Next step of nuttery - getting rid of quaint dietary taboos; greater utilization of animals with very basic brains as food sources, when there's no good reason to do otherwise. Insects are an excellent source of meat (very efficient - around an order of magnitude better, per resources used, than beef), and in things like mass-produced canned meat paste it would be even hard or impossible to taste a difference.
(in case somebody is not aware - you eat insects every day; the norms about their presence in grain / flour / fruits / etc. basically boil down to "maximum allowable number of insect body parts per unit of product")
Eat the dead, decomposition just reduces the need for cooking. Meat is meat. Waste is waste.
You get the insects whether you like it or not - don't use pesticides and your insects'll be healthier and so will your vegetables and fruit (insects boost phytochemical production). Economic rationalization makes as much sense applied to food as it does to society.
The bloke with the silly shower hat, the white overalls, holding the bolt gun of course. Don't you know anything?
Come on people - the bus is waiting to take you all to the Sunshine home for clever folk. Leave your old laptops - you'll all be getting new iPads when we arrive.
Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.
To where is the only real question.
You are right of course - and there may be a prize for that, hopefully not a hood and a plane ride - because the subpoena is surely just for statistical purposes.... not being American, I have nothing to fear because:-
A: my government will protect me, and
B: I don't twitter, so I only have to worry about my use of Freenet and my donations - the latter is safe because Mastercard will refuse to co-operate.
Or have I missed something here?
---
Yesterday the media told the truth, today they announced a retraction
I'm at least smart enough to recognize that she almost certainly do worse than the current holder of that office, who is even less qualified and who appears to be on track to beat out Jimmy Carter as the least competent holder of that office
It's hard to know where to start - you have so many things demonstrably and patently wrong. Sigh. You *might* be smart, but... you're basing her future performance on wishful thinking - so far she's made more public fuckups than Bush jnr.
Jimmy Carter was in office for how long?
It'll be a long time before anyone comes close to overcoming the sort of odds that the present president did to gain office. That he's still alive *and* in office with the level of hatred and sheer willful stupidity ranged against him is demonstration of incredible political skill - to put that down to sheer luck requires major cerebral trauma.
Congratulations. You're carrying a torch for a presidential candidate supported by her parties opposition - they, and the rest of the world recognize that her natural constituency don't vote or pay taxes. Maybe she could team up with Pauline Hanson - they could call themselves the Duh team.
Apropos of whatever - In Australia "Tea Party" is a reference to people who dress up in the underwear of the opposite sex under their street clothes - and meet for English hot beverages in public places. From what I can gather it's not much different in the USA.
Would it be impolite to point out that she has accomplished far more in life than you or I have, or probably ever will? If Sarah Palin is dumb, therefore, there's a significantly greater than zero chance that you and I are even dumber.
Not impolite as much as irrelevant. You seem to relate well-known with intelligent. The truly intelligent keep their lights well hidden (so I've heard) - for fear of pitchforks.
Of course it's possible you are right, in which case the cow that kicked a bucket that knocked over a lamp that burnt down a city, accomplished far more than Sarah Palin.
And as for "dumber", speak for yourself.
To further confuse "competency" with "dumb" and "accomplished" enables you to make compare with Jimmy Carter (ex-President) with someone who *has not* become President.
Neither competency, dumbness, or smartness explains the reasons for Kennedy beating his opponent. Your "idea" of competency appears based on comparing the actions of an individual against a machine represented as an individual - and there's an irony there somewhere (in the not-Alanis sense).
Ronald Reagan was possibly the most accomplished of president in the last fifty years - and he had his smartest bits removed in a fundamental surgical procedure. I suspect your inhaling some nasty fumes from that torch you're carrying. Hint: accomplished == get "things" done.
Disclaimer: I'm not North American so I know nothing.
I do use FF with NS and AB, so I was presented with a blank grey page between clicking the link for TFA and getting to TFA. TFA had no adverts surrounding it, but that is not the point. The experience presented to me was fucking annoying, and it must only be worse if the adverts are there!
You don't need another extension - Flashblock, Adblock Plus, NoScript, and BugMeNot are all the extensions you'll ever require. All you need to do is learn how to use "Open in New Tab" - it takes all of 5 seconds *while you're reading TFA* for the referenced grey page to load the text. I had to go back and do it all again - very fucking slowly to find out what you're blathering about Buddy.
