People hate vegetarians - Page 3

My quote : 'This is a purpose percieved by whome?' and your response :"This is a purpose that can be readily seen, if one studies animal behavior."

I note with interest that this was the only point that I made that you felt complelled to paraphrase and discuss in any depth? Well, I thank you for the short lesson in animal behaviour and anatomy, but I feel that you have mis-interpretted the intent of my original question. Still, crawling along side you, I shall endevour to to keep pace by complimenting your anatomy lesson with some further information that I read somewhere in one of my comics. There is a difference between the 'Homo Vulgaris' and the 'Homo Sapien' in anatomical terms and the clue is found in their latin meanings; Homo Vulgaris (The common, or average man) is lacking in the essential factor of considered thought, hence Homo Sapiens - the thinking man, has evolved much better because of this 'small' advantage. With this in mind, let us continue.

My original question, if I may once again remind you, was in response to your information that "their final purpose [animals] is to provide sustenance" and I was merely fishing for the answer that this is a notion that can only be perceived in a mental capacity by a thinking, sentient creature such as ourselves, the Homo Sapien, and not in a visual manner as you misunderstood. Instinctivly, when persued, an animal will shit itself and run away, but I doubt that it might think as it flees "Ah, the bitter irony, that I, Martin Rabbit, should find his cruel end at the bottom of the very same food chain that I wrote my thesis upon but only last week".

Notions such as 'the food chain', 'evolution', 'vegetarianism', 'rape', 'murder' and 'wit' are inperceivable to our non-sapien animal friends and are thusly exclusively human understandings.

And so, to turn a corner once again, this notion of 'rape' of which you speak, why is it wrong? I mean, I feel like doing it, I am genetically predisposed to spread my seed to all four corners of this flat earth of ours. It's all about me and my rights isn't it? Surely no one can tell me what to do with my life? Your God! I mean, it's not like anywone has defined any boundaries (key word) yet is it?

Since no one in this forum is that concerned enough to establish any boundaries and back them up with intelligent reasoning yet, may I go back again to ssomething else you said? "There is simply nothing more brutal and vicious than raping someone" Did I grab the wrong end of the stick but could that be a challenge? I seem to remember telling you to give me some time to think about it and I have! In my boundaryless world, I have decided to rape, murder and (get this) eat the corpse! Yes, cannibalism! Do I win a t-shirt? Cannibalism is something that is observable in nature and although it probably isn't good for me in the long term (but neither is smoking) I'm planning on giving it a try. Suck it and see so to speak.

"Concerning Laws."

Aha, at last, the next stage I am looking for - the purpose and function of law and the- oh, no, wait a minute..

"Since you seem so ready to break them, then I look forward to this list absent of you as large people enjoy you in prison."

Large people enjoying me in prison? Are you suggesting I'd get fucked in the sphincter by the inmates? Sounds deliciously kinky! Who says I wouldn't be the one doing the bumming as opposed to biting the pillow? (It doesn't matter to me, any port in a storm, right?) Anyway, 'not getting caught' is contingency plan #1.

"We will see what you think about rape, when you are the victim."

'Not being a victim' = contingency plan #2. (Thanks for that)


Speaking of plans, what if it were me that was planning to come and 'enjoy' you* instead of the skirt down my street? What if I were to enjoy you and eat your corpse? Would we learn what you 'perceive' about cannibalism, carnivorism, being one notch down on the food chain and irony when you are the victim? Mind you, it is hard to express your ideas when your dead and have my cock in your mouth.

Lovingly,

Metal Giant


*Purely as an experiment by the way, I'm actually quite fond of you.

quote:

---

---

Dude, if you have opinions, then discuss them.

I take exception to your seemingly blithe references to raping someone. I have counseled rape victims, and the physiological trauma from such an act urges me to speak out against anyone who would suggest such an action. You can keep your opinions and ideas concerning rape to yourself, as far as I am concerned. Or better yet, discuss them with your therapist.

As far as your ludicrous last statement, feel free to try, you wouldn't be the first perv who wont be walking correctly or eating solid food cause of me.

"Dude, if you have opinions, then discuss them."

Truly, I do, and I am trying to. Let me drop the wit for a moment and be even more plain.

Why is it it wrong for me to think purely of myself and my needs?
Why should I deny myself the 'pleasure principle'?
What part does the girl/slut/skirt have to play in all of this? Nothing as I would have you believe?
What are the boundaries and why? (that old chestnut again, I'm sorry to keep repeating myself)
What is the purpose of Law on a fundamental level?

"I take exception to your seemingly blithe references to raping someone."

Blithe, flippant, dismissive, arrogant, ignorant, selfish, idiotic, destructive, anarchic, ...non-concentual (oops, let a clue slip out), asanine, cold, callous and absolutely fucking barbaric, I'd say if I were seemingly out of character, which I'm not. Your exception is duly noted though.

"You can keep your opinions and ideas concerning rape to yourself, as far as I am concerned."

Freedom of speech. There's another subject I could rant on forever with. Let's stick to the matter at hand for now though. You were saying?

"As far as your ludicrous last statement, feel free to try, you wouldn't be the first perv who wont be walking correctly or eating solid food cause of me."

There have been others? My my, aren't you popular.

Kisses,

Metal Giant.

Have any of you read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift?

I do not recall the title A.M.

i have. im sure he was partly inspired by some debates he had simliar to this thread. funny how you can take something as simple as what we eat and end up discussing politics.

What an educated and pondersome man Mr.Jonathon Swift was. I do believe I feel some kinship. Thanks for that pertinent reminder Awakeningmystic.

Yes, politics can be found in absolutely every subject you care to stick one's head, curiously however it cannot be found in a pile of sand or up one's own arse.

Metal Giant

ok Metal Giant, here are some attempts at answering the genuine questions you have raised, bullshit ranting and attention grabbing "wit" aside.

it is wrong to think purely of yourself and your needs because it does not facilitate the greater good of humanity. since we do have a "higher" level of thinking than other animals, we are obligated to do so, and as such many of us have gained this need to do so. clearly you have not.

no one should deny themselves pleasure, but as with anything it should only be given and taken in moderation. clearly rape and cannibalism are above and beyond the average pleasure level, otherwise everyone would do it.

the "skirt" as you so lovingly put it would normally play a large part, but with your skewed view of things, any type of answer here will not be sufficient for you.

emotions are usually what define boundaries for people. if you have no emotions you have no boundaries. this is why, as we have become more and more intelligent, we have also become more and more emotional. if you look at the intellgence of other animals you can see this trend as well. the smarter the animal, the more emotions they are capable of displaying.

Law is used to keep society in check. so that as a whole we might move forward. when somebody becomes too emotional, or not emotional enough, they act out. law keeps those who prevent us from moving forward out of society.

go ahead and tear this apart. im sure youll have fun doing so.

"ok Metal Giant, here are some attempts at answering the genuine questions you have raised"

Well thank you Wyote. At last, someone with spunk.

"bullshit ranting and attention grabbing "wit" aside."

If only I could grab people's attention! Bullshit and wit are duly dropped in the interests of communication.

"It is wrong to think purely of yourself and your needs -"

If I can just interject that this is upon an ethical and moral grounds? If so, then I actually agree wholeheartedly. Suprising huh?

"because it does not facilitate the greater good of humanity."

If we are to refer to our ethics in human terms (and why shouldn't we, ethics are our constructs as 'higher thinkers' ) then the greater good of humanity must be distinguished by our perceived ultimate aim, that of a fully realised, ethical and civil society - 'the perfect world' I might suggest! Yes, I agree.

"since we do have a "higher" level of thinking than other animals we are obligated to do so"

Oh, that is such sweet poetry to my ears. Bravo. I couldn't agree with you more. We are obliged to do so, yes. If I were to give everyone in the world a brand new Lamborghini sports car, it would be an unbelievably unfathomable act if the majority of us let it rust in our respective garages. The same is true of the brains in our skulls. Daily I weep for our loss as a species, but occassionally I go onto internet forums and vent my frustrations with the world in a deliberatly aggressive, facetious and inflaming manner.

"and as such many of us have gained this need to do so. clearly you have not."

Clearly I have not? Ouch, you wound me, sir. Deservedly so? Yes, maybe. I at least deserve at least a half of a bronze star for provoking thought in others? We shall see though shall we not?

"no one should deny themselves pleasure, but as with anything it should only be given and taken in moderation."

Well, there is a contradiction to talk of non-denial of pleasure and then to speak of moderation, for to moderate is imply denial at some point. But if some level of moderation is necessary to 'move forward' towards our aim (that of an 'ideal world' ) then one should in fact deny themself pleasure at some point. But what function in the human mind performs this moderation? We shall answer that in a moment I'm sure.

"clearly rape and cannibalism are above and beyond the average pleasure level, otherwise everyone would do it."

Aha! Yes indeed! I am compelled to note that rape at least was very popular amongst certain tribes in our dark history, and other despicable things like slavery was positively the norm. Lawful too. How can that be? What is to stop us from reverting back to such ideals? Rape and cannibalism are currently above and beyond most people's taste, yes, but suspiciously, the exploitation of intelligent, thinking, feeling animals is not. Surely this is 'speciesism'? Ha ha ha, what a laughable concept! How superior our higher brains are.

"the "skirt" as you so lovingly put it would normally play a large part, but with your skewed view of things, any type of answer here will not be sufficient for you."

Perfectly untrue. I have been fishing for this answer from the very beginning (and I do seem to have a 'skewed' view of things don't I?) But I urge you to persevere with me and don't give up just yet, you are doing magnificently well. I ask again, this time with a different slant as I feel that we are actually progressing somewhere. The 'large part' that my piece of 'skirt' has in my little scenario is what? Clue:: It's a fundemental thing that is the basis of freedom for all things, it's a power that she would have that could turn an act of rape into an act of love making in an instant. Anyone care to go for a spin in that shiny new Lamborghini yet?

"emotions are usually what define boundaries for people."

Applause. Great stuff! Finally a considered answer to my question!

"if you have no emotions you have no boundaries. this is why, as we have become more and more intelligent, we have also become more and more emotional."

Your linking of emotions and intelligence is a valid one, I wholeheartedly agree with your thought processes, however an emotion is a response - an effect of the cause. I say you were close in your effort to define 'intelligence' itself, and you may well be closer with your theory than any of mine because even the mighty Metal Giant finds this question a toughie. It is by some definition of 'intellegence' that our boundaries begin to form within our own span of capabilty. Our intelligence defines our individual 'morality' and 'ethics' and they in turn define our individual boundaries that our emotions can react to. Civility of the masses - the 'ideal world' we all claim to strive for, is then defined by the accumulation and popularity of these expressions of individual ethics on a grand scale and they then become the 'norm' by which we live. I announce that it is our duty to be 'ethically aware' as individuals, and to encourage it in others by debate, although not necessarilly in my style (but I think you'll soon find that you need some sort of bullshit ranting and/or attention grabbing "wit" at some point).

"if you look at the intellgence of other animals you can see this trend as well. the smarter the animal, the more emotions they are capable of displaying."

And so, we can extrapolate; emotions and intelligence are interlinked. Fantastic. We are actually getting along famously now aren't we?

"Law is used to keep society in check."

Already we are moving forward, I've hardly paused for breath. This is amazing. Yes, 'Law' is the norm that we all agree upon by process of democracy (if we are lucky) that expresses the ethics of the masses. Literally what we all 'think' is what is right and what is wrong. So, 'Law' equals boundaries defined by the masses and in juxtaposition; 'Ethics' equal boundaries defined by the individual. I feel we have reached a milestone. I'm going to have a coke and a smile.

At this point I would simply like to paraphrase the words of the almighty "AngleFire" (the second posting of this whole discussion):

"I find vegetarians a bit annoying. But that's because I find anyone who does something for outright moral reasons a bit irritating. IE, people who do volunteer work for whatever, pacifists, protesters, whatever. I find it all a bit annoying."

I am going to pass no comments to this as I am trying to behave myself today. An example of self-moderation live before your very eyes folks.

Sorry Wyote, do continue...

"law keeps those who prevent us from moving forward out of society."

'Moving Forward'. Let's just give that the respect it deserves before I probably start being an "ass" again.

"go ahead and tear this apart. im sure youll have fun doing so."

Tear apart? I only tear at those that prevent us all from moving forward. This post was most refreshing and productive. I feel I have merely lovingly dismantled your post into edible chunks and respectfully put out for display like some sort of delicious buffet for the needy. Thank you.

So, anyone ready for stage 2?

MG
Motoring Along.

Metal Giant, unfortunatly, by raping and murdering a woman (I know Im late on this, but forgive me), you are crossing a line. A law. That is very real. As smart as you may be, or think you are, I see no connection between eating an animal, and raping and murdering a person. We arent raping the animal. So why bring up rape? And do you think the world could survive off of vegies alone? I doubt it. Meat contains proteins and nutrients the body needs. Sure you can LIVE without it, but I highly doubt the world could SURVIVE without it. Maybe, Im wrong, but oh well. Thats my views on this subject.

"Metal Giant,"

Yes Joel?

"unfortunatly, by raping and murdering a woman-"

(or a man, I am certainly not sexist) but Yes?

"(I know Im late on this, but forgive me)"

Forgiven entirely.

"-you are crossing a line. A law."

More importanty I believe I would be doing something fundamentally ''wrong'. Wrong on ethical and moral grounds (read my last posting).

" As smart as you may be, or think you are"

I am merely as smart as I am. Just to clear that one up.

"I see no connection between eating an animal, and raping and murdering a person."

Alas you are not alone. I must truly be in a minority in my opinion that the abuse of a living, thinking, emotional, intellegent and sentient creature is wrong from all sides and that applies to all animals, including the arrogant higher-thinking human one.

"We arent raping the animal."

No we are not. Quite correct. You raise a point I should have made a little earlier than now for all those people like yourself who could not fully see the analogy. People do not stick their cocks into helpless animals by way of abuse, yes you are right, Joel. The fucking of an animal before its death might be a milder demise than would suit the metaphor. Maybe I should have said that I plan on dripping shampoo in her eyes first, then stunning her in the face with electricity while I rip out her throat then skin her alive? Yes, that would be more appropriate, yes. Thanks for that. I appologise for not being clearer.

" So why bring up rape?"

I do believe it spurred you to your keyboard did it not? The very notion is generally regarded as offensive and as wrong as wrong can be. Now that I have your attention, stick with me as we explore what it means to be a human animal and our concepts of right and wrong and their fundamental importance to us all.

"And do you think the world could survive off of vegies alone?"

Er, no.

"I doubt it."

Me too. I'm not a vegetarian by the way.(Close your mouth)

"Meat contains proteins and nutrients the body needs."

It sure does.

"Sure you can LIVE without it, but I highly doubt the world could SURVIVE without it."

Bugger. I lost you. Thought we were onto something then. Maybe we were? These proteins and vitamins and essential ingredients that happen to be found in 'meat' (a wonderfully dismissive word) can, in fact, also be found elsewhere beyond the flesh of living beings and not just in 'veggies' alone. You can not only LIVE and SURVIVE on them, you can actually live LONGER and be HEALTHIER on them with a little nous, education, and intelligence. Only your CONDITIONING has told you otherwise. Thankfully, the millions of years and fortuitous events that have conspired to evolve us the brains we now all own make it so that in recent years this should not be a problem for us if we don't want it to be. Granted, the industries and blindly-followed traditions that are to blame for the mass conditioning of the populous will have a very hard time adapting to a truly civilised world, but hey, one step at a time folks. If we do have a problem with changing for the better then our problems actually run deeper than I can express. Alas, I fear this futile battle of mine feels a lot like the time I last pissed in the wind. That was a shitty Christmas I can tell you.

Metal Giant

The only power a woman has to turn the act of rape into an act of "love making" would be her consent. However, I question the use of the term "love making" in this particular context, and I seriously doubt that most women on the verge of being raped would consent.

Both rape victims and animals are in no postion to protect themselves from humans determined to attack them. The idea of a woman giving her consent under these circumstances is abhorrent, but at least she has that option and may even save her life by exercising it. However, animals are in no position to consent to being used, abused, caged, mistreated, hunted, slaughtered, eaten, or even trained to jump through hoops of fire or to balance on one leg while wearing a ballet costume for our amusement. As "higher beings" we should use our intelligence and our emotions (compassion, empathy, etc.) to value and protect the lives of others and to act as caretakers or custodians of animals rather than to take advantage of them. Perhaps this comes close to what you were implying with your analogy.


Jonathan Swift, though ponderous, excelled at satirical commentary, as do you (thus the earlier allusion).

ok then. how do we solve this problem of being kind to the food we eat? if we let animals die of natural causes before they are consumed, rather than killing them, well there simply would not be enough meat to feed all us friggin humans. this leads me in to thoughts of how horrible technology is, but technology is actually a wonderous thing. but thats a different issue. how can we be ethical and still eat meat?

Dear Awakeningmystic,

"The only power a woman has to turn the act of rape into an act of "love making" would be her consent."

CLANG!! Nail on the head! That's correct, her "Consent" - her power to choose. And what an underappreciated power that is. This word, "Consent", I love it. I believe it should be a foundation stone of ethics in the world, but it isn't for reasons I'm certain we'll touch on later. But let's all join hands and say that word again together shall we?

"Consent"

Ah, I see some of you used your power not to. I respect that.

"However, I question the use of the term "love making" in this particular context"

Absolutely correct to question it. I do believe my sarcasm needs work.

