empathy who support it. both have, at least in part, rejected their feelings in pursuit of bettering themselves.

That's pretty much my thought on it too. ^

I believe I have tons of empathy, I love animals more than people (people are awful creatures) and I still am not a vegan. I rarely eat meat, but I do not abstain from all meats all the time.

Anyway, well put MM. I concur.

[swilleville]

Im going to have to go with what spyder said here... Fetuses are clumps of cells... with heart beats, finger nails, and that can feel pain. Headline reads: Ex-meth head hippy says he can physically dominate and steal from better men and then rape women. Nice.

[Pokesan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw-3uBNv7Xs

[NachtMystium]

If animals don't want to be eaten then why are they made of food?

Dominated, I'm taking your tent also

[Barkingturtle]

I'm actually personally opposed to abortion, boys, I'm simply capable of separating my emotional response from the intellectual truth I stated above: living, pregnant women should be afforded at least as much body autonomy as corpses.

I mean, seriously. "Killing babies?" "Raping women?" You guys sound just fucking overwrought this morning. It is actually possible to impregnate women without rape. It just takes a boner and some good sperm. Which, by the way, is easier when you're vegan. Remember earlier when I was teaching you about cholesterol clogging your arteries? Well it does that inside your wiener, too. This is called "erectile dysfunction" and it's not something vegans deal with. Sorry for your soft penises, Spyder and Swilly. That's just nature's way of protecting the gene pool. :cool:

[zodium]

I'm actually

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

[Spyder73]

I mean, seriously. "Killing babies?" "Raping women?" You guys sound just fucking overwrought this morning.

If you had something and I wanted it, I would take it. Basically, you're very fortunate I'm filled with so much empathy and compassion, because if I were more self-centered I'd likely enslave the men of your family and impregnate the women.

Fetuses are not people, they are simply clumps of cells which are 100% reliant upon their host. Pretty simple, really.

[Barkingturtle]

Not familiar with your reference. Is that guy someone who can disagree with an action philosophically yet still recognize intellectually how someone else can be entitled to that action?

Edit: Maybe google "overwrought", Spidey.

My posts seem pretty calm and matter-of-fact. I mean, I'm posting 100% indisputable facts and not trolling for an emotional response, unlike you and swill who accuse me of wanting to kill babies and rape women.

[Spyder73]

I'm simply capable of separating my emotional response from the intellectual truth I stated above: living, pregnant women should be afforded at least as much body autonomy as corpses.

I am really confused on how you think a woman should be able to choose whether or not having a child is convenient for her (never mind the father) but you support LARPing in grocery stores for chicken funerals.

[Lulz~Sect]

At this point it seems like he's trolling.

(i hope)

[zodium]

My posts seem pretty calm and matter-of-fact. I mean, I'm posting 100% indisputable facts and not trolling for an emotional response, unlike you and swill who accuse me of wanting to kill babies and rape women.

https://i.imgur.com/U5iBZjZl.jpg

[Pokesan]

spyder you're an idiot

[Spyder73]

My posts seem pretty calm and matter-of-fact. I mean, I'm posting 100% indisputable facts and not trolling for an emotional response, unlike you and swill who accuse me of wanting to kill babies and rape women.

I have not read a single compelling argument form you on why I should stop eating meat.

It takes water to grow cows...OK...???

Cows fart and is bad for ozone....OK....???

Animals have feelings.....OK...????

We should be smarter than our ancestors, I am morale and you are not....OK...?????

[Mead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Jcrk6jGfo

[Lhancelot]

I am impressed with this Barkingturtle hippie dude. He's doing a great job fending off the opposition all the while being calm and collected.

I agree that he seems to detach emotional responses all the while adding enough troll with his "intellectual truths" to make it entertaining.

Spyder, you met your match. :D

[Raev]

Your theory would provide an explanation for why animal rights are more popular among left-leaning people but no more. So what does it offer in this thread? Is it a counter-argument to anything?

Most of the vegetarians in this thread are busy claiming a moral superiority ("oh we care") despite being crushed over and over again by the facts. One even suggested that meat eaters are not capable of love. r/k theory reframes this activism as a self-aggrandizing attempt to modify cultural norms to ones more favorable to their reproductive success. If this discussion were actually centered around the facts it would be less relevant.

Your theory would be that the Chinese are simply more fearful of strong alpha males who are too pro at being capitalists. Well done.

I really don't see how you got from A to B there. I was not referring to explicit thoughts, but rather anthropomorphizing a bit. Anyway, r/k theory would predict that as China continues to improve economically that younger Chinese and those doing better economically will be more r-selected. I am proposing that these more r-selected people will be more supportive of animal rights.

And the data backs this up (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196765/). Age is strongly negatively predictive on few animal rights issues (V1: aware of animal welfare, V2: cement floors for pigs, V3: (inverted) killing fowls near their cages, V4: (inverted) factory rearing) and only weakly positive on V6. Income is strongly positively predictive, but interestingly for different issues (V5: willing to pay for increased cost of animal products, V6: mandatory laws of animal welfare, V7: drinking PETA koolaid). Also, you might be a bit optimistic about animal rights progress in China. Apparently most Chinese have never even heard the term.

Of course r/k is not the only issue at play here; people are complicated. But the predictive power of r/k continues to impress me.

people involved with proper treatment of animals are less likely to have a shitload of kids, quite the opposite. How does that fit your theory?

Birth control.

I would love to hear this guys stance on abortion

Personally I don't see much difference between a 'clump of cells' that can feel pain and an animal or even a person. But r-selected people favor maximum reproductive freedom. Once again, the predictive power of r/k theory impresses.

[zodium]

http://i.imgur.com/hT88qThl.jpg

[Raavak]

If this discussion were actually centered around the facts it would be less relevant.I give you credit for engaging in this tripe of a thread.

I love how r/K selection theory is spot on. Airs of Hari Seldon in it.

[swilleville]

Just to clarify my last post was a joke... at least the part about the headline and the raping of women. The thought process of protecting the rights of animals while wholesale slaughtering human children blows my mind. The mother, at least in my opinion, forfeits her right to control "her body" when she makes the decision to allow another human to grow inside of her. There are ways around pregnancy... it isn't difficult to put on a condom, take birth control, or hell pulling out worked for me and my wife for 8 years until we decided to have a child. I am not saying you are pro-abortion, but many animal rights activists that will fight you over killing an animal to eat will also fight you over telling someone that killing a child because it is going to be an inconvenience on a mothers life is wrong. I personally will continue to hunt and fish without remorse for the animal that was killed in the process. As i have previously said, I will always go out of my way to make the process as painless as possible and I would never abuse an animal with the sole purpose of causing pain. I also wouldn't murder a child... in womb or otherwise. Some people disagree and that's fine as I can only make decisions for myself and my family. I think I will make this my last post on this thread fellas and I wish all of you all the best.

[Rader]

So if animals are granted person-hood, and one animal kills and eats another animal, will we put it in prison for murder?

[Iandyan]

So if animals are granted person-hood, and one animal kills and eats another animal, will we put it in prison for murder?


Yes and may God have mercy on your soul if you accidently run over a squirrel on the road. Vehicular homicide charges for sure.

[Barkingturtle]

I ... wouldn't murder a child... in womb or otherwise.

I think it's great that you possess so much concern and empathy for the unborn. I just think it would be even better if you'd extend that concern and empathy to beings who are, you know, already born.

But hey dudes--did you know today is actually World Vegan Day? Maybe try going just this one day without eating animal-derived products. Some of your favorite restaurants might be offering special animal-free dishes today(because vegans are a rapidly growing demographic who vote with their dollars and you're going to see us catered to more and more).

In just that one day of abstinence, you'd save 1,100 gallons of water.
45 pounds of grain.
30 square feet of forest.
And 10 pounds of Carbon Dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

You might even save a life and that life might even be...your own!

[Lulz~Sect]

https://i.imgur.com/aTGxYE2.jpg

[skarlorn]

I think it's great that you possess so much concern and empathy for the unborn. I just think it would be even better if you'd extend that concern and empathy to beings who are, you know, already born.

But hey dudes--did you know today is actually World Vegan Day? Maybe try going just this one day without eating animal-derived products. Some of your favorite restaurants might be offering special animal-free dishes today(because vegans are a rapidly growing demographic who vote with their dollars and you're going to see us catered to more and more).

In just that one day of abstinence, you'd save 1,100 gallons of water.
45 pounds of grain.
30 square feet of forest.
And 10 pounds of Carbon Dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

You might even save a life and that life might even be...your own!

i do not have a large intestine so i literally do not process fiber and now i will eat meat every day of my life thank you

[Barkingturtle]

i do not have a large intestine so i literally do not process fiber and now i will eat meat every day of my life thank you

I admire your commitment to converting your digestive system into something which is more akin to a carnivore in the wild. And I'm sorry you've gone through such a difficult and life-altering event. I wrote a story once about a man with a colostomy so I had to do a bunch of research and I can only imagine what you're going though(or have gone through; or will go through). Hope things improve for you.

[skarlorn]

it's okay dear barkingturtle, i am blessed with an extremely resilient psyche and have only gained power level since my partial disembowelment

In fact, this has inspired a new pseudofiction narrative story called How to Slay your Enemies: A guide to Self-Realization through Drug Abuse and Disembowelment

[swilleville]

Filbus did you really have to have your intestine removed bud? If so was that recently? I dont remember it being mentioned back in the days of us being guilded and slaying dragons during kunark.

[skarlorn]

ya truly dear, it was this summer following a long history of horrific ulcerative colitis. next week I get set up to shit out the anus again :-)

[Lhancelot]

I admire your commitment to converting your digestive system into something which is more akin to a carnivore in the wild. And I'm sorry you've gone through such a difficult and life-altering event. I wrote a story once about a man with a colostomy so I had to do a bunch of research and I can only imagine what you're going though(or have gone through; or will go through). Hope things improve for you.