No one asked about your bloody boring history of browsers - now get off my lawn.
The subgenius can have all my slack they can carry. There are not enough subgenius in all of history to impact my slack.
You Bob-hugging lads need to remember that it is all a matter of perspective. Perspective does not cost $30. Someone is stealing from YOU!
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
I'll happily pay tax on my religion - and if I go to Hell I get my $30 back. You can keep yours *and* let someone else pull the wool over your eyes.
He's done nothing wrong? Hmm, what is your street address? You DO realize that your security has a flaw, right? Lock bumping makes it trivially easy for me to break in to your house and take your stuff. Not to mention, I bet you have your windows made of glass. Obviously, you won't mind if I use your security errors to profit from you, right? You do? Isn't this the free market at work? If it's a problem, buy a better lock. If you don't buy a better lock, I'm justified in taking your stuff.
Ridiculum absolutem?
By your (distorted) logic if I happen to see a laptop that normally sells for $900 marked as $90 I should not buy it? Or are you suggesting that I pay $900 for it? What if I ask the shop assistant to put 6 of them aside for me, so I can send family members back to buy them later?
In fact the law says (in Australia) the retailer must sell it to me at the marked price except in circumstances where the marked price is higher than it should be (new stock has higher duties, doesn't apply to old stock etc). The retailer also has an obligation to the shareholders to correctly price/advertise the stock - for all the supposed luck involved the casino/betting operator has the same obligations. IANAL but neither do I get my legal opinions from my arse (or television). The reason for said ticket price law is not soley to ensure that the consumer gets the goods at the marked (advertised) price, but to conteract the common over and inconsistent pricing (eg. two different prices in the same store for same item, 500g cheese costing less per gram than 1kg of cheese, and other distortions of true value). Gaming the consumer is common, catching and punishing the company is hard - hence the "as advertised" law. Profit comes at a price and the onus is/should be on the one that profits to match the promise to the fact - and posted disclaimers be damned. Another reason for penalizing pricing/advertising "mistake" that favour consumers is to counteract "price war" advantages existing players (retailers) have over other players.
The home owner in your straw man promised you nothing - didn't invite you on their premises, and aside from a common law duty to allow innocent trespass (wrong house) and care (request assistance in emergency) the only thing you can expect from them is a call to the police and/or a beating.
I find it difficult tho believe that such a significantly biased argument such of yours is not through a failure to display "good faith".
Disclaimer: I'm an ex-publican - one reason for the "ex" is pokie machines *which* are most certainly rigged - something the manufacturers and distributors are quick to point out.
Are you seriously saying that there might be such a thing as ghosts?
Or Santa, Easter Bunny, God, pixies at the bottom of the garden, angels. demons, or little green men (or big grey lizard people) and no - the big kids *didn't* do it either.
Bring on the "keep an open mind" mob with teh pitchforks and meta-semantic bullshit. No I can't prove a negative - your point being?
To paraphrase some dead guy - "by the time you're 35 you have the face and the *opinions* you deserve".
As long as you have that the necessary tools can be cheaply and easily fashioned from string, masking tape, and empty toilet rolls. They won't look as impressive a genuine e-meter, but they work just as well.
Or be forced to live with broken legs, as millions of 60 day old chickens do, because they were bred so that they would put on weight faster than their bodies can cope (and producing eggs every day takes all the calcium out of their bodies).
Crap - you're talking about battery hens fed bad food (waste from corn, cottonseed , meat, and fish) + antibiotics. The breed you're referring to (a la Peter loony Singer) is the Leghorn - which doesn't have that problem when allowed to free-range in a healthy environment.
Australorps for instance will lay almost every day of the year - and free-ranging suffer from no calcium deficiency. They get the calcium they need from water, food, and eating rocks.
I've reached an ethical decision, I'm a vegan, and have been for thirty years,
Good for you. It's your choice. Whether or not it's healthier, or better for the economy, or the planet is not the same thing.
.and I'm definitely on higher moral ground than fools like you.
No. The higher moral ground is relative. As is a "fool". What you indisputably are is a "bigot". What I'd call you is a "fool" if you believe that you are doing the planet a favour with your aversion to animal products and a dietary choice that is unsustainable without health food stores and a massive transportation infrastructure.
