Reread that until you understand it, your reply is nonsensical in context, which shows you didn't understand what you were replying to. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE DISCUSS THEIR DIETS AS A STATUS SYMBOL. That was the point, which coincidentally, YOU brought up.
When did I say 'status symbol' ? I hope it's not hard to understand the general idea of "status," as in "status quo," as well as something people would want to project, and involuntarily participate in as part of culture.
Many people eat meat regularly because it's what middle class people learned to do, because the post second world war industrial world economy defined it as the new way (status). Absolutely, the new regular diet led to better health for the general population, but unsurprisingly it went way overboard and there is likely a need for moderation (meat less often, more variety) for many people. If you look around, you may notice other moderating trends, but you seem a bit fixated just now.
I would say people should mind their own fucking business when it comes to what I do. I'll start to care about your "should" when you start to care about mine.
OK, enjoy your bacon sandwich with bacon salad with bacon ice cream.;) I certainly don't mean to stir things up in a counterproductive direction, but the reality is the highly defensive meat eaters are the responders to my posts.
No. Most normal people eat things because they taste good.
I'd say it's a lot more complex than because they taste good. Our diet came through many different eras, most notably the second world war when the definition of a modern meal came about, moderated by other events. Another factor is comfort, and you can look at all the overweight people to understand that food consumption is not always healthy.
In fact, if you were to be honest (HA!) you'd notice the only people discussing their eating choices at all are people with alternative choices, such a vegans vegetarians.
And doctors, and dietitians, and economists, and agriculturalists, and.. the list goes on. I'll just add two more influences, the meat and dairy marketing boards.
Even supporting your position, I would say that people should put a little more thought into their food choices than "it tastes good."
It's fairly clear the "status" claim is much more accurately applied to vegans/veggies than to everyone else, your farcical claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
What sort of "status" are we talking about here? The "status" of thinking critically about your choices? Of having an open mind to alternatives rather than being content with the same old same old?
Because it is part of my big picture of being happy not eating meat.
Thanks for the wikipedia link. It does make the point that vegetarianism/may/ not have a profound effect on the health of the environment, though it seems only tenuously in this direction (the word "may" is a clue). It also makes this point;
The adoption of a lacto-ovo vegetarian or entirely plant-based vegan diet may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialised societies would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.
Which if you check my other posts is exactly the position I think is reasonable. I just stopped eating meat because, well, you read my reasons.
Your post belies your claim.
When one is stating one's position, it is difficult to not include subjective considerations. However, since reality is subjective, and the "winners" (survivors) of the next century may well be driving SuperSUVs on a barren moon-like surface while feasting on live humans, I cannot ultimately say what lifestyle is "better."
And I find the vacuous repetition of easily and roundly defeated assumptions annoying and ignorant. More than that though, I find the idea that you think you have a right to restrict my food choices based on questionable ethical arguments and debunked environmental claims to be insulting.
"Debunked?" One point (out of many) gets a paragraph of "may" amidst other begrudgingly supportive sentences and everything I've said is "debunked."
And where, may I ask, do I claim to have a right to make your food choices? I have made every attempt to claim my own choices are generally frivolous, except the point that it'd probably overall be better if people didn't feel the need to eat meat very often. I think the weight of arguments are good enough for me to support my decision, and quite frankly I don't miss it. All you're doing is supporting my view that meat eaters get upset and defencive when they hear alternative points of view.
Every person I knew who worked in a meat packing plant enjoyed it. That's my sample. I doubt it's particularly representative, but I still consider the occupation to be "ghoulish."
As for "needing" to eat meet, I've said a couple of times, here and in other posts, I don't think it's unreasonable to eat meat occasionally, depending on circumstances, which is generally a more natural diet (and yes, I know about tribes that almost exclusively meat) but we don't need to, and therefore it's easy to get into overconsumption.
Finally, yes, plenty of people who eat meat three times a day. Bacon or sausage in the morning, beef or chicken or pork something for lunch, bacon or sausage or pork something for dinner. I'd say at least half the population eats that way, moreso for breakfast on the weekend, but certainly so for lunch and dinner every single day.
In your first post, you state that sending rockets to the moon or cultivating food is unnatural. In your reply, you state that exploring our world and planting food is eminently natural. Don't contradict yourself. which is it?