Well said. Just be careful, Skarlorn isn't used to such kind and heartfelt words here on the forums. Basically the only acceptable emotion you may present to others is anger and spite. The more you insult and denigrate others, the better.

[skarlorn]

Wrong. That's only for RNF.

[hyejin]

ya truly dear, it was this summer following a long history of horrific ulcerative colitis. next week I get set up to shit out the anus again :-)

if your ane is bypassed can you skip pre-sex cleaning routine? could be a performance-enhancing surgery, let me know.

[Pokesan]

if your ane is bypassed can you skip pre-sex cleaning routine? could be a performance-enhancing surgery, let me know.

i think they glue it shut for awhile

imagine how tight hes gonna be after this

...brb

[skarlorn]

i don't think i'll ever let a girl put a finger up my anoos again though tbh

just doesn't seem worth the risk

[AzzarTheGod]

Wrong. That's only for RNF.

das right das right learn the lines

[Patriam1066]

Muslims will never stop pumping out tons of kids + halal slaughter so I'm gonna eat meat until barkingturtle and the other hippies defeat Islam

Once you burned every mosque to the ground, however, I will give up meat and dairy

[skarlorn]

Muslims will never stop pumping out tons of kids + halal slaughter so I'm gonna eat meat until barkingturtle and the other hippies defeat Islam

Once you burned every mosque to the ground, however, I will give up meat and dairy

Noted, filed under IMPORTANT FBI FILES

[Patriam1066]

Noted, filed under IMPORTANT FBI FILES

I lol'ed

[Nilstoniakrath]

Abortion is an issue of body autonomy. Fetuses are not people, they are simply clumps of cells which are 100% reliant upon their host.

So a fetus that could survive outside the womb on its own at eight and a half months is fair game to crush its skull and be made to feel immense pain as it dies, no problem, you go girl, that was just an annoying inconvenient "clump of cells". But if I crush an ant by accident when I step outside the house, I am an evil uncaring @$$. Nice logic there, you F-ing vegantard.

[Pokesan]

So a fetus that could survive outside the womb on its own at eight and a half months is fair game to crush its skull and be made to feel immense pain as it dies, no problem, you go girl, that was just an annoying inconvenient "clump of cells". But if I crush an ant by accident when I step outside the house, I am an evil uncaring @$$. Nice logic there, you F-ing vegantard.

this doesn't happen get out the fairytale homie

[Nilstoniakrath]

this doesn't happen get out the fairytale homie

Tell that to all the late term aborted fetuses, they will be happy to hear that their pain and death was all an illusion.

[Pokesan]

Tell that to all the late term aborted fetuses, they will be happy to hear that their pain and death was all an illusion.

citation needed

[chadtwoke]

Also to OP my ancestors didn't climb to the top of the food chain to just eat a fuckin carrot

finally chabster says something i agree with.

btw barkingcuckle i just ate an 8oz steak, rare, that i jerked off onto. have fun eating your bean sprout taco you farget.

[skarlorn]

Tell that to all the late term aborted fetuses, they will be happy to hear that their pain and death was all an illusion.

Stewie Griffin is the only fetus to make record of his experiences so basically

"citation needed"

[Mead]

I found the lecture these dudes attended

It's now an advertisement on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4

Comments are disabled for this video.

37:19+ made me chuckle

[Barkingturtle]

So a fetus that could survive outside the womb on its own at eight and a half months is fair game to crush its skull and be made to feel immense pain as it dies, no problem, you go girl, that was just an annoying inconvenient "clump of cells". But if I crush an ant by accident when I step outside the house, I am an evil uncaring @$$. Nice logic there, you F-ing vegantard.

I don't hold you responsible for stepping on an ant. You're making that up to feel better about yourself.

Everything else you wrote is also your own fantasy. It kinda sounds like you've been taking reproductive advice from your Fox News-addicted grandmommy. Don't do that.

But I'm sure abortion is a really important issue to you, right? I'm sure you've dedicated a great deal of your personal time to ending the practice, through activism, community outreach, youth education etc. You've probably adopted five or six unwanted kids, right? Oh? You've simply co-opted the tragic imaginary deaths of these innocent widdle kiddies to make an ignorant argument on the internet because it helps you feel better about killing baby animals?

Oh, see, I can't respect that. You are insidiously stupid. This isn't me calling you names, this is me saying your ignorance is actually dangerous and cruel.

In case you're actually curious and not just a sick person, post-viability abortions are basically only performed due to the late discovery of birth defects or because there is great risk of the mother dying. It's not something evil liberal women just do to relieve themselves of babies so they can go out and get pumped full of semen by some black dudes. In fact, as a pregnancy progresses, it's much more dangerous to the mother to undergo the procedure. They risk death. Frankly, I'd say they possess far more courage than do you, some dipshit who can't even face the cruelty of his own diet without attempting to shift focus to his fantasies of squashing the skulls of babies.

[Raavak]

He can have an opinion and he doesn't need to qualify it. Least of all to you.

[Pokesan]

He can have an opinion and he doesn't need to qualify it. Least of all to you.

opinions based on falsehoods aren't viable

hth

[Priceline]