Perhaps I misunderstand you're "high moral ground" - humans who don't respect animals do so because they believe they are superior to other animals. And *you* are superior to those people because you hold that animals have rights? (do humans have rights?).
As for exacerbating the market by eating less meat forcing farmers to cut corners? Actually the stress put on farmers currently which forces them already to cut so many corners is supermarket domination forcing them to sell their product for the barest survivable profit.
Thank you for pointing out that which is obvious to (us) farmers. The "eat more meat" campaign is the Meat Marketing Industry - they no more represent the farmer than the bloody "Dairy Board".
And don't forget wool and hides when considering the farming of animals.
Also, don't suffer from the delusion that the cows know what's going on.
What have you been snorting?
Let me put you in a yard with some cattle and a 12-pound sledgehammer, I'll sell tickets, while you test your theory. I "know" what happens - as opposed to "thinking" you "know" what will happen. Key difference being the difference between "thinking" and "believing".
Hint: the first kill is relatively easy - the second kill will probably be you.
We breed stock to be stupid and docile, but there are limits. Clearly your experience of where your meat comes from is limited to the supermarket - or you just don't understand much. Anyone who's worked an abattoir line "knows" you're mistaken.
I expect you'll instinctively trot out an "instinct" argument.
My sig has nothing to do with Race.
Oh. Wait. By racist you do not actually mean racist. You mean 'I don't like you and wish to call you bad names.'
Cool. I get it now.
A "racist" is someone who "discriminates" by race. An "ageist" discriminates by age, A "colourist" is someone who discriminates by colour. A "bigot" is someone who holds that "something" is "better" than something else. Someone who doesn't "discriminate" will be found wandering the car park unable to locate the car they arrived in. Someone who is unable to discriminate between a "racist" and a "racial bigot" is a "moron".
Oh course - I could be just semantically pedantic (you know what I mean). Certainly I concede that popular opinion disagrees with me.
We're saying the same things - processed grains (bread, pasta) and sugars (soda, candy, snack cakes) are very calorie-dense. If you sit down and eat ribeye until you're full, and the person beside you eats Little Debbies until they're full, the person beside you is going to be consuming a shit ton more calories than you are.
Meat is not the cause of obesity.
Insufficient exercise *and* over-eating is the 'cause of obesity. Half an hour of "light" exercise a day is not fitness. Exercise of more than a continuous hour a day - every day - leads to a raised metabolic rate even when not exercising. Few jobs (if any) in the modern western world give you an hour of continuously raised heart beat a day. Most football players are not as fit as our many of our ancestors were a hundred years ago - or as much of the world (so called third) is now.
Regarding digestion, you do realize that humans _can_ metabolize raw meat/fat, but only in small doses? Cooking meat came before modern man (because cooking meat reduces the energy required to digest it, that energy can be applied to the brain).
A source for that information would be interesting. Do the Inuit count?
bet your anemic vegetarian wireframe doesn't have enough fat to last a drought.
I'll take your bet (very low fat layer, above average weight - though I *do* eat fish, yabbies, eggs, and some dairy). If elephants, rhinos, and hippos could bet they might too.
All that running takes a lot of calories,
(Hmmm, Cliff Young?)Why run at all? And why bark when you've got a pack of dogs?
ancient man wasn't in a pasta-making mood.
Pasta - well not exactly. Plenty of evidence around my place of early man - the most commonly seen ones are grain grinding bowls.... hunter gathers were mostly nomadic, meaning they moved according to where the food was, not aimlessly wandering. I suspect no-meat diets came much later in our development - when transfer of the protein rich foods from the equatorial regions to areas of high density human habitation away from the coast. Jared Diamond has written a series of interesting theories on how the origins of different food sources affected early societies. Most of early mans food sources would have been fruit, veg, grain, seafood and small game. In PNG traditional society (which isn't coastal) the main protein source is still not meat.
Ancient humans (pre-farming) would die out during the first winter or drought if they were herbivores.
I'm tempted to look for a pun about nuts:-D
Pre-farming doesn't mean pre-gathering. Grains, achenes, and filberts were an important part of the diet in many parts of the world (pre-farming).
Much of this discussion in this thread is like those silly shows where arm-chair enthusiasts try to rebuild ancient wonders and "prove" it impossible for modern man to recreate - and conveniently overlook the fact that none of those building feats are lost. I.e. people are theorizing about whether people "could have" eaten or done things - that people "do" do right now.