My point was that one nature program of a cheetah chasing gazelles is not the extent of potential behaviours, and in fact we are not bound by what happens on a nature program, we have choices. I'm assuming that most people got this because I received a good rating for that post.
Based on the small selection of people you know, you're going to typify all meatpackers as ghouls.
I will agree that my choice of words was a bit flippant, based on my distasteful experience of knowing people who worked in a meat packing plant and enjoyed it, and one week's employment of stuffing chickens in cages when young. If I were writing an essay on this topic I wouldn't use it.
You say you've addressed the plant vs. animal things in another thread. Well I checked. I haven't seen any proof that plants don't feel pain. So in my eyes, you're just as ruthless with your murder as I am with mine.
I addressed it to my satisfaction. It is my personal opinion that for many reasons, animal consumption is an entirely different level than plant consumption (and I have never and would never use the word "murder").
People like immitated food because it's in a convenient form factor? Again WTF is that supposed to mean.
Try putting tofu on a barbeque or sandwich. Doesn't work very well. Food forms evolve for a reason, meat content or not.
Geez, a Google search does not, an argument, make.
My point was I was not going to restate all the many reasoned (and irrational;)) discussions on the topic.
Is it simplistic to say that peanuts cause cancer? Or are you just saying that because I shot down your argument with such ease? How is that a strawman? Do you know what a strawman is?
Cancer from peanuts is very likely on a very different scale than health issues from massive meat consumption. If it were known to be a predominant danger, I would certainly advise people to avoid eating peanuts.
Well, a lot of people already eat insect parts in the form of cochineal extract or carmine. And there's really not much of a difference between insects and shrimp, except insects are well, eww, gross. It could be a good way to keep the cockroaches at bay, though.
I have never seen another review site that is even close to the quality of storagereview. With their drive database that lets you compare any model over the site history, thoroughness, and their reliability index, they have an outstanding site. I wish other review sites would emulate them, rather than rambling inconsistent reviews focused on the shiny product box.
(I'm totally disconnected with storagereview by the way, but the first time I saw it I recognized it as great).
What I was referring to about monkeys is their lewd sexual behaviour... And fish, living in water! I've addressed this in other posts, but basically we have a spectrum of choices to make, I do not find the fact that jackals eat carcasses on the discovery channel to be a particularly compelling argument.
I think it's possible to make one's own choices on one own's value scales, and I think some choices have more impact than others. I respect the vegans with extreme philosophical reasons for their choices and I would objectively say they're doing more for the moral, environmental, health state of the world, but that's not me.
Being a "positivist nihilist," which of course means nothing, I don't have to debate ethics. These things are probably not going to affect me, though I think they are generally bad.
I don't think it's possible to really debate ethics, since there is no objective reality. But I certainly do not believe one has to be perfectly "pure" to make any statement or action. There is enough evidence for me to believe overconsumption of meat is bad, even if it may never affect me (especially since I don't eat meat;););)). I admire the person who calls them self a vegetarian but eats chicken sometimes (really, they're a flexitarian), if they can stick to their general plan, they are fulfilling most of an idealistic goal, rather than finding an excuse to not take any action at all.
I do believe there is a difference between animals and plants, that is greater than the difference between humans and cows, but you are only taking one of of the several reasons why eating less meat may be a perfectly good thing to do. Certainly, some plants may be health or environmentally poor choices, but I am very happy drawing my own ethical lines and nothing you can say on Slashdot will convince me otherwise.;)
Our culture comes too much from the particular ideals of debate and "correctness," which has benefited us in many ways, but it does not match reality any more than a math formula can truly describe a moment in time.
I will try to restate one point, about overproduction of meat. I do think it is dangerous to have mass farms with thousands of animals, and often no real regulation. This has nothing to do with the number of people on the planet, more to do with an over-efficiency tendency. Animals are more complex than plants, and these are mini environmental and biological disasters in the making.
I completely support your point of view. For example, if you live in the country, and the wildlife supports it, it is perfectly reasonable to eat game. And it is smart and thoughtful to buy seasonal and local food, when healthy and practical, with a huge bias toward what one enjoys, if those tastes are developed with an open, thoughtful mind.