Thanks for the responce. It was challenging to reply to. I'll try to address everything you've said. I'd like to start with the fact that you're using the theory and look at what it offers to you and other people: 1) Simplicity. Life's complexity can be boiled down to one theory. This makes life easier to understand and navigate. We enjoy compartmentalizing. Compartmentalization is a concept in psychology and I am refering to that as well but mainly it's how our brains manage. When we see a leaf we see a single leaf (singular 'concept'). When we say numerous leaves, we see a pile of leaves (singular 'concept'). If we see a large numerous of leaves hanging from a tree we see foliage (singular 'concept'). If our brains would register every single leave hanging from that tree we wouldn't be able to function. We face countless stimuli every day and need to compartmentalize. You can see this everywhere, for example peoples' need to fit music into genres and subgenres. 2) It splits people into two groups. Again, this offers simplicity. It also provides an enemy responsible for the world's woes. It implies a very direct cause and effect which offers control. If you experience life as a bad place with no direct aggressor (natural disasters, diseases etc.) you feel a lack of control. We're essentially all control freaks. People who get called control freaks simply feel a much more significant need to control things (this is a mental thing and not actually about being in control in the sense of having power over others). This enemy offers a battle that can and should be fought. This offers you a goal in life and offers the romanticism of being a warrior in the struggle against evil. The stories we tell of heroes and villains (in movies, book, folklore), good and evil, righteous and unjust are manifestations of our need for romanticism. And I'm not talking about a romantic candlelight dinner. It allows you to place yourself on the good side. Having a clear-cut group offers you an identity and it satisfies a need to belong to a group. The division of these groups is black and white, in this case bad and good. You can look at all the positive traits associated with your group and ascribe yourself all of these traits. White supremacists will boast about the accomplishments of the white race (and they are to be boasted about) but that doesn't mean that mr. trailer park trash who happens to belong to this masterful race has himself accomplished anything himself. Most likely if the entire white race shared his personality they would've gone extinct through inbreeding and falling on their own spears (and not in that order). I'm K-selected so I would have been one of the founding fathers given the right circumstances. It also makes it far easier to ignore or not examine any negative traits you or your group have. Everything can be projected onto that one bad group. The others. 3) It offers a weapon. A verbal weapon but a weapon. None of this actually addresses the r/K theory. I will come back to why I mentioned all of it because it's not meant to be an ad hominem. The r/K theory has fallen out of favour (although much of it what it proposes continues to be used). Also, it uses the word 'theory' is the non scientific sense, as far as I know. It should be the r/K hypothesis. are typical examples of r-selection and typical examples of K-selection, however most organisms do not fall into either category neatly. Human beings are closer to K-selection than r. Cats for example reach sexual maturity fast (r), can have a high number of offspring and spread widely and quickly (r), have relatively long life expectancy (K), are relatively involved in child-rearing (K). The problem isn't really with this hypothesis, the problem is with applying it to human beings and applying it to conscious/subconscious actions and politics. The r/K selection theory has to do with reproduction. What you'll notice is that r/K selection speaks in terms of 'species' and not 'individuals'. We see individual differences in species but you don't see lions throwing out 30 cubs a year and not taking care of them and you don't see mice having a single off-spring and rearing them until adulthood. Evolution is far too complicated (not just in the sense of actual complexity but in that you sometimes need to take millions of years of evolution and 1000s of species into account to look at a single species. An enormous amount of variables) to use the r/K selection theory as an actual strategy that is utilized by individual species. Mice live for a short time and are incredibly vulnerable to predation. If mice started producing a small number of offspring and investing heavily into child-rearing they would go extinct. They survived because they didn't. People often mistake evolution for 'adapting' species. Placing it in economic terms: a succesful company is suffering losses due to online stores. They don't grow an extra set of arms in order to work twice as fast. They adapt and survive or they don't adapt sufficiently and go bankrupt. Now if their employees were are inbred hicks with an extra set of arms and their succes made them wildly succesful with the ladies... Giraffes didn't grow longer necks in order to survive. Jim, the long-necked giraffe, told Bob, the short-necked giraffe, "just hold on for a couple thousand or million years and you'll be able to reach the food, buddy!". Sadly, Bob died later that week. It's ultimately not a tactic of individuals, it's a "tactic" of organisms. This doesn't translate very well to human behaviour. Even if it seems to fits, it's simply not a correct application. Can you find me references to this in the actual r/K selection theory? Specifically references to 'abundance' and 'scarcity'. I don't mean political/sociological applications of this hypothesis but rather within the field of ecology. The politicized hypothesis of the r/K selection theory hypothesis claims that abundance leads to promiscuity and lack of child-rearing investments. Abundance leads to r-selection. Scarcity leads to K-selection. One thing that poor people living in scarcity actually do is produce a lot of offspring in order to survive. Africa should be very K-selected because of the scarcity. However: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262884/countries-with-the-highest-fertility-rates/https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25 Your quote is a bit all over the place. "R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance". The way you have worded this is that r-selected people reach their peak performance in periods of abundance. "To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance...". They way you have worded this is that in order to reach peak performance in a period of abundance you should be r-selected and in scarcity K-selected. This is either poorly worded, doesn't make sense or can be countered easily. Human beings seem to have r-selected tendencies in scarcity and K-selected tendencies in abundance. The high birth rate isn't coming from the affluent West. Whether or not this tendency is the best tactic is debatable (I think K-selected in abundance and r-selected in scarcity ultimately produces the best rate of survival for the species) but what the politicized hypothesis claims doesn't jel with the ecological facts. "r/K-selected people" and "evolutionary". The r/K theory speaks of species and obviously this involves evolution and genetics. Like I mentioned earlier, you see r/K-selected species (again: most do not fit!) but you don't see r/K-selected individuals. Show me the whore lion with her 30 cubs and the monogamous mouse with her one baby she loves dearly. Yet, the jump is made to r/K-selected people. So that must mean that there are specific genes which express this behaviour. If there aren't then the r/K theory by definition has no bearing on human individuals. Are there? Have they been identified? Has any sort of research even been done? Now, you could talk about 'r/K-selected species'-like behaviour. Observing nature is a good way to learn about ourselves. There's a reason why 'peacocking' is such a good term. But once you get into that area then you can't talk about r/K-selected people or being 'evolutionary fit'. Then it's just a tactic (whereas the r/K-theory is not a tactic in the same sense) and it makes sense that we would follow tactics other animals use because a) we are animals b) we share the same reality c) there is a finite amount of tactics. And conservatives really want is a finite field of grass with lots of predation upon which they can reproduce indefinitely. If you're going to use a hyperbole to compare and contrast, use a hyperbole on both sides. Although a lot of vegetarians/vegan go that route, I haven't seen it in this thread. I also haven't seen any crushing of facts. You personally haven't adressed any actual arguments. I disagree with that vehemently. No matter my stance on this topic, there is a biological difference between killing a fellow human being and a non-human animal. A person capable of killing an animal without feeling remorse, sympathy or pity does not necessitate a certain pathology. Amongst ourselves it's different. Even if the pathology doesn't live among the individual doing the killing, it will most likely live among the 'spirit' of the group. Concentration camp guards aren't necessarily monsters but the ideology behind it certainly is monstrous. Empathy plays a role but it's complicated and empathy doesn't equal sympathy. It may but an explanation that seemingly fits isn't necessarily the correct explanation. The irony behind this is that it clearly demonstrates a level of competitiveness among these so-called "r-selected people". I'm not an animal rights activist but I do work with animals and I've seen the competitiveness among the different groups. It really isn't any different than what you'd find anywhere else. Only the social status of money etc. becomes 'I am the most unselfish'. This doesn't fit the claim that r-selected people dislike competition. They prefer a different kind of competition. I got from A to B in context of your post. You not only placed everyone in the r/K dichotomy but you placed everyone in the left/right dichotomy. Bringing in socialism/capitalism naturally follow that logic. If you didn't mean explicit though then you either meant subconscious thought (and my reply still stands) or what you said was meaningless. I am not optimistic at all, actually. China is a hellhole for animals (and people). Again, it might fit the claim on a superficial level but it really doesn't offer any explanation. While meat/diary consumption may on some level be decreasing in the west, it is on the rise in developing countries. The closer third and second world countries get to being a first world country, the more meat and diary is consumed. This doesn't fit your theory, in fact it is the opposite of what you claim. You can talk about age but lets bring in correlation and causation. I'm not going to go into this much at all (because we all know what it means) but it's something you don't seem to take into account much at all. My explanation that people are living in closer proximity to animals (in terms of 'loved ones' as opposed to livestock) fits much better. It allows people to empathize with animals more, which tends to create sympathy. This sympathy leads to anger and feelings of injustice in regards to the animal industries. More and more Chinese people are owning dogs and they are speaking out against the parts of China that eat dog (and literally torture them because it supposedly improves the taste). How many people have no qualms about eating pigs, cows, chickens etc. but speak out against eating dog? Don't remember who it was but someone in this thread expressed that sentinement. Dogs are man's best friend and no eaty those. Is that r-selection? Or empathy, culture etc.? Meh. My question actually wasn't very good. People seek high social status for reproductive reasons (although there are other reasons). Even if a person decides not to want children, this evolutionary treat is so deeply ingrained in us we still act as if we want to reproduce. So, the decision not to have children doesn't negate the behaviour that helps you get them. You could have argued that. The point is though, your r/K selection theory puts everything into two neat categories, with animal rights being an extension of r-selection yet a very significant amount of people into with animal rights/treatment issues are not only having less or no children, they're removing themselves from this public arena of social status and quite literally removing themselves from the public arena. Lots of people that I know would love nothing more than to live in a forest (and some actually do :) ). It is a far more complicated issue and the r/K theory only gives superficial explanations that fit once you ignore most everything else. None of this actually touches on the arguments for animals. That's a different discussion at this point. One of my main issues with the r/K-selection theory, besides that I think it's wrongly applied and misunderstood, is that it does a lot more damage than it does good. Our understanding of biology and psychology offers something amazing. What I think the most powerful result of western society (not necessarily that it has the most power, rather that it has the most potential) is our ability to study the animals that we are. This allows us to transcend our nature to a certain degree. We are like a computer program that gains consciousness. That program will then behave differently than any prediction of the program would tell you but it will always be limited by it's design. We are able to look at concepts like nationalism and transcend it. People on the left tend to throw away nationalism entirely. People on the right tend to embrace it too strongly. Both have negative results. Group identity (of which nationalism is just another degree) is something engrained in us. Some people experience it more than others and the odd individual might not experience it (much) at all. We can't do away with it but we can study what it does and steer it in the right direction. This is something for a long post and I would need to spend a lot of time working on it (so it doesn't turn into a semi-cohesive rant of 5 pages long) but I'll just throw out some short examples: - Trump is insensitive.- Trump is right-wing. - People have cognitive bias, comfirmation bias, suffer from cognitive dissonance when their worldview is challenged. - Right-wing people should be the most critical of Trump in order to counteract this. - Left-wing people should try to understand what Trump does as much as possible to counteract this. Conclusions to be drawn: Trump is an insensitive manchild and is causing damage. The left has been oversensitive for a long time and caused damage. This has led to an insensitive manchild and may even be necessary to balance things out. The left should become less sensitive. The right should be careful not to become too insensitive and see Trump as a temporary solution but roll back afterwards. - Far-right is on the rise. - Far-right is a 'spirit' that is always lurking and will come out time and time again - Far-left is partially to blame for the rise of far-right but not entirely - Right should be highly critical of far-right. - Left should try to understand the far-right. Examine the positions that hold some element of truth, throw away the bad ones. Integrate the the good ones into their ideology, which will lead to less people gravitating to the far-right and adopting the bad elements. I think those are examples of how an understanding of the psychology of politics can lead to a better way. The main problem with the right adopting these psychological and biological teachings is that they're mostly not applying them in an effort for truth and proper understanding. They're tools in their battle. All they're used for is furthering the left/wing dichotomy, which is often a false dichomoty. "Ah so the left does this and thinks this because so and so...". So what you're saying is these human beings are subject to their biology? Mind, fucking, blown. Of course the right is also subject to their biology but not really. They just have some awesome qualities mixed in with their free thoughts. Like being hard-working and not producing welfare babies. At this moment most of the intellectuals are on the right. The right is providing the most balanced and logical discussions. They are the most rational. I am left-wing and mostly watch right-wing pundits. More truth, more challenge, more falsification for my thoughts. It will only be a matter of time before they go the route of the current left. Where the left has 'you're a racist/homophobe/transophobe/Islamaphobe/breaking-into-your-house-and-stealing-your-stuff-ophobe' the right will have 'you're just r-selected'. Black ghetto people? Clearly r-selected. Produce a whole bunch of kids, don't look after them, want everything handed to them. r-selected. Socio-economic circumstances? Culture? Subculture? Lack of education? Lack of moral standards? Destructive moral standards? No family unite? Destructive race relations? Bad 'leaders'? None of these are taken into account. They're just r-selected. It's really just an informative and educated sounding ad hominem. No more, no less. Applying biology and psychology is the best thing we can do. Therefore alllowing it to be corrupted as misused is incredibly destructive. Once it enters the public arena in its corrupted form it will create even more massive roadblocks for the genuine truth-seeking biology and psychology to enter the public arena. It will send it back a 100 years. Getting back to what I inititially said about the psychology behind adopting this r/K-selection theory applied to human individuals. Applying psychology and biology is also very much about examining yourself. Once you start putting the magnifying glass over one group, you fall into the mental pitfalls so natural to us. Your view of the 'other group' will not be a very correct one. Once you start putting the magniying glass over all the groups but not individuals in those groups, same deal. And most importantly if you never put the magnifying glass over yourself, you will not come out the better for it. This is why Ayn Rand showed herself to simply not understand human beings when she proclaimed that Objectivists couldn't possibly be cult members because they practised individualism. She and her followers are actually a great way to study where intellect over emotion fails miserably (not to say that she didn't have amazing things to say and give me Objectivism over this crazy post-feminism/there is no biology transgenderism/black lives matter hybrid of crazy) and how easy it is to fall prey to rationalizing your own emotions as intellect. A bit of a rant here still but I have to write without thinking too much because time, man.

https://i.imgur.com/e3jyVAL.gif

[Spyder73]

Welp, Raev wins forum quest today. Guess I will log off and try again tomorrow

[Rader]

post-viability abortions are basically only performed due to the late discovery of birth defects or because there is great risk of the mother dying. It's not something evil liberal women just do to relieve themselves of babies so they can go out and get pumped full of semen by some black dudes. In fact, as a pregnancy progresses, it's much more dangerous to the mother to undergo the procedure. They risk death. Frankly, I'd say they possess far more courage than do you, some dipshit who can't even face the cruelty of his own diet without attempting to shift focus to his fantasies of squashing the skulls of babies.