Never forget that we humans can not just adapt our surrounding - we are also very adaptable. One of the failing of some of the arguments made in the meat vs veg part of these threads is that mostly meat diets were/are a reality (Masai, Boers, etc) but pure vegetarians are a figment of modern (western) mans philosophies. In "real" life (away from health food shops, and dietary philosophers) veg means - no red meat - but rats, frogs, fish, birds, shellfish and insects are fair game. Mmmm grasshopper pizza - delicious, nutritious, high calorie, and so easy to get a feed from!:-)
Lastly, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace used to say (something like) - as long as you exercise a lot and drink plenty of water - it doesn't really matter what you eat.
P.S.=> What am I saying? He won't show & prove his statements, trollish though they are + without any substance... he'll run, like every troll does, when confronted... apk
Ha ha ha. If I had the mod points I'd mod you funny. I thought you were taking on Bruce Schnier, whipped him already have you? I don't think you'd even try - despite your boast "I'd take him on, on HOSTS files & layered security's effectiveness, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!"
Follow me all you like (in the virtual world) but I'm not going to be your "best pal" you sick fuck;-p
Cue the "got no life" ad hominem" hyprocrisy - like I'm stalking you (from in front).
And I’d have a hard time killing and dissecting that hunk of meat because (if you believe evolution) it took away my claws and fangs around the same time it gave me the brain I needed to fashion tools such as knives and utensils to take their place. Personally I’m okay with that trade-off.
As someone who occasionally agists horses - I often get owners coming and asking if I can "help" catch their horses - in 20 acre paddocks!. Horses think idiots "chasing" them are a great game... but seriously, as someone has spent time on stations where you can walk for week without seeing a fence - there is no land animal humans can't outdistance, or (potentially) outsmart. Motorbikes, quads, and helicopters is what you use to rounds up mobs of cattle - not single animals! You don't have to run - just walk you lazy, stupid, embarrassments to your ancestors. And I don't mean prehistoric ancestors - go back one century and you'd all have major problems. Sheesh - if you need to carry water for a half hour walk and think 3 hours a week in a gym makes you "fit" then, the, aw... just get off my lawn!;-p
I've been a vegetarian (who kills things) for 40+ years - I'm not political about it (I run sheep and cattle), eat what you want. That you can live healthily without meat, or with very little meat is a fact of life for much of the world's population. To say that a particular diet is the only diet for everyone is just foolish.
If I had my "druthers" I'd farm roos instead, but I can't. Would I get more protein per acre if I didn't run cattle - possibly, but it's a moot point. I don't make the demand - the consumer does. And just to confuse the issue - most of the (western) "vegies" I meet a pale, pastey, embarrassments. Just like some of the pro-veg arguments in these threads.
As for killing animals - I kill, skin, and clean rabbits all the time - no knives - just the same methods our hunter gatherer ancestors used (I suspect). A dog, my hands, and something sharp. It's not hard - dog grabs rabbit, I grab bunny by ears, dog drops rabbit. Snap rabbit neck == dead rabbit. Pinch skin in middle of rabbit's back, tear tiny hole with something sharp (stick, barb of wire), insert fingers, tear and tug - leaving a skinned rabbit. Head pulls off, back leg splits gut rabbit - check for parasites - feed dog (2 minutes, tops). The only difference between that and our ancestor is that my dog get all of it. My point being that our association with dogs is what meant we no longer needed to use of "fangs" and teeth to kill - or all a lot of our hearing and scent abilities.
Oh, and to those who propose I'm cruel and disgusting - get a life princesses - and make sure you wash your hands when gardening while you're at it.:-)
Natural, un-natural arguments are pointless - to paraphrase De Sade "if it wasn't natural, we couldn't do it".
Nice sig - sent that troll my love last night, and a quick response this morning.:-D
And where the hell are the posts about the fucking story folks? (sigh)
See my subject-line above. When you can come back, on topic, and technically disprove anything I stated above, then, you'd actually be on topic, like you're supposed to be, and you'd actually have posted something worth reading.
Yep - I see it, though given the (entirely predictable) post it's just a peedie hypocritical. My repudiation of your host file based malware panacea needs no expansion - it's adequately summarizes the points made by others many times before.
Your claims have been been shown as worthless dozens of times by people whose opinions I find worthy of respect.