Hey, congrats. But I know plenty of people who insist on eating meat three times a day. Certainly, in conversation one tends to gravitate to extreme examples. But the reality is the average person only "needs" to eat meat a few times a week, if at all, and there is a created need to have it more often, out of some kind of mass image/status thing, that the meat industry is very much in favour of.
I'm not the person you are pointing this question to, but, yes, they sound pretty natural to me. Arguments can be made that there are moral or ethical issues involved, but they seem like a completely natural part of a developing society.
Yes, they are potential behaviours.
So, lemme get this straight - our brains evolved to the point that we can explore our world and plant food, but to you, that is not natural?
It is eminently natural behaviour.
Ummm . . . what?? Should we be basing our actions on the moneys in the zoo, you know, in an environment completely controlled by humans? So, you're saying that putting them in the zoo is a good thing then, right? Or, should we be basing our actions on monkeys in the wild? [youtube.com] Wait, don't we already do that? I'm lost. What the fuck are you even trying to say??
I am saying that what someone watches on a nature program is a potential behaviour, and saying it's ok to eat meat 'cause jackals do is a bit pathetic.;)
Calling them ghouls is merely resorting to childish name calling. So if you want to head in that direction then, listen here, you plant murdering fuckface, we don't only eat dead animals, we eat dead plants, too, We just prefer to call it salad. I don't know, I guess it just sounds a little less murderous that way. G'ahead, prove to me that plants don't feel pain.
I'd say "ghouls" is a way of typifying them, but you don't know the people I do. I already addressed the plants vs animal things in another thread.
You remind me of all those former smokers getting all preachy about how you shouldn't smoke. It was ok for them to do at the time, but as soon as they stop, you never hear the end of it. Hold on a minute . . . you stopped eating meat because you got bored of it, not because you had some sort of ethical epiphany. Then get off your fucking high horse, because I'm not bored of it. So don't mind me, I'm still exploring the world of meat. I'll let you know when I'm done.
Sorry, I'm not getting preachy, or on a high hourse. I'm talking shit. But you sound like one of those defensive meat eaters who can't stand to let a non meat eater state their opinions on a relevant thread, because it might challenge you.
Oh, and if you're so bored with the taste of meat, then why do all you motherfuckers have to try to immitate it? I can't tell you how many recipies I've seen for veggie burgers, vegetarian chili or vegetarian meatloaf. Hmmm, sounds like you're craving something. Meat, perhaps?
I have no idea who you are talking to, but I have no desire to "immitate" it. As I mentioned, I discovered there is a lot of other food than meat, though I admit I occasionally have tofu hot dogs because with mustard and onions it is a sublime combination (I have no idea if I'd still enjoy the flavour of a meat based hot dog at this point).
People like imitated foods such as tofu hot dogs, etc because they are in a convenient form factor, or because they have inherent associations, or because it makes meat eaters more comfortable hah hah.
Care to list any environmental reasons? I've seen plenty of arguments that can debunk anything I'm betting you would list. So list some. I dare you.
I am not going to represent each of the 823,000 odd other results, some of which are no doubt made by frooty loonies (to counterbalance the other opposite point of view), but there are a certain number of well
There is a very real difference between the nervous system and emotional capacity of an animal versus a plant. If you are saying there is no difference, then you are saying we should all exist in a vegetative state, rather than expanding on our nervous system and emotional capacity. I do think it technically diminishes people collectively to permit such mass suffering for unnecessary reasons. But I am not making the ethical argument.
And when I say unnecessary, I mean animals used to be necessary to ensure adequate food availability, if you had some pigs, goats or chickens wandering around, or herd animals nearby it was good for survival. But it's not required any more, and we've mass produced animal farming so much, people have grown lazy and insist on meat three times a day, without thinking about it. For no reason.
And there is a very real difference between the environmental costs and impact of animal vs plant farming. But I'm not really emphasizing the environmental impact.
Many people would be much healthier if they ate less meat. But, as a kind of positivist nihilist, I don't think I'm better. That's your defensive meat-eater's reaction, not my problem, though some hardcore vegans may be making a point that the above reasons are bad for the planet, etc, etc, but it's not my argument.