Kermit Gosnell determined that your narrative is not reality-based.

[Lhancelot]

Thanks for the responce. It was challenging to reply to. I'll try to address everything you've said.

I'd like to start with the fact that you're using the theory and look at what it offers to you and other people:

1) Simplicity. Life's complexity can be boiled down to one theory. This makes life easier to understand and navigate. We enjoy compartmentalizing. Compartmentalization is a concept in psychology and I am refering to that as well but mainly it's how our brains manage. When we see a leaf we see a single leaf (singular 'concept'). When we say numerous leaves, we see a pile of leaves (singular 'concept'). If we see a large numerous of leaves hanging from a tree we see foliage (singular 'concept'). If our brains would register every single leave hanging from that tree we wouldn't be able to function. We face countless stimuli every day and need to compartmentalize. You can see this everywhere, for example peoples' need to fit music into genres and subgenres.

2) It splits people into two groups. Again, this offers simplicity. It also provides an enemy responsible for the world's woes. It implies a very direct cause and effect which offers control. If you experience life as a bad place with no direct aggressor (natural disasters, diseases etc.) you feel a lack of control. We're essentially all control freaks. People who get called control freaks simply feel a much more significant need to control things (this is a mental thing and not actually about being in control in the sense of having power over others). This enemy offers a battle that can and should be fought. This offers you a goal in life and offers the romanticism of being a warrior in the struggle against evil. The stories we tell of heroes and villains (in movies, book, folklore), good and evil, righteous and unjust are manifestations of our need for romanticism. And I'm not talking about a romantic candlelight dinner.

It allows you to place yourself on the good side. Having a clear-cut group offers you an identity and it satisfies a need to belong to a group. The division of these groups is black and white, in this case bad and good. You can look at all the positive traits associated with your group and ascribe yourself all of these traits. White supremacists will boast about the accomplishments of the white race (and they are to be boasted about) but that doesn't mean that mr. trailer park trash who happens to belong to this masterful race has himself accomplished anything himself. Most likely if the entire white race shared his personality they would've gone extinct through inbreeding and falling on their own spears (and not in that order). I'm K-selected so I would have been one of the founding fathers given the right circumstances.
It also makes it far easier to ignore or not examine any negative traits you or your group have. Everything can be projected onto that one bad group. The others.

3) It offers a weapon. A verbal weapon but a weapon.

None of this actually addresses the r/K theory. I will come back to why I mentioned all of it because it's not meant to be an ad hominem.

The r/K theory has fallen out of favour (although much of it what it proposes continues to be used). Also, it uses the word 'theory' is the non scientific sense, as far as I know. It should be the r/K hypothesis.
There are typical examples of r-selection and typical examples of K-selection, however most organisms do not fall into either category neatly. Human beings are closer to K-selection than r. Cats for example reach sexual maturity fast (r), can have a high number of offspring and spread widely and quickly (r), have relatively long life expectancy (K), are relatively involved in child-rearing (K).
The problem isn't really with this hypothesis, the problem is with applying it to human beings and applying it to conscious/subconscious actions and politics. The r/K selection theory has to do with reproduction. What you'll notice is that r/K selection speaks in terms of 'species' and not 'individuals'. We see individual differences in species but you don't see lions throwing out 30 cubs a year and not taking care of them and you don't see mice having a single off-spring and rearing them until adulthood. Evolution is far too complicated (not just in the sense of actual complexity but in that you sometimes need to take millions of years of evolution and 1000s of species into account to look at a single species. An enormous amount of variables) to use the r/K selection theory as an actual strategy that is utilized by individual species.

Mice live for a short time and are incredibly vulnerable to predation. If mice started producing a small number of offspring and investing heavily into child-rearing they would go extinct. They survived because they didn't. People often mistake evolution for 'adapting' species. Placing it in economic terms: a succesful company is suffering losses due to online stores. They don't grow an extra set of arms in order to work twice as fast. They adapt and survive or they don't adapt sufficiently and go bankrupt. Now if their employees were are inbred hicks with an extra set of arms and their succes made them wildly succesful with the ladies...
Giraffes didn't grow longer necks in order to survive. Jim, the long-necked giraffe, told Bob, the short-necked giraffe, "just hold on for a couple thousand or million years and you'll be able to reach the food, buddy!". Sadly, Bob died later that week.
It's ultimately not a tactic of individuals, it's a "tactic" of organisms. This doesn't translate very well to human behaviour. Even if it seems to fits, it's simply not a correct application.



Can you find me references to this in the actual r/K selection theory? Specifically references to 'abundance' and 'scarcity'. I don't mean political/sociological applications of this hypothesis but rather within the field of ecology.

The politicized hypothesis of the r/K selection theory hypothesis claims that abundance leads to promiscuity and lack of child-rearing investments. Abundance leads to r-selection. Scarcity leads to K-selection.
One thing that poor people living in scarcity actually do is produce a lot of offspring in order to survive.

Africa should be very K-selected because of the scarcity. However:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262884/countries-with-the-highest-fertility-rates/

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

Your quote is a bit all over the place. "R-selected people (modern liberals) are optimized for periods of abundance". The way you have worded this is that r-selected people reach their peak performance in periods of abundance.
"To maximize your reproductive success in an environment of abundance...". They way you have worded this is that in order to reach peak performance in a period of abundance you should be r-selected and in scarcity K-selected. This is either poorly worded, doesn't make sense or can be countered easily.
Human beings seem to have r-selected tendencies in scarcity and K-selected tendencies in abundance. The high birth rate isn't coming from the affluent West. Whether or not this tendency is the best tactic is debatable (I think K-selected in abundance and r-selected in scarcity ultimately produces the best rate of survival for the species) but what the politicized hypothesis claims doesn't jel with the ecological facts.



"r/K-selected people" and "evolutionary". The r/K theory speaks of species and obviously this involves evolution and genetics. Like I mentioned earlier, you see r/K-selected species (again: most do not fit!) but you don't see r/K-selected individuals. Show me the whore lion with her 30 cubs and the monogamous mouse with her one baby she loves dearly. Yet, the jump is made to r/K-selected people. So that must mean that there are specific genes which express this behaviour. If there aren't then the r/K theory by definition has no bearing on human individuals. Are there? Have they been identified? Has any sort of research even been done?
Now, you could talk about 'r/K-selected species'-like behaviour. Observing nature is a good way to learn about ourselves. There's a reason why 'peacocking' is such a good term. But once you get into that area then you can't talk about r/K-selected people or being 'evolutionary fit'. Then it's just a tactic (whereas the r/K-theory is not a tactic in the same sense) and it makes sense that we would follow tactics other animals use because a) we are animals b) we share the same reality c) there is a finite amount of tactics.



And conservatives really want is a finite field of grass with lots of predation upon which they can reproduce indefinitely. If you're going to use a hyperbole to compare and contrast, use a hyperbole on both sides.



Although a lot of vegetarians/vegan go that route, I haven't seen it in this thread. I also haven't seen any crushing of facts. You personally haven't adressed any actual arguments.



I disagree with that vehemently. No matter my stance on this topic, there is a biological difference between killing a fellow human being and a non-human animal. A person capable of killing an animal without feeling remorse, sympathy or pity does not necessitate a certain pathology. Amongst ourselves it's different. Even if the pathology doesn't live among the individual doing the killing, it will most likely live among the 'spirit' of the group. Concentration camp guards aren't necessarily monsters but the ideology behind it certainly is monstrous. Empathy plays a role but it's complicated and empathy doesn't equal sympathy.



It may but an explanation that seemingly fits isn't necessarily the correct explanation. The irony behind this is that it clearly demonstrates a level of competitiveness among these so-called "r-selected people". I'm not an animal rights activist but I do work with animals and I've seen the competitiveness among the different groups. It really isn't any different than what you'd find anywhere else. Only the social status of money etc. becomes 'I am the most unselfish'. This doesn't fit the claim that r-selected people dislike competition. They prefer a different kind of competition.



I got from A to B in context of your post. You not only placed everyone in the r/K dichotomy but you placed everyone in the left/right dichotomy. Bringing in socialism/capitalism naturally follow that logic. If you didn't mean explicit though then you either meant subconscious thought (and my reply still stands) or what you said was meaningless.



I am not optimistic at all, actually. China is a hellhole for animals (and people). Again, it might fit the claim on a superficial level but it really doesn't offer any explanation. While meat/diary consumption may on some level be decreasing in the west, it is on the rise in developing countries. The closer third and second world countries get to being a first world country, the more meat and diary is consumed. This doesn't fit your theory, in fact it is the opposite of what you claim.
You can talk about age but lets bring in correlation and causation. I'm not going to go into this much at all (because we all know what it means) but it's something you don't seem to take into account much at all.