You vs. Bruce Schneier? I don't think so. Have you ever managed to convince anyone that you're not a raving loon? If so how long did it take before they added you to their personal blacklist of witling fools to be ignored?.
I've previously given you a lot of time by reading, and considering your claims. You wasted my time - I want my money back, but you are factually bankrupt. I guess I'll just have to live with the loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Next step of nuttery - getting rid of quaint dietary taboos; greater utilization of animals with very basic brains as food sources, when there's no good reason to do otherwise. Insects are an excellent source of meat (very efficient - around an order of magnitude better, per resources used, than beef), and in things like mass-produced canned meat paste it would be even hard or impossible to taste a difference.
(in case somebody is not aware - you eat insects every day; the norms about their presence in grain / flour / fruits / etc. basically boil down to "maximum allowable number of insect body parts per unit of product")
Eat the dead, decomposition just reduces the need for cooking. Meat is meat. Waste is waste.
You get the insects whether you like it or not - don't use pesticides and your insects'll be healthier and so will your vegetables and fruit (insects boost phytochemical production). Economic rationalization makes as much sense applied to food as it does to society.
--
Michael Pollan - good books about food
Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.
Citation needed
--
Soylent Green - the smart peoples food
Who gets to decide who is stupid then?
The bloke with the silly shower hat, the white overalls, holding the bolt gun of course. Don't you know anything?
Come on people - the bus is waiting to take you all to the Sunshine home for clever folk. Leave your old laptops - you'll all be getting new iPads when we arrive.
they should be treated as 'non-human persons.'
Corporations are, so why not dolphins...
Hmmm - and missionaries don't bother corporations *or* dolphins....
Oh wait - are those Mormons in a wetsuits on aquabikes?
--
Caribou is not a woody word
Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.
To where is the only real question.
You are right of course - and there may be a prize for that, hopefully not a hood and a plane ride - because the subpoena is surely just for statistical purposes.... not being American, I have nothing to fear because:-
A: my government will protect me, and
B: I don't twitter, so I only have to worry about my use of Freenet and my donations - the latter is safe because Mastercard will refuse to co-operate.
Or have I missed something here?
---
Yesterday the media told the truth, today they announced a retraction
The Russians are drilling in Antarctica...
The Russians are very accomplished
I'm at least smart enough to recognize that she almost certainly do worse than the current holder of that office, who is even less qualified and who appears to be on track to beat out Jimmy Carter as the least competent holder of that office
It's hard to know where to start - you have so many things demonstrably and patently wrong. Sigh. You *might* be smart, but... you're basing her future performance on wishful thinking - so far she's made more public fuckups than Bush jnr.
Jimmy Carter was in office for how long?
It'll be a long time before anyone comes close to overcoming the sort of odds that the present president did to gain office. That he's still alive *and* in office with the level of hatred and sheer willful stupidity ranged against him is demonstration of incredible political skill - to put that down to sheer luck requires major cerebral trauma.
Congratulations. You're carrying a torch for a presidential candidate supported by her parties opposition - they, and the rest of the world recognize that her natural constituency don't vote or pay taxes. Maybe she could team up with Pauline Hanson - they could call themselves the Duh team.
Apropos of whatever - In Australia "Tea Party" is a reference to people who dress up in the underwear of the opposite sex under their street clothes - and meet for English hot beverages in public places. From what I can gather it's not much different in the USA.
.
Would it be impolite to point out that she has accomplished far more in life than you or I have, or probably ever will? If Sarah Palin is dumb, therefore, there's a significantly greater than zero chance that you and I are even dumber.
Not impolite as much as irrelevant. You seem to relate well-known with intelligent. The truly intelligent keep their lights well hidden (so I've heard) - for fear of pitchforks.
Of course it's possible you are right, in which case the cow that kicked a bucket that knocked over a lamp that burnt down a city, accomplished far more than Sarah Palin.
And as for "dumber", speak for yourself.
To further confuse "competency" with "dumb" and "accomplished" enables you to make compare with Jimmy Carter (ex-President) with someone who *has not* become President.
Neither competency, dumbness, or smartness explains the reasons for Kennedy beating his opponent. Your "idea" of competency appears based on comparing the actions of an individual against a machine represented as an individual - and there's an irony there somewhere (in the not-Alanis sense).