As I said, I just find the passive consumption of too much meat to be boring and thoughtless. I doubt it makes any difference in anyone's quality of life, except for some vague feelings of entitlement. I think it's perfectly reasonable to eat meat occasionally, but constantly, c'mon.
So what you're saying is, everyone should drop whatever they're doing, no matter how finely developed their insights and efforts, and start working on the same issue. That sounds like a great idea.
And there are, just like multiple approaches on what to do in life, multiple approaches on why we are where we are. Plenty of people think it has to do with plants. Just read the review at http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_botany_desire.htm But I guess in your view, humans evolved to do nothing but eat meat.
I've known plenty of obnoxious vegans, but I have nothing against people who are doing something for their own philosophical reasons, particularly when there is a decent basis in fact for becoming vegan. Perhaps a large part of the reason vegans act so uppity is the over the top defensive reaction they get from meat eaters, who generally like to think they are clever with remarks like "I'll eat enough meat for both of us."
I totally agree with you. I also consider slavery and torture to be completely natural. How about you?
Totally unnatural - sending spaceships to the moon, or food cultivation (that habit that creates reliable food sources so you don't need handy scavengers like chickens and pigs, until we mass produced animal farming with buildings full of thousands of creatures packed in shit).
Those shows you are watching are highlighting certain aspects of animal existence. How about you go to the zoo and watch how the monkeys act naturally all day, and do a report on how we should be acting. Or look in an aquarium at the natural creatures and tell us how we should be acting, and emulate it yourself.
Sorry, I just find people who use your kind of logic a bit simple, but I guess if you want to justify your lifestyle and continue stuffing dead animals in your mouth three times a day, backed by completely natural factory farms and a host of ghouls who enjoy working in meat packing plants (I've known a couple of them) then just do it.
Personally (and I know you couldn't care less;)) I stopped eating meat 8 years ago because I got bored of it. There is a whole world of other foods to explore. I also find the non thinking attitude about food to be disturbing, like I was a beef, chicken, or pork eating automaton. All the potential environmental, ethical and health reasons are just nifty bonuses to me, and I really think if we freed all the cows, chickens and pigs it would quite annoying.
This was called the cheese worm a few years ago. I think it's a good idea. There are a lot of irresponsible admins out there, especially, I'm afraid, those running Windows. I recall vividly in the mid 90s when these things started emerging, I was getting "attacks" from Windows hosts on my network. I tracked down the origin and went to the effort of contacting the admins - I even telephoned a couple, since I got interested in what was happening. The response, unanimously, was they were content to wait until Microsoft came out with a solution. That's right, they were running compromised hosts, that were busy infecting other hosts and polluting the net, but they were going to wait until someone came out with an automatic solution.
Nowadays it's a lost cause. So many people are just lazy. I told a family member her IM (MSN) was sending fake invites to people in her contact list, and she said she didn't have time to deal with it. I could have told her that she's going to be infecting people exponentially, but it wouldn't matter.
I was surprised to hear they used Lucene.. I don't think Lucene is bad, I've checked it out and it has a nice feature set (as well as being robust), but Wikipedia's search is awful.
This whole thing is also interesting from the Google Knol vs Wikipedia angle.
Sounds like you have a general gripe that you've transplanted on this issue. You'd have to consider that the boomers would be more likely to want the plant to come back online, because presumably it'd be them that would benefit the most. And I guess it's completely impossible that knowledge and experience have any value here.
I think you're just looking for a rant. Maybe if you thought it through, stopped blaming groups and acted you'd be more successful. Maybe if you tried working with "them," instead of demonizing them, you'd get somewhere. But that'd be too complicated, I guess.
Insightful? Give me a break. There are as many "older" people pushing for change as there are younger. I've encountered this stupidity again and again. If you want to do something about it, work your way into a position, don't complain from the sidelines and accuse a group that may include your partners.
Slashdot Mirror
When did I say 'status symbol' ? I hope it's not hard to understand the general idea of "status," as in "status quo," as well as something people would want to project, and involuntarily participate in as part of culture.