My explanation that people are living in closer proximity to animals (in terms of 'loved ones' as opposed to livestock) fits much better. It allows people to empathize with animals more, which tends to create sympathy. This sympathy leads to anger and feelings of injustice in regards to the animal industries. More and more Chinese people are owning dogs and they are speaking out against the parts of China that eat dog (and literally torture them because it supposedly improves the taste). How many people have no qualms about eating pigs, cows, chickens etc. but speak out against eating dog? Don't remember who it was but someone in this thread expressed that sentinement. Dogs are man's best friend and no eaty those. Is that r-selection? Or empathy, culture etc.?



Meh. My question actually wasn't very good. People seek high social status for reproductive reasons (although there are other reasons). Even if a person decides not to want children, this evolutionary treat is so deeply ingrained in us we still act as if we want to reproduce. So, the decision not to have children doesn't negate the behaviour that helps you get them. You could have argued that. The point is though, your r/K selection theory puts everything into two neat categories, with animal rights being an extension of r-selection yet a very significant amount of people into with animal rights/treatment issues are not only having less or no children, they're removing themselves from this public arena of social status and quite literally removing themselves from the public arena. Lots of people that I know would love nothing more than to live in a forest (and some actually do :) ). It is a far more complicated issue and the r/K theory only gives superficial explanations that fit once you ignore most everything else.

None of this actually touches on the arguments for animals. That's a different discussion at this point. One of my main issues with the r/K-selection theory, besides that I think it's wrongly applied and misunderstood, is that it does a lot more damage than it does good.

Our understanding of biology and psychology offers something amazing. What I think the most powerful result of western society (not necessarily that it has the most power, rather that it has the most potential) is our ability to study the animals that we are. This allows us to transcend our nature to a certain degree. We are like a computer program that gains consciousness. That program will then behave differently than any prediction of the program would tell you but it will always be limited by it's design. We are able to look at concepts like nationalism and transcend it. People on the left tend to throw away nationalism entirely. People on the right tend to embrace it too strongly. Both have negative results. Group identity (of which nationalism is just another degree) is something engrained in us. Some people experience it more than others and the odd individual might not experience it (much) at all. We can't do away with it but we can study what it does and steer it in the right direction. This is something for a long post and I would need to spend a lot of time working on it (so it doesn't turn into a semi-cohesive rant of 5 pages long) but I'll just throw out some short examples:

- Trump is insensitive.
- Trump is right-wing.
- People have cognitive bias, comfirmation bias, suffer from cognitive dissonance when their worldview is challenged.
- Right-wing people should be the most critical of Trump in order to counteract this.
- Left-wing people should try to understand what Trump does as much as possible to counteract this.
Conclusions to be drawn: Trump is an insensitive manchild and is causing damage. The left has been oversensitive for a long time and caused damage. This has led to an insensitive manchild and may even be necessary to balance things out. The left should become less sensitive. The right should be careful not to become too insensitive and see Trump as a temporary solution but roll back afterwards.

- Far-right is on the rise.
- Far-right is a 'spirit' that is always lurking and will come out time and time again
- Far-left is partially to blame for the rise of far-right but not entirely
- Right should be highly critical of far-right.
- Left should try to understand the far-right. Examine the positions that hold some element of truth, throw away the bad ones. Integrate the the good ones into their ideology, which will lead to less people gravitating to the far-right and adopting the bad elements.

I think those are examples of how an understanding of the psychology of politics can lead to a better way.

The main problem with the right adopting these psychological and biological teachings is that they're mostly not applying them in an effort for truth and proper understanding. They're tools in their battle. All they're used for is furthering the left/wing dichotomy, which is often a false dichomoty. "Ah so the left does this and thinks this because so and so...". So what you're saying is these human beings are subject to their biology? Mind, fucking, blown. Of course the right is also subject to their biology but not really. They just have some awesome qualities mixed in with their free thoughts. Like being hard-working and not producing welfare babies. At this moment most of the intellectuals are on the right. The right is providing the most balanced and logical discussions. They are the most rational. I am left-wing and mostly watch right-wing pundits. More truth, more challenge, more falsification for my thoughts. It will only be a matter of time before they go the route of the current left. Where the left has 'you're a racist/homophobe/transophobe/Islamaphobe/breaking-into-your-house-and-stealing-your-stuff-ophobe' the right will have 'you're just r-selected'.

Black ghetto people? Clearly r-selected. Produce a whole bunch of kids, don't look after them, want everything handed to them. r-selected. Socio-economic circumstances? Culture? Subculture? Lack of education? Lack of moral standards? Destructive moral standards? No family unite? Destructive race relations? Bad 'leaders'? None of these are taken into account. They're just r-selected.

It's really just an informative and educated sounding ad hominem. No more, no less.

Applying biology and psychology is the best thing we can do. Therefore alllowing it to be corrupted as misused is incredibly destructive. Once it enters the public arena in its corrupted form it will create even more massive roadblocks for the genuine truth-seeking biology and psychology to enter the public arena. It will send it back a 100 years. Getting back to what I inititially said about the psychology behind adopting this r/K-selection theory applied to human individuals. Applying psychology and biology is also very much about examining yourself. Once you start putting the magnifying glass over one group, you fall into the mental pitfalls so natural to us. Your view of the 'other group' will not be a very correct one. Once you start putting the magniying glass over all the groups but not individuals in those groups, same deal. And most importantly if you never put the magnifying glass over yourself, you will not come out the better for it. This is why Ayn Rand showed herself to simply not understand human beings when she proclaimed that Objectivists couldn't possibly be cult members because they practised individualism. She and her followers are actually a great way to study where intellect over emotion fails miserably (not to say that she didn't have amazing things to say and give me Objectivism over this crazy post-feminism/there is no biology transgenderism/black lives matter hybrid of crazy) and how easy it is to fall prey to rationalizing your own emotions as intellect.

A bit of a rant here still but I have to write without thinking too much because time, man.

I read this entire post and found it to be one of the most enlightening pieces ever written in a forums setting. Thanks for the time and energy and THOUGHT you put into this piece, counter discussing what Raev was going on about.

I found Raev's post condescending but also confusing as many of his "points" predicate people know what r/K is and I personally was not familiar with it.

Not only did you go into detail about the r/K theory or hypothesis as you put it, you also went in depth why it did not apply in the manner Raev used it.

Your post was a lot to absorb, but I really do appreciate you for writing it.

[Barkingturtle]

Kermit Gosnell determined that your narrative is not reality-based.

Seriously? One , horrible, awful person is your sample size?

Something like 90% of abortions are performed in the first twelve weeks. Less than 2% are performed post-viability. Murders like those committed by Gosnell comprise a tiny fraction of that 2%. Those are the relevant stats here. And honestly, what do you do about monsters like Gosnell? What he did is already illegal. Would further limiting a woman's autonomy have somehow stopped him?

Anyway, the whole topic is just a distraction. I mean, if abortion were made illegal, would you suddenly decide to live vegan? But since the rights of babies are so important to everyone here, I guess I'll get the discussion back on-topic once again by manipulating your guilt through showing you this graphic which reveals that eating meat means killing babies, too, 50 billion a year:

https://i.imgur.com/p9d1rFd.jpg

[Lhancelot]

Seriously? One , horrible, awful person is your sample size?

Something like 90% of abortions are performed in the first twelve weeks. Less than 2% are performed post-viability. Murders like those committed by Gosnell comprise a tiny fraction of that 2%. Those are the relevant stats here. And honestly, what do you do about monsters like Gosnell? What he did is already illegal. Would further limiting a woman's autonomy have somehow stopped him?

Anyway, the whole topic is just a distraction. I mean, if abortion were made illegal, would you suddenly decide to live vegan? But since the rights of babies are so important to everyone here, I guess I'll get the discussion back on-topic once again by manipulating your guilt through showing you this graphic which reveals that eating meat means killing babies, too, 50 billion a year:

https://i.imgur.com/p9d1rFd.jpg

The issue here is the majority of people simply do not view animal life as something of significance.

[Barkingturtle]

The issue here is the majority of people simply do not view animal life as something of significance.

But they do. The majority of people would be enraged if they saw a dog being tortured. So they clearly value some animal life. The issue here is that people are speciest, assigning value to certain lifeforms while commodifying others. Frankly, if this weren't the case we wouldn't need to invent alternate names like beef, pork, etc in order to make it palatable to kill cows, pigs, etc. This is also why people are unwilling to witness what goes on in a slaughterhouse but are okay with consuming the product. I know I use this term a lot, but come on: this is text-book cognitive dissonance.

And it's understandable! It's a huge part of our culture. I mean, even the authorities tasked with advising the American populace on health and diet, the USDA and the FDA, have boards comprised of lobbyists who are paid by the very corporations they're supposed to regulate! From youth we're sold various diet structures, food-pyramids, by for-profit industries posing as government agencies who care about our well-being. But do some research. Better yet, watch Cowspiracy on Netflix. It does an excellent job of exposing the incestuous relationship between agriculture and the federal government.

The thing is, once we know better, we have to do better. And we are. I've been vegan a long time now. I've never seen anything like this past year. The movement is flourishing as people become aware and decide to take action. More and more people are knowing and doing better, and it's definitely snowballing.

[Raavak]

The majority of people would eat a dog tonight for supper.

[Lhancelot]

But they do. The majority of people would be enraged if they saw a dog being tortured. So they clearly value some animal life. The issue here is that people are speciest, assigning value to certain lifeforms while commodifying others. Frankly, if this weren't the case we wouldn't need to invent alternate names like beef, pork, etc in order to make it palatable to kill cows, pigs, etc. This is also why people are unwilling to witness what goes on in a slaughterhouse but are okay with consuming the product. I know I use this term a lot, but come on: this is text-book cognitive dissonance.