Ronald Reagan was possibly the most accomplished of president in the last fifty years - and he had his smartest bits removed in a fundamental surgical procedure. I suspect your inhaling some nasty fumes from that torch you're carrying. Hint: accomplished == get "things" done.
Disclaimer: I'm not North American so I know nothing.
It is a valid question, if you Drop the "What."
Nope, with the "What" dropped, it's just a dumb question.
I do use FF with NS and AB, so I was presented with a blank grey page between clicking the link for TFA and getting to TFA. TFA had no adverts surrounding it, but that is not the point. The experience presented to me was fucking annoying, and it must only be worse if the adverts are there!
You don't need another extension - Flashblock, Adblock Plus, NoScript, and BugMeNot are all the extensions you'll ever require. All you need to do is learn how to use "Open in New Tab" - it takes all of 5 seconds *while you're reading TFA* for the referenced grey page to load the text. I had to go back and do it all again - very fucking slowly to find out what you're blathering about Buddy.
No one asked about your bloody boring history of browsers - now get off my lawn.
The subgenius can have all my slack they can carry. There are not enough subgenius in all of history to impact my slack. You Bob-hugging lads need to remember that it is all a matter of perspective. Perspective does not cost $30. Someone is stealing from YOU! Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
I'll happily pay tax on my religion - and if I go to Hell I get my $30 back. You can keep yours *and* let someone else pull the wool over your eyes.
That's the dumbest analogy I've ever read.
And you'd have to be the biggest, dumbest, hypocrite I've come across in a long time.
As it is, I say they are screwing us, so we should take any opportunity to screw them.
He's done nothing wrong? Hmm, what is your street address? You DO realize that your security has a flaw, right? Lock bumping makes it trivially easy for me to break in to your house and take your stuff. Not to mention, I bet you have your windows made of glass. Obviously, you won't mind if I use your security errors to profit from you, right? You do? Isn't this the free market at work? If it's a problem, buy a better lock. If you don't buy a better lock, I'm justified in taking your stuff.
Ridiculum absolutem?
By your (distorted) logic if I happen to see a laptop that normally sells for $900 marked as $90 I should not buy it? Or are you suggesting that I pay $900 for it? What if I ask the shop assistant to put 6 of them aside for me, so I can send family members back to buy them later?
In fact the law says (in Australia) the retailer must sell it to me at the marked price except in circumstances where the marked price is higher than it should be (new stock has higher duties, doesn't apply to old stock etc). The retailer also has an obligation to the shareholders to correctly price/advertise the stock - for all the supposed luck involved the casino/betting operator has the same obligations. IANAL but neither do I get my legal opinions from my arse (or television). The reason for said ticket price law is not soley to ensure that the consumer gets the goods at the marked (advertised) price, but to conteract the common over and inconsistent pricing (eg. two different prices in the same store for same item, 500g cheese costing less per gram than 1kg of cheese, and other distortions of true value). Gaming the consumer is common, catching and punishing the company is hard - hence the "as advertised" law. Profit comes at a price and the onus is/should be on the one that profits to match the promise to the fact - and posted disclaimers be damned. Another reason for penalizing pricing/advertising "mistake" that favour consumers is to counteract "price war" advantages existing players (retailers) have over other players.
The home owner in your straw man promised you nothing - didn't invite you on their premises, and aside from a common law duty to allow innocent trespass (wrong house) and care (request assistance in emergency) the only thing you can expect from them is a call to the police and/or a beating.
I find it difficult tho believe that such a significantly biased argument such of yours is not through a failure to display "good faith".
Disclaimer: I'm an ex-publican - one reason for the "ex" is pokie machines *which* are most certainly rigged - something the manufacturers and distributors are quick to point out.
Are you seriously saying that there might be such a thing as ghosts?
Or Santa, Easter Bunny, God, pixies at the bottom of the garden, angels. demons, or little green men (or big grey lizard people) and no - the big kids *didn't* do it either.
Bring on the "keep an open mind" mob with teh pitchforks and meta-semantic bullshit. No I can't prove a negative - your point being?
To paraphrase some dead guy - "by the time you're 35 you have the face and the *opinions* you deserve".
Gullibility.
As long as you have that the necessary tools can be cheaply and easily fashioned from string, masking tape, and empty toilet rolls. They won't look as impressive a genuine e-meter, but they work just as well.