Many people eat meat regularly because it's what middle class people learned to do, because the post second world war industrial world economy defined it as the new way (status). Absolutely, the new regular diet led to better health for the general population, but unsurprisingly it went way overboard and there is likely a need for moderation (meat less often, more variety) for many people. If you look around, you may notice other moderating trends, but you seem a bit fixated just now.
OK, enjoy your bacon sandwich with bacon salad with bacon ice cream.
I'd say it's a lot more complex than because they taste good. Our diet came through many different eras, most notably the second world war when the definition of a modern meal came about, moderated by other events. Another factor is comfort, and you can look at all the overweight people to understand that food consumption is not always healthy.
And doctors, and dietitians, and economists, and agriculturalists, and
Even supporting your position, I would say that people should put a little more thought into their food choices than "it tastes good."
What sort of "status" are we talking about here? The "status" of thinking critically about your choices? Of having an open mind to alternatives rather than being content with the same old same old?
Because it is part of my big picture of being happy not eating meat.
Thanks for the wikipedia link. It does make the point that vegetarianism
Which if you check my other posts is exactly the position I think is reasonable. I just stopped eating meat because, well, you read my reasons.
When one is stating one's position, it is difficult to not include subjective considerations. However, since reality is subjective, and the "winners" (survivors) of the next century may well be driving SuperSUVs on a barren moon-like surface while feasting on live humans, I cannot ultimately say what lifestyle is "better."
"Debunked?" One point (out of many) gets a paragraph of "may" amidst other begrudgingly supportive sentences and everything I've said is "debunked."
And where, may I ask, do I claim to have a right to make your food choices? I have made every attempt to claim my own choices are generally frivolous, except the point that it'd probably overall be better if people didn't feel the need to eat meat very often. I think the weight of arguments are good enough for me to support my decision, and quite frankly I don't miss it. All you're doing is supporting my view that meat eaters get upset and defencive when they hear alternative points of view.
OK, how about war?
Every person I knew who worked in a meat packing plant enjoyed it. That's my sample. I doubt it's particularly representative, but I still consider the occupation to be "ghoulish."
As for "needing" to eat meet, I've said a couple of times, here and in other posts, I don't think it's unreasonable to eat meat occasionally, depending on circumstances, which is generally a more natural diet (and yes, I know about tribes that almost exclusively meat) but we don't need to, and therefore it's easy to get into overconsumption.
Finally, yes, plenty of people who eat meat three times a day. Bacon or sausage in the morning, beef or chicken or pork something for lunch, bacon or sausage or pork something for dinner. I'd say at least half the population eats that way, moreso for breakfast on the weekend, but certainly so for lunch and dinner every single day.
My point was that one nature program of a cheetah chasing gazelles is not the extent of potential behaviours, and in fact we are not bound by what happens on a nature program, we have choices. I'm assuming that most people got this because I received a good rating for that post.
I will agree that my choice of words was a bit flippant, based on my distasteful experience of knowing people who worked in a meat packing plant and enjoyed it, and one week's employment of stuffing chickens in cages when young. If I were writing an essay on this topic I wouldn't use it.
I addressed it to my satisfaction. It is my personal opinion that for many reasons, animal consumption is an entirely different level than plant consumption (and I have never and would never use the word "murder").
Try putting tofu on a barbeque or sandwich. Doesn't work very well. Food forms evolve for a reason, meat content or not.
My point was I was not going to restate all the many reasoned (and irrational
Cancer from peanuts is very likely on a very different scale than health issues from massive meat consumption. If it were known to be a predominant danger, I would certainly advise people to avoid eating peanuts.
Well, a lot of people already eat insect parts in the form of cochineal extract or carmine. And there's really not much of a difference between insects and shrimp, except insects are well, eww, gross. It could be a good way to keep the cockroaches at bay, though.
I have never seen another review site that is even close to the quality of storagereview. With their drive database that lets you compare any model over the site history, thoroughness, and their reliability index, they have an outstanding site. I wish other review sites would emulate them, rather than rambling inconsistent reviews focused on the shiny product box.
(I'm totally disconnected with storagereview by the way, but the first time I saw it I recognized it as great).
What I was referring to about monkeys is their lewd sexual behaviour... And fish, living in water! I've addressed this in other posts, but basically we have a spectrum of choices to make, I do not find the fact that jackals eat carcasses on the discovery channel to be a particularly compelling argument.