And it's understandable! It's a huge part of our culture. I mean, even the authorities tasked with advising the American populace on health and diet, the USDA and the FDA, have boards comprised of lobbyists who are paid by the very corporations they're supposed to regulate! From youth we're sold various diet structures, food-pyramids, by for-profit industries posing as government agencies who care about our well-being. But do some research. Better yet, watch Cowspiracy on Netflix. It does an excellent job of exposing the incestuous relationship between agriculture and the federal government.

The thing is, once we know better, we have to do better. And we are. I've been vegan a long time now. I've never seen anything like this past year. The movement is flourishing as people become aware and decide to take action. More and more people are knowing and doing better, and it's definitely snowballing.

That's true, I didn't mean most people support the killing and/or torture of animals but it's as you said a cognitive dissonance and I myself am quite guilty of that.

I say it as a joke, that I love animals more than people but I definitely do hold my pets to a very high level of worth, as I view their lives as I do a family member.

However this amount of empathy and love I have for my family of pets has never translated into my love for the farm animals that are bred to be consumed.

I remember at work, a lady was talking about how she grew up on a pig farm, these pigs were raised for food purposes. I never knew someone like that. We talked in length about it, and we got intot alking about how intelligent pigs were, as I always read about this but never had a pig to see it with my own eyes.

She went on to explain a personal story of a certain pig that really seemed quite intelligent, it always seemed to seek her out whereas the rest of the pigs just did their own thing. For some reason, this specific pig would take notice of her, and she developed a routine of interacting with this pig and enjoyed the fact he seemed to be so aware and interactive with her. I asked her if she saved the pig, seeing how he was so special to her, and she just laughed and said no, he was there for one purpose and that was it.

This made me feel sorry for this pig, because it was clear these animals are nothing less than my own cats and dogs that I have had as pets, yet they are not seen as such. To deal with the sadness and guilt I felt for not having recognized this sooner, I simply chalked it up to as impractical and impossible to change how things are. This is just how it is, I told myself.

[Barkingturtle]

To deal with the sadness and guilt I felt for not having recognized this sooner, I simply chalked it up to as impractical and impossible to change how things are. This is just how it is, I told myself.

Greatly appreciate your honesty. It is so rare and I know it's not easy.

It is overwhelming trying to affect social change. I mean, just look at this thread. I hear all this stuff all the time. Literally none of the tactics adopted by carnists in this thread have been new to me except the one dude who babbled about not eating animals who can't read a clock. That actually was a new one.

But I digress. It is empowering to enact personal change. When we take action, we no longer suffer the hopelessness you describe, because we can see the incremental change as it occurs. It would be easy for me to get discouraged when I'm constantly confronted by destructive ignorance and cruel barbs like the guy above debasing himself to make the claim that most people would eat a dog for supper. It would be easy to lose faith in humanity. But I see the best of humanity all the time, too, because I see people evolving, and I see their actions beginning to better align with the goodness in their hearts.

I'd highly recommend you make time to visit a farm animal sanctuary. Seeing these animals outside an agricultural setting is fucking powerful. There is no difference between a cow, a dog, or a pig. Except that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, pigs have been determined to surpass even dogs in intelligence. Some studies even call them the second most intelligent species on Earth, behind only chimpanzees.

[Raev]

Csihar, unlike Spyder I don't think I win forumquest when people write long posts. It's nice to chat with people who actually think about things. However, I think you are missing most of my main points. I shall try to limit the Usenet style before the forum explodes.

If mice started producing a small number of offspring and investing heavily into child-rearing they would go extinct. They survived because they didn't
The whole point of r/k theory is that these behaviors are optimal in their respective environments.

They way you have worded this is that in order to reach peak performance in a period of abundance you should be r-selected and in scarcity K-selected.
Right. And remember, everything is epigenetic. If you take a genetically r-selected migrant from Southern Italy and throw him into a Chicago 1890s slaughterhouse, you get a k-selected asshole who would happily take a flamethrower to a Kraut bunker in World War I. Conversely, if you take a a genetic k-strategist and put him into a modern environment, you get someone like Swilleville who thinks "I hunt and kill but I try to minimize their pain".

Africa
You have to ask 'Why does this organism exist an environment of abundance' ? Since all life expands exponentially, the only possible answer is that it has some check upon its growth. Either that check comes from internal competition (k-selection) as scarcity grows, or from external sources like disease and predators (r-selection). Africa is the latter. On balance the Chinese and Europeans are the most k-selected races, but there are plenty of r-selected Chinese and Europeans and k-selected Africans. I remember watching a video about Ken Norton training like hell for his match vs Ali so he could buy his son a hotdog. It's not a racial thing.

The closer third and second world countries get to being a first world country, the more meat and diary is consumed. This doesn't fit your theory, in fact it is the opposite of what you claim. You can talk about age but lets bring in correlation and causation. I'm not going to go into this much at all (because we all know what it means) but it's something you don't seem to take into account much at all. My explanation that people are living in closer proximity to animals (in terms of 'loved ones' as opposed to livestock) fits much better.

Obviously meat consumption will rise as economic limits are lifted. Going from 'dirt poor' to 'poor' will not produce r-selected individuals. Your claim of correlation vs causation also seems dubious as I am not going into the wild and evaluating pairs of data and observing a correlation. I am starting with a theory and looking for evidence that falsifies it. In this case, it passes the test and remains valid. Plus, the inverse causation (as people get older they get crankier and hate animals more) is clearly wrong. Meanwhile your explanation is virtually tautological (people who like animals like animals).

left/right balance

This is the part that is going to be most uncomfortable for you. But k-selected people are on balance simply BETTER at being people than r-selected people. It's tautological: k-selected people are programmed to outwork and out compete r-selected people (the r-selected person might be more evolutionarily successful, though).

Of course, r-selected life is a lot more FUN. It would be great if we could all live forever in an American University circa 2010 and bathe in a relaxing cocktail of mind-altering drugs and easy sex. But the problem is that r/k theory applies to nations as well. Did you know that later Romans were highly promiscuous? Rome conquered the world, became suitably r-selected, and were promptly conquered by more k-selected groups who wanted it more. The magic of free market capitalism is that it maintains k-selection without Hobbesian violence. Meanwhile, modern progressives espouse an anti-competitive ideology of open immigration, sexual deviancy, and government handouts that is literally suicidal under the guise of empathy. It needs to be utterly torpedoed before Western Civilization completely collapses.

[Barkingturtle]

I'm not sure how efficacious it is in a discussion on animal rights to indulge Raev in his desire to push an agenda of separation. Our conversations should focus on inclusion, on what makes us the same, human and non-human alike. I appreciate Csihar's willingness to meet others where they are, but you're in the weeds here. This tangent doesn't belong any more than the abortion spiel. This kind of diversionary tactic is very common. Better to keep people on-topic when they're so obviously trying to squirm away like this.

[Rader]

Are not plants worthy beings deserving of our respect and humane treatment? Vegans reveal their animalcentric bias and privilege when they deny plant life their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Barkingturtle]

Are not plants worthy beings deserving of our respect and humane treatment? Vegans reveal their animalcentric bias and privilege when they deny plant life their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is one of the most common things people say when they have no way of defending their behavior. "Don't plant lives matter?"

Plants are not sentient, for one. But you knew that. You were just being obtuse because it's easier than challenging yourself.

But to the root of your question, let's talk some simple plant biology. Most of the time, you're eating the fruit of the plant. This is a piece of the plant which can be removed without hurting or killing the plant! It contains seeds. The plant has evolved this part of itself for you to eat so will spread its seed. They do not feel pain when you pick them. They are distributing their seed. So basically, when you pick an apple you're giving an orgasm to an apple tree. What could be kinder to plants than that?

Meanwhile, pork chops don't grow back the following season.

[skarlorn]

This is one of the most common things people say when they have no way of defending their behavior. "Don't plant lives matter?"

Plants are not sentient, for one. But you knew that. You were just being obtuse because it's easier than challenging yourself.

But to the root of your question, let's talk some simple plant biology. Most of the time, you're eating the fruit of the plant. This is a piece of the plant which can be removed without hurting or killing the plant! It contains seeds. The plant has evolved this part of itself for you to eat so will spread its seed. They do not feel pain when you pick them. They are distributing their seed. So basically, when you pick an apple you're giving an orgasm to an apple tree. What could be kinder to plants than that?

Meanwhile, pork chops don't grow back the following season.

1) Plants know when you are eating them (http://www.businessinsider.com/plants-know-they-are-being-eaten-2014-10)

2) You say that it's good to eat plants because it spreads the seed, thereby "propagating" the species. What's good about eating animals is that humans then propagate the species in order to eat more of them. Cows have evolved to be raised and milked, slaughtered and eaten by humans, who also breed them.

:D

[Spyder73]

whatever helps you sleep at night you monster

[Barkingturtle]

2) Cows have evolved to be raised and milked


By their calves, sure. But they have not evolved into milk machines. We forcibly impregnate them. We steal their young. We attach them to machines to extract their bodily fluids and repeat this until they are "spent" at less than a quarter of their natural life expectancy.

Then we get super fat because we drink tit-milk which has been balanced by evolution to grow a one-ton creature. We drink these secretions which are meant for baby cows well into our human adulthood. It's so weird!

Also, eggs are not baby chickens. They are unfertilized. Basically, when you're eating an egg you're eating menstrual discharge. Bon apétit y'all!

[maskedmelonpai]

what about regurgitated flower cum? since it originate with plants is it okay, or is it on the no-no list since it spend time in the bee's tummy to become what it is? i would guess it's a no-go since milk is basically the same thing, right? food goes in a cow and comes out as milk.

now, i don't eat eggs so much no more because I have developed a minor intolerance for them. they give me headaches.

milk do the same thing to me.

i am also unable to consume wheat, barley or rye. my body attacks itself if I do.

so I eat vegetables, meats and fruits.