Or be forced to live with broken legs, as millions of 60 day old chickens do, because they were bred so that they would put on weight faster than their bodies can cope (and producing eggs every day takes all the calcium out of their bodies).
Crap - you're talking about battery hens fed bad food (waste from corn, cottonseed , meat, and fish) + antibiotics. The breed you're referring to (a la Peter loony Singer) is the Leghorn - which doesn't have that problem when allowed to free-range in a healthy environment.
Australorps for instance will lay almost every day of the year - and free-ranging suffer from no calcium deficiency. They get the calcium they need from water, food, and eating rocks.
I've reached an ethical decision, I'm a vegan, and have been for thirty years,
Good for you. It's your choice. Whether or not it's healthier, or better for the economy, or the planet is not the same thing.
.and I'm definitely on higher moral ground than fools like you.
No. The higher moral ground is relative. As is a "fool". What you indisputably are is a "bigot". What I'd call you is a "fool" if you believe that you are doing the planet a favour with your aversion to animal products and a dietary choice that is unsustainable without health food stores and a massive transportation infrastructure.
Perhaps I misunderstand you're "high moral ground" - humans who don't respect animals do so because they believe they are superior to other animals. And *you* are superior to those people because you hold that animals have rights? (do humans have rights?).
As for exacerbating the market by eating less meat forcing farmers to cut corners? Actually the stress put on farmers currently which forces them already to cut so many corners is supermarket domination forcing them to sell their product for the barest survivable profit.
Thank you for pointing out that which is obvious to (us) farmers. The "eat more meat" campaign is the Meat Marketing Industry - they no more represent the farmer than the bloody "Dairy Board".
And don't forget wool and hides when considering the farming of animals.
Also, don't suffer from the delusion that the cows know what's going on.
What have you been snorting?
Let me put you in a yard with some cattle and a 12-pound sledgehammer, I'll sell tickets, while you test your theory. I "know" what happens - as opposed to "thinking" you "know" what will happen. Key difference being the difference between "thinking" and "believing".
Hint: the first kill is relatively easy - the second kill will probably be you.
We breed stock to be stupid and docile, but there are limits. Clearly your experience of where your meat comes from is limited to the supermarket - or you just don't understand much. Anyone who's worked an abattoir line "knows" you're mistaken.
I expect you'll instinctively trot out an "instinct" argument.
Call it xenophobia then. I was imprecise, I give you that.
Is that the fear of leather clad NZ lesbians in television fantasies?
My sig has nothing to do with Race. Oh. Wait. By racist you do not actually mean racist. You mean 'I don't like you and wish to call you bad names.'
Cool. I get it now.
A "racist" is someone who "discriminates" by race. An "ageist" discriminates by age, A "colourist" is someone who discriminates by colour. A "bigot" is someone who holds that "something" is "better" than something else. Someone who doesn't "discriminate" will be found wandering the car park unable to locate the car they arrived in. Someone who is unable to discriminate between a "racist" and a "racial bigot" is a "moron".
Oh course - I could be just semantically pedantic (you know what I mean). Certainly I concede that popular opinion disagrees with me.
We're saying the same things - processed grains (bread, pasta) and sugars (soda, candy, snack cakes) are very calorie-dense. If you sit down and eat ribeye until you're full, and the person beside you eats Little Debbies until they're full, the person beside you is going to be consuming a shit ton more calories than you are.
Meat is not the cause of obesity.
Insufficient exercise *and* over-eating is the 'cause of obesity. Half an hour of "light" exercise a day is not fitness. Exercise of more than a continuous hour a day - every day - leads to a raised metabolic rate even when not exercising. Few jobs (if any) in the modern western world give you an hour of continuously raised heart beat a day. Most football players are not as fit as our many of our ancestors were a hundred years ago - or as much of the world (so called third) is now.
Regarding digestion, you do realize that humans _can_ metabolize raw meat/fat, but only in small doses? Cooking meat came before modern man (because cooking meat reduces the energy required to digest it, that energy can be applied to the brain).
A source for that information would be interesting. Do the Inuit count?
bet your anemic vegetarian wireframe doesn't have enough fat to last a drought.
I'll take your bet (very low fat layer, above average weight - though I *do* eat fish, yabbies, eggs, and some dairy). If elephants, rhinos, and hippos could bet they might too.