I think it's possible to make one's own choices on one own's value scales, and I think some choices have more impact than others. I respect the vegans with extreme philosophical reasons for their choices and I would objectively say they're doing more for the moral, environmental, health state of the world, but that's not me.
Being a "positivist nihilist," which of course means nothing, I don't have to debate ethics. These things are probably not going to affect me, though I think they are generally bad.
I don't think it's possible to really debate ethics, since there is no objective reality. But I certainly do not believe one has to be perfectly "pure" to make any statement or action. There is enough evidence for me to believe overconsumption of meat is bad, even if it may never affect me (especially since I don't eat meat
I do believe there is a difference between animals and plants, that is greater than the difference between humans and cows, but you are only taking one of of the several reasons why eating less meat may be a perfectly good thing to do. Certainly, some plants may be health or environmentally poor choices, but I am very happy drawing my own ethical lines and nothing you can say on Slashdot will convince me otherwise.
Our culture comes too much from the particular ideals of debate and "correctness," which has benefited us in many ways, but it does not match reality any more than a math formula can truly describe a moment in time.
I will try to restate one point, about overproduction of meat. I do think it is dangerous to have mass farms with thousands of animals, and often no real regulation. This has nothing to do with the number of people on the planet, more to do with an over-efficiency tendency. Animals are more complex than plants, and these are mini environmental and biological disasters in the making.
I completely support your point of view. For example, if you live in the country, and the wildlife supports it, it is perfectly reasonable to eat game. And it is smart and thoughtful to buy seasonal and local food, when healthy and practical, with a huge bias toward what one enjoys, if those tastes are developed with an open, thoughtful mind.
Hey, congrats. But I know plenty of people who insist on eating meat three times a day. Certainly, in conversation one tends to gravitate to extreme examples. But the reality is the average person only "needs" to eat meat a few times a week, if at all, and there is a created need to have it more often, out of some kind of mass image/status thing, that the meat industry is very much in favour of.
Yes, they are potential behaviours.
It is eminently natural behaviour.
I am saying that what someone watches on a nature program is a potential behaviour, and saying it's ok to eat meat 'cause jackals do is a bit pathetic. ;)
I'd say "ghouls" is a way of typifying them, but you don't know the people I do. I already addressed the plants vs animal things in another thread.
Sorry, I'm not getting preachy, or on a high hourse. I'm talking shit. But you sound like one of those defensive meat eaters who can't stand to let a non meat eater state their opinions on a relevant thread, because it might challenge you.
I have no idea who you are talking to, but I have no desire to "immitate" it. As I mentioned, I discovered there is a lot of other food than meat, though I admit I occasionally have tofu hot dogs because with mustard and onions it is a sublime combination (I have no idea if I'd still enjoy the flavour of a meat based hot dog at this point).
People like imitated foods such as tofu hot dogs, etc because they are in a convenient form factor, or because they have inherent associations, or because it makes meat eaters more comfortable hah hah.
Here you are. http://www.google.ca/search?q=environmental+meat - here's one at random, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080122.wcomment0123/BNStory/International/home
I am not going to represent each of the 823,000 odd other results, some of which are no doubt made by frooty loonies (to counterbalance the other opposite point of view), but there are a certain number of well
Ew! Gross!
There is a very real difference between the nervous system and emotional capacity of an animal versus a plant. If you are saying there is no difference, then you are saying we should all exist in a vegetative state, rather than expanding on our nervous system and emotional capacity. I do think it technically diminishes people collectively to permit such mass suffering for unnecessary reasons. But I am not making the ethical argument.
And when I say unnecessary, I mean animals used to be necessary to ensure adequate food availability, if you had some pigs, goats or chickens wandering around, or herd animals nearby it was good for survival. But it's not required any more, and we've mass produced animal farming so much, people have grown lazy and insist on meat three times a day, without thinking about it. For no reason.
And there is a very real difference between the environmental costs and impact of animal vs plant farming. But I'm not really emphasizing the environmental impact.
Many people would be much healthier if they ate less meat. But, as a kind of positivist nihilist, I don't think I'm better. That's your defensive meat-eater's reaction, not my problem, though some hardcore vegans may be making a point that the above reasons are bad for the planet, etc, etc, but it's not my argument.