[Spyder73]

real question that I have been avoiding - What are your thoughts on the research being done that shows veganism is actually a mental disorder?

[Spyder73]

Unfortunately I am not trolling - google "Is veganism a mental disorder" and some disturbing truths come to light. You're making good points though Bark, keep it up little buddy.

https://earth-chronicles.com/science/the-who-has-recognized-the-vegetarianism-mental-illness.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/is-veganism-a-mental-disorder/

https://thetab.com/uk/2017/02/16/vegetarians-unhealthy-mentally-disturbed-says-new-research-33067

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201211/youre-vegetarian-have-you-lost-your-mind

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466124/

[Spyder73]

Csihar banned due to being triggered

Meat Eaters 1 - Vegans 0

[skarlorn]

as an apex predator and animal assassin i have no qualms with sustaining my life force (prana) through the flesh, organs, and embryos of the animals who have evolved to be my prey

[Lhancelot]

Csihar banned due to being triggered

Meat Eaters 1 - Vegans 0

dang, I missed it. enjoyed his posts immensely.

[hyejin]

what about regurgitated flower cum? since it originate with plants is it okay, or is it on the no-no list since it spend time in the bee's tummy to become what it is? i would guess it's a no-go since milk is basically the same thing, right? food goes in a cow and comes out as milk.

now, i don't eat eggs so much no more because I have developed a minor intolerance for them. they give me headaches.

milk do the same thing to me.

i am also unable to consume wheat, barley or rye. my body attacks itself if I do.

so I eat vegetables, meats and fruits.

beekeeping don't make any humans wade through gore, filth and cruelty professionally. it don't require the generation of mentally scarred dalits, to borrow the appropriated lingo of a meat eating reprobate from this thread. Also the idea of feeding the industry that will generate the first robotic/computer system capable of fully automating management of the life cycle of a enslaved mammal is gross. The idea of big dark warehouses that receive grain water and electricity and output meat without requiring any human intervention is gross and scary and really increases the potential scope of future pizzagates.

i personally won't be eating the fruit of the cultured roboharvested steak trees either as i really like my superior bodily cleanliness and odor.

[Mead]

Csihar banned due to being triggered

Meat Eaters 1 - Vegans 0

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

he still watching tho

[Barkingturtle]

the idea of feeding the industry that will generate the first robotic/computer system capable of fully automating management of the life cycle of a enslaved mammal is gross.

DYSTOPIA INTENSIFIES (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWdFydH1reI)

Couple other things:

What did Csihar do? Was it something in this thread?

Did you read any of those links, Spyder? They're pretty good. The first one seems like it might be some sort of computer-generated spam. The second is an opinion article created by a public relations firm employed by the livestock industry. And the rest discuss vegetarianism, which I agree is just the worst. Worse even than idiots who only eat "humane meat."

And finally, honey. It took me awhile to reach this conclusion but now I abstain. It just doesn't belong to us, that simple. Plus, maple syrup is way better.

[skarlorn]

maple syrup doesn't belong to you either fucker

[Barkingturtle]

Apex predators can poop without help.

[skarlorn]

Yikes dude, are you really so upset that you're now spinning into personal attacks on a guy's medical condition?

I've taken note of this behavior.

[skarlorn]

Barkingturtle: afraid of stealing from the bees but okay psychologically attacking humans to make them feel bad.

:o

[Lhancelot]

Barkingturtle: afraid of stealing from the bees but okay psychologically attacking humans to make them feel bad.

:o

Skarlorn, if anything you chuckled to yourself loudly after that post he made. :p

[Pokesan]

i'd give dogs personhood but not cows. dogs are friends cows are food.

[maskedmelonpai]

beekeeping don't make any humans wade through gore, filth and cruelty professionally. it don't require the generation of mentally scarred dalits, to borrow the appropriated lingo of a meat eating reprobate from this thread. Also the idea of feeding the industry that will generate the first robotic/computer system capable of fully automating management of the life cycle of a enslaved mammal is gross. The idea of big dark warehouses that receive grain water and electricity and output meat without requiring any human intervention is gross and scary and really increases the potential scope of future pizzagates.

i personally won't be eating the fruit of the cultured roboharvested steak trees either as i really like my superior bodily cleanliness and odor.

^^ not sure if you talking bout my lingo or not, but it still make me laugh when I think about how a dear friend once referred to the way I talk, "diaper fursona." she was unhappy with me 'cause I was being retarded (status quo de la meron), but it still hit me liek a little slap knocking me outta me pity pool with a warm reminder of the creativity I always loved in her ^^

maple syrup doesn't belong to you either fucker

this made me lol (^O^)

[Barkingturtle]

I apologize for the vicious attack on your butthole, Skartorn. Honestly thought you'd enjoy it.

I can and will doo better.


(Look, this isn't my best and I am not proud but I'm really not a shitposter and I'm just trying to feel y'all out and fit in.)

[maskedmelonpai]

I apologize for the vicious attack on your butthole, Skartorn. Honestly thought you'd enjoy it.

I can and will doo better.


(Look, this isn't my best and I am not proud but I'm really not a shitposter and I'm just trying to feel y'all out and fit in.)

Why don't you ever update your webpage?

[skarlorn]

https://i.imgur.com/Tgw9cvm.gif

[Barkingturtle]

Why don't you ever update your webpage?

I broke it the other day so it'll see an update soon. I've been thinking of making it so half the site shills my book and the other half talks about my wife and I's micro-sanctuary. I should probably take it out of my sig until it's fixed at least but there's still a link to Amazon on there if people dig around enough so I mean it's technically still functioning.

[maskedmelonpai]

I broke it the other day so it'll see an update soon. I've been thinking of making it so half the site shills my book and the other half talks about my wife and I's micro-sanctuary. I should probably take it out of my sig until it's fixed at least but there's still a link to Amazon on there if people dig around enough so I mean it's technically still functioning.

oh I didn't realize that. I meant before that. it felt neglected. was curious to see if you were building a new book outta all you research.

i don't wanna read about your micro-sanctuary though （＾ν＾）

[Barkingturtle]

Thank you for noticing the neglect. I am working on another book but it's really no excuse.

And it's your loss if you don't read about my sanctuary. Every Sunday I sit down with Geddy and analyze another episode of the popular nineties edu-drama Saved By the Bell. Geddy is my house rooster. He wears a diaper. I really feel like this content is exactly what's missing from your life.

[AzzarTheGod]

I've taken note of this behavior.

*pans Super 8 to Barkingturtle with deadly efficiency, zooms in with detachable manual crank lens*

[Barkingturtle]

*pans Super 8 to Barkingturtle with deadly efficiency, zooms in with detachable manual crank lens*

https://i.imgur.com/w96druD.jpg


*GOT EM*

[Pokesan]

I broke it the other day so it'll see an update soon. I've been thinking of making it so half the site shills my book and the other half talks about my wife and I's micro-sanctuary. I should probably take it out of my sig until it's fixed at least but there's still a link to Amazon on there if people dig around enough so I mean it's technically still functioning.

are there picture's of your cow's teats'? if so i will click the link

[Rader]

are there picture's of your cow's teats'? if so i will click the link

Poke will do much more than just click the link, I am sure.

[NachtMystium]

ITT: People who only understand that a Dog IS man's best friend but not WHY. God musta just made it that way! God put all these other animals here for us by divine intervention and, thank you baby jesus!

[Pokesan]

Poke will do much more than just click the link, I am sure.

not meant to be read literally you mongoloid.

[skarlorn]

ITT: People who only understand that a Dog IS man's best friend but not WHY. God musta just made it that way! God put all these other animals here for us by divine intervention and, thank you baby jesus!

God is great the proof is dog

[Lulz~Sect]

https://i.imgur.com/dutIu6e.png

[Patriam1066]

Barking serious question what do you eat on a daily basis. Give me a 24 hour synopsis of your diet

[AzzarTheGod]

So a fetus that could survive outside the womb on its own at eight and a half months is fair game to crush its skull and be made to feel immense pain as it dies, no problem, you go girl, that was just an annoying inconvenient "clump of cells". But if I crush an ant by accident when I step outside the house, I am an evil uncaring @$$. Nice logic there, you F-ing vegantard.

how about the logic that follows after that which is

the woman is an overdue abortion. lets kill her. really.

[Barkingturtle]

Barking serious question what do you eat on a daily basis. Give me a 24 hour synopsis of your diet

Let's see, yesterday for breakfast I had some crunchy peanut-butter cereal with almond milk.

Lunch was a banh mi sandwich from a food truck, with strips of tofu in place of chicken. This truck is pretty great. I've fed these vegan banh mis to meat-eaters and they didn't know the difference, because chicken literally tastes like nothing unless it's seasoned, anyway. And the texture of the tofu is honestly almost too authentic.

And dinner was curried potatoes and mushrooms over jasmine rice with a side of sauteed greens.

I drank a pot of earl gray in the morning, a gallon of water throughout the day, and yes I munched on some fruit-snack candy shit but Halloween was just the other day so fuck right off.

This is a fairly typical day for me, although I often do hot cereal in the morning like cream of wheat or malt-o-meal.