All that running takes a lot of calories,
(Hmmm, Cliff Young?)Why run at all? And why bark when you've got a pack of dogs?
ancient man wasn't in a pasta-making mood.
Pasta - well not exactly. Plenty of evidence around my place of early man - the most commonly seen ones are grain grinding bowls.... hunter gathers were mostly nomadic, meaning they moved according to where the food was, not aimlessly wandering. I suspect no-meat diets came much later in our development - when transfer of the protein rich foods from the equatorial regions to areas of high density human habitation away from the coast. Jared Diamond has written a series of interesting theories on how the origins of different food sources affected early societies. Most of early mans food sources would have been fruit, veg, grain, seafood and small game. In PNG traditional society (which isn't coastal) the main protein source is still not meat.
Ancient humans (pre-farming) would die out during the first winter or drought if they were herbivores.
I'm tempted to look for a pun about nuts :-D
Pre-farming doesn't mean pre-gathering. Grains, achenes, and filberts were an important part of the diet in many parts of the world (pre-farming).
Much of this discussion in this thread is like those silly shows where arm-chair enthusiasts try to rebuild ancient wonders and "prove" it impossible for modern man to recreate - and conveniently overlook the fact that none of those building feats are lost. I.e. people are theorizing about whether people "could have" eaten or done things - that people "do" do right now.
Never forget that we humans can not just adapt our surrounding - we are also very adaptable. One of the failing of some of the arguments made in the meat vs veg part of these threads is that mostly meat diets were/are a reality (Masai, Boers, etc) but pure vegetarians are a figment of modern (western) mans philosophies. In "real" life (away from health food shops, and dietary philosophers) veg means - no red meat - but rats, frogs, fish, birds, shellfish and insects are fair game. Mmmm grasshopper pizza - delicious, nutritious, high calorie, and so easy to get a feed from! :-)
Lastly, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace used to say (something like) - as long as you exercise a lot and drink plenty of water - it doesn't really matter what you eat.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932290&cid=34749168 See you there, backup your bullshit - , troll.
APK
P.S.=> What am I saying? He won't show & prove his statements, trollish though they are + without any substance... he'll run, like every troll does, when confronted... apk
Ha ha ha. If I had the mod points I'd mod you funny. I thought you were taking on Bruce Schnier, whipped him already have you? I don't think you'd even try - despite your boast "I'd take him on, on HOSTS files & layered security's effectiveness, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!"
Follow me all you like (in the virtual world) but I'm not going to be your "best pal" you sick fuck ;-p
Cue the "got no life" ad hominem" hyprocrisy - like I'm stalking you (from in front).
We are not fast enough to catch the animals that we eat.
Maybe you aren’t fast enough, lard-ass, but don’t go saying “we” as if you get to speak for the entire human race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
And I’d have a hard time killing and dissecting that hunk of meat because (if you believe evolution) it took away my claws and fangs around the same time it gave me the brain I needed to fashion tools such as knives and utensils to take their place. Personally I’m okay with that trade-off.
As someone who occasionally agists horses - I often get owners coming and asking if I can "help" catch their horses - in 20 acre paddocks!. Horses think idiots "chasing" them are a great game... but seriously, as someone has spent time on stations where you can walk for week without seeing a fence - there is no land animal humans can't outdistance, or (potentially) outsmart. Motorbikes, quads, and helicopters is what you use to rounds up mobs of cattle - not single animals! You don't have to run - just walk you lazy, stupid, embarrassments to your ancestors. And I don't mean prehistoric ancestors - go back one century and you'd all have major problems. Sheesh - if you need to carry water for a half hour walk and think 3 hours a week in a gym makes you "fit" then, the, aw... just get off my lawn! ;-p
I've been a vegetarian (who kills things) for 40+ years - I'm not political about it (I run sheep and cattle), eat what you want. That you can live healthily without meat, or with very little meat is a fact of life for much of the world's population. To say that a particular diet is the only diet for everyone is just foolish.
If I had my "druthers" I'd farm roos instead, but I can't. Would I get more protein per acre if I didn't run cattle - possibly, but it's a moot point. I don't make the demand - the consumer does. And just to confuse the issue - most of the (western) "vegies" I meet a pale, pastey, embarrassments. Just like some of the pro-veg arguments in these threads.
As for killing animals - I kill, skin, and clean rabbits all