"However, animals are in no position to consent to being used, abused, caged, mistreated, hunted, slaughtered, eaten, or even trained to jump through hoops of fire or to balance on one leg while wearing a ballet costume for our amusement."

Very true also, and in addition it should be noted that, given the opportunity to, AN ANIMAL CAN CONSENT (forgive the caps) to the afore-mentioned list. They think and feel and express emotions (therefore intelligence) like we do, because we are also animals as I feel complelled to remind people. You would notice, I am sure, that such a creature would express it's opinion quite obviously when faced with abuse if it were allowed to do so. And you have to respect that if you are to respect the human animal's right to consent also. I am a human animal and I do consent to wearing a ballet costume for amusement. Please respect my wishes, I feel pretty.

"As "higher beings" we should use our intelligence and our emotions (compassion, empathy, etc.) to value and protect the lives of others and to act as caretakers or custodians of animals rather than to take advantage of them. Perhaps this comes close to what you were implying with your analogy."

I think that perhaps it does come very close indeed. But to state the obvious (to you and I) in such a way without any attempt at putting it in a human perspective (hence my little rape/murder/cannibalistic fiasco) will simply fall on deaf ears. I am certain that even my way of doing things has had the same chance a wandering molecule has of tripping a blundering self-obsessed dribbling idiot, such is my perception of the masses.Controversy was necessary to spur any sort of reaction. The very thing about this thread that spurred me to the keyboard was the opinions of some people who found it 'a bit annoying' that someone might actually have an opinion based on moralty (It is of course much better to inherrit your opinions or believe the ones of the friendly little people on the television isn't it?) and of how some vegetarians get "in-your-face about it". I know a lot of vegetarians, and I've never met one that isn't a peaceful, non-offensive and considered human being, I can't imagine any of the ones I know getting in anyone's face at all! Thankfully, I am free/devoid of such admirable traits and I quite enjoy being nose-to-nose with anyone who can't see beyond theirs.

"Jonathan Swift, though ponderous, excelled at satirical commentary, as do you (thus the earlier allusion)."

Now don't make me blush or people will see through me.

:::::

Dear Wyote,

I like you. You have a brain and you're not afraid to use it. Splendid news!

"ok then. how do we solve this problem of being kind to the food we eat?"

Kindness to it would be nice, but we don't even have to do that. Just respect will do. Respect it by not eating it. I wouldn't eat you if you didn't consent to it (this is one of the resons why I am not strictly a vegetarian). If I approached you, knife, fork and tomato sauce in hand, I would take your firm fist to my head as a sign that you did not consent to my intentions. As hungry as I might be, I might have to simply respect that and have an apple and some nuts instead.

"if we let animals die of natural causes before they are consumed, rather than killing them, well there simply would not be enough meat to feed all us friggin humans."

Well, I'm not sure that if we did 'have' to eat meat that would be so true either. Naturally deceased meat would probably not be good for you, I profess my ignorance in such matters and am open to education on them. Speaking of education though, It is my opinion that it should be your parents who should teach you these things, and therefore I am sightly embarrassed to resume their role, but, we no not 'have' to eat meat at all. We are 'able' to eat meat, yes, we are able to eat small plastic pellets and golf balls if we want, but they are all, to varying degrees, not actually that good for you. These "friggin humans" are lying to you. Ronald McDonald actually wants your money not your friendship. Vegetarians and vegans are not necessarily the emaciated and skeletal hippies that their stereotypes would suggest. Believe it or not, on average, they live many years longer than your average omnivore.

"this leads me in to thoughts of how horrible technology is, but technology is actually a wonderous thing."

Technology and science are our only hopes of saving us all. I'm going to pat that sentence on the head and leave it at that for fear of being sidetracked down the route of theology.

"but thats a different issue."

Agreed.

"how can we be ethical and still eat meat?"

By not eating it.

It won't kill you.

Try it, just for a day. See if you survive.

Beware of beans, they won't make you popular if you're planning a bus ride and also beware of tofu, it tastes of unflavoured condoms.

Seriously though, society would eventually prosper and grow if we were to amputate this barbaric practice from it. We would be more efficient and streamlined and certainly be a really big step closer to moving toward our 'ideal world'.

Hark? Did anyone hear birdsong? No, you're right you didn't hear it. Sigh. Neither did I. I mearly heared the lonely clattering of my keyboard and russle of my taffeta dress.



Metal Giant

your body needs meat it wants it..