[Spyder73]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-vegan-law-parents-force-diet-children-face-jail-a7180206.html

Vegan diets seem totally cool and normal - definitely not a symptom of mental illness that is derived from an obsession with life/death.

it is literally illegal in Italy for parents to enforce veganism on anyone under the age of 16

[Mead]

I would be curios to see what your a1c is with that diet. My last one a month or two ago was 5.3

[Lulz~Sect]

they have almond milk in the fridge and i made the mistake of pouring it in honey bunches of oat cereal here once

it was like eating nuts in nut juice

i threw out the bowl upon realizing the horrible mistake

[mickmoranis]

That chicken looks like it's chillin in dmt land and enjoying itself

[Mead]

they have almond milk in the fridge and i made the mistake of pouring it in honey bunches of oat cereal here once

it was like eating nuts in nut juice

i threw out the bowl upon realizing the horrible mistake

I thought eating nuts and nut juice was your favorite

[Barkingturtle]

I would be curios to see what your a1c is with that diet. My last one a month or two ago was 5.3

Glad you're managing your diabetes well, I guess?

I've never needed any sort of lab-work like that because I'm a healthy, active person.

So what do you guys eat? Whatever's convenient? Mostly fast food? Products with allowable amounts of pus and semen included? Parts of sick animals? Sounds normal and sane to me.

It's understandable. You just don't know any better because the industries work hard to keep their secrets. Oh yeah, here's some info about cow's milk:


How much pus is allowed in milk?
Somatic cell counts greater than a million per teaspoon are abnormal and “almost always” caused by mastitis. When a cow is infected, greater than 90% of the somatic cells in her milk are neutrophils, the inflammatory immune cells that form pus. The average somatic cell count in U.S. milk per spoonful is 1,120,000.

So the average cell-count shows that the milk you're drinking has almost certainly come from an infected udder. You might as well pop the acne on your chest and drink the yellow nectar which flows from your own breast. YIKES.

[Mead]

Glad you're managing your diabetes well, I guess?

I've never needed any sort of lab-work like that because I'm a healthy, active person.

So what do you guys eat? Whatever's convenient? Mostly fast food? Products with allowable amounts of pus and semen included? Parts of sick animals? Sounds normal and sane to me.

It's understandable. You just don't know any better because the industries work hard to keep their secrets. Oh yeah, here's some info about cow's milk:



So the average cell-count shows that the milk you're drinking has almost certainly come from an infected udder. You might as well pop the acne on your chest and drink the yellow nectar which flows from your own breast. YIKES.

You probably have no idea how foolish you sound. If you don't have routine checkups and labs done by a physician you really have no idea what's going on with your body.

I could tell you guys were a bunch of master manipulators after watching the Gary Yourofsky video on youtube.

[Spyder73]

So the average cell-count shows that the milk you're drinking has almost certainly come from an infected udder. You might as well pop the acne on your chest and drink the yellow nectar which flows from your own breast. YIKES.

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

Pasteurization doesn't kill off 'cell counts' but rather renders potentially harmful bacteria and other microbial growth harmless, but you knew that and are being intentional dense.

[Spyder73]

This is actually a pretty good article that would be in favor of Barks lifestyle. I guess it would be disingenuous to say veganism has only drawbacks.

https://autismhopealliance.org/lets-talk-vegan/

[skarlorn]

can't wait to enjoy some organic sourdough bread SLATHERED by kerrygold irish butter with a nice vessel of grassfed COWS MILK YOGURT for breakfast with medium roast french press coffeee


maybe if i'm feeling decadent, i'll heat up some of those fun little breakfast sausage links --- you know, the ones produced from the anus meats and cartilage of pigs ... and then flavored. So good! It's very important we don't waste the animal :)

[swilleville]

Chaboo that looks slamming my dude

[skarlorn]

nice GREAT choice on the animal style option pal well played indeed

[hyejin]

good morning meat-eating pawns of Satan!

last night: vegetable stir-fry with .666tbsp olive oil over brown rice, high fiber low calorie day. Spent roughly 10 total minutes and 3 total dollars on preparing and consuming food for the day. Satiety not an issue at 1400 calories.

and my bathroom scale paid me a really sweet compliment this morning^^

[mickmoranis]

I cant wait for someone to discover plants have memories, feelings and self awareness just to ruin all the vegans entire sense of self worth.

[hyejin]

I cant wait for someone to discover plants have memories, feelings and self awareness just to ruin all the vegans entire sense of self worth.

if you take away my high horse i'll just retreat into my superior aesthetics :cool:

[skarlorn]

you must weigh like 140 lb and be about 5'2" or something hyejin?

if i ate 1400 calories a day, i would be an emaciated wretch

[Cecily]

Yeah I think that's her plan.

"An average woman needs to eat about 2000 calories per day to maintain, and 1500 calories to lose one pound of weight per week. An average man needs 2500 calories to maintain, and 2000 to lose one pound of weight per week. However, this depends on numerous factors."

[Mead]

if you take away my high horse i'll just retreat into my superior aesthetics :cool:

lul

[maskedmelonpai]

What should be done about other fleshing-eating creatures?

If animals deserve personhood and killing sentient things for foodis unethical, then aren't all carnivorous things unethical?

i understand they do not have the same brains we do, but neither do psychopaths or paranoid schizophrenics and we don't allow them to wander around killing persons. at the very least, shouldn't we seek to quarantine all flesh-eating creatures to protect the personhoods of prey aminals?

is that a longterm goal? if we don't care, why not? how do a hungry aminal differ in its capacity to behave ethically from a mentally ill person?

[skarlorn]

What should be done about other fleshing-eating creatures?

If animals deserve personhood and killing sentient things for foodis unethical, then aren't all carnivorous things unethical?

i understand they do not have the same brains we do, but neither do psychopaths or paranoid schizophrenics and we don't allow them to wander around killing persons. at the very least, shouldn't we seek to quarantine all flesh-eating creatures to protect the personhoods of prey aminals?

is that a longterm goal? if we don't care, why not? how do a hungry aminal differ in its capacity to behave ethically from a mentally ill person?

"I believe I have omitted mentioning that , in my first voyage from Boston, being becalmed off Block Island, our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion I considered, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanced some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs. Then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I dined upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet."

-Benjamin Franklin

[Rader]

So is a vegan allowed to swallow or must they spit?

[Cecily]

I've often wondered if chewing food and spitting it out would be as satisfying. Like the joy of a doughnut is entirely in the flavor of it whereas the only feeling in your belly is shame commingled with regret. Especially after two.

[skarlorn]

So is a vegan allowed to swallow or must they spit?

This is a very interesting point, Rader! Vegans, your answer?

[skarlorn]

I've often wondered if chewing food and spitting it out would be as satisfying. Like the joy of a doughnut is entirely in the flavor of it and the only feeling in your belly they give is shame commingled with regret.

It's not as satisfying. Part of the pleasure of eating comes from mastication and flavor, and the other part comes from SWALLOWING. This is neurochem.

[Cecily]

I think you could make an exception for anything deep fried with lard (typical american diet). That stuff usually makes me feel like shit, but it tastes pretty good.

[maskedmelonpai]

i honestly do not digest beef well and don't liek it so much anymore. my stomach always feels heavy later and the next day i can taste i still in my mouth liek it is running up my esophageal lining liek oil and covering my tongue. it is not at all pleasant so I do not eat much of it anymore.

today I ingested yellow ahi and shrimps along with a delightful mix of rice, quinoa, chia and flax. i also had onions, snowpeas (in the pod) carrots and small red potatoes strifried with the scavenging water bugs. for desert I a 2" Nutrageous™ peanut bar.

[Barkingturtle]

It's not as satisfying. Part of the pleasure of eating comes from mastication and flavor, and the other part comes from SWALLOWING. This is neurochem.

I think this is an important tangent we've taken here.

Why is pleasure important in eating, at all? Isn't the main purpose to fuel our bodies? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy food, but pleasure is probably the fourth or fifth most important factor to me when I'm choosing what to eat. A number of people admit in this thread that they eat animals because they taste good. That is their sole justification. I guess it just strikes me as terribly childish and undisciplined, to weigh pleasure so heavily in your decision-making.

[Cecily]

Don't anorexics have damaged brain reward centers, too? You probably suffered brain damage from all those vegetables.
Coincidentally, a fair number of vegetables have suffered brain damage.

[mcoy]

Today, I had a McDonald's breakfast bagel but that doesn't even count as food so I think I'm safe.

Tonight, I'll probably have a case of beer and maybe some pretzels. You're right! This vegetarian thing is pretty easy.

-Mcoy

[mcoy]

This is for the Vegan tards claiming heart disease



We're pretty sure cholesterol doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier. However, in the early stages of fetal development their bodies aren't able to synthesize cholesterol yet, so they get some from the mother. We're still not sure how much of a mother's dietary cholesterol compared to synthesized cholesterol is involved as there aren't a lot of studies on this process yet, so it's not well understood (yet).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK395580/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799401

I look at "movements" like these and the Anti-vaxers and see the same outcome. They'll kill themselves off in a few generations, or they'll accelerate society's progression to that displayed in Idiocracy. It's really a moot point because until we start colonizing other planets our species is doomed to extinction.

The only part of this that annoys me is how it's once again people attempting to force their views/opinions on others. But, I guess inflammatory threads are what this Forum is for. It does make for interesting reading sometimes.

-Mcoy

[maskedmelon]

I think this is an important tangent we've taken here.

Why is pleasure important in eating, at all? Isn't the main purpose to fuel our bodies? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy food, but pleasure is probably the fourth or fifth most important factor to me when I'm choosing what to eat. A number of people admit in this thread that they eat animals because they taste good. That is their sole justification. I guess it just strikes me as terribly childish and undisciplined, to weigh pleasure so heavily in your decision-making.

that's the reason that you don't eat meat though ^^

[Pokesan]

kinda think this is just you overcompensating for your meth days.

why can't you just be regular?

[AzzarTheGod]

"I believe I have omitted mentioning that , in my first voyage from Boston, being becalmed off Block Island, our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion I considered, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanced some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs. Then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I dined upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet."

-Benjamin Franklin

Except cows don't eat meat. NEXT