As I said, I just find the passive consumption of too much meat to be boring and thoughtless. I doubt it makes any difference in anyone's quality of life, except for some vague feelings of entitlement. I think it's perfectly reasonable to eat meat occasionally, but constantly, c'mon.
Hah hah, I never could have predicted that.
You're right, it's better to have a good joke where you don't have to feel guilty, than a useful scale of harm.
So what you're saying is, everyone should drop whatever they're doing, no matter how finely developed their insights and efforts, and start working on the same issue. That sounds like a great idea.
And there are, just like multiple approaches on what to do in life, multiple approaches on why we are where we are. Plenty of people think it has to do with plants. Just read the review at http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_botany_desire.htm But I guess in your view, humans evolved to do nothing but eat meat.
Do you mean God gave you teeth for a reason? I guess we know where you fall on the evolution vs created argument.
I've known plenty of obnoxious vegans, but I have nothing against people who are doing something for their own philosophical reasons, particularly when there is a decent basis in fact for becoming vegan. Perhaps a large part of the reason vegans act so uppity is the over the top defensive reaction they get from meat eaters, who generally like to think they are clever with remarks like "I'll eat enough meat for both of us."
I totally agree with you. I also consider slavery and torture to be completely natural. How about you?
;)) I stopped eating meat 8 years ago because I got bored of it. There is a whole world of other foods to explore. I also find the non thinking attitude about food to be disturbing, like I was a beef, chicken, or pork eating automaton. All the potential environmental, ethical and health reasons are just nifty bonuses to me, and I really think if we freed all the cows, chickens and pigs it would quite annoying.
Totally unnatural - sending spaceships to the moon, or food cultivation (that habit that creates reliable food sources so you don't need handy scavengers like chickens and pigs, until we mass produced animal farming with buildings full of thousands of creatures packed in shit).
Those shows you are watching are highlighting certain aspects of animal existence. How about you go to the zoo and watch how the monkeys act naturally all day, and do a report on how we should be acting. Or look in an aquarium at the natural creatures and tell us how we should be acting, and emulate it yourself.
Sorry, I just find people who use your kind of logic a bit simple, but I guess if you want to justify your lifestyle and continue stuffing dead animals in your mouth three times a day, backed by completely natural factory farms and a host of ghouls who enjoy working in meat packing plants (I've known a couple of them) then just do it.
Personally (and I know you couldn't care less
This was called the cheese worm a few years ago. I think it's a good idea. There are a lot of irresponsible admins out there, especially, I'm afraid, those running Windows. I recall vividly in the mid 90s when these things started emerging, I was getting "attacks" from Windows hosts on my network. I tracked down the origin and went to the effort of contacting the admins - I even telephoned a couple, since I got interested in what was happening. The response, unanimously, was they were content to wait until Microsoft came out with a solution. That's right, they were running compromised hosts, that were busy infecting other hosts and polluting the net, but they were going to wait until someone came out with an automatic solution.
Nowadays it's a lost cause. So many people are just lazy. I told a family member her IM (MSN) was sending fake invites to people in her contact list, and she said she didn't have time to deal with it. I could have told her that she's going to be infecting people exponentially, but it wouldn't matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0lz35Boe_I
uses the accelerometer and bluetooth.
I was surprised to hear they used Lucene.. I don't think Lucene is bad, I've checked it out and it has a nice feature set (as well as being robust), but Wikipedia's search is awful.
This whole thing is also interesting from the Google Knol vs Wikipedia angle.
Sounds like you have a general gripe that you've transplanted on this issue. You'd have to consider that the boomers would be more likely to want the plant to come back online, because presumably it'd be them that would benefit the most. And I guess it's completely impossible that knowledge and experience have any value here.
I think you're just looking for a rant. Maybe if you thought it through, stopped blaming groups and acted you'd be more successful. Maybe if you tried working with "them," instead of demonizing them, you'd get somewhere. But that'd be too complicated, I guess.
Insightful? Give me a break. There are as many "older" people pushing for change as there are younger. I've encountered this stupidity again and again. If you want to do something about it, work your way into a position, don't complain from the sidelines and accuse a group that may include your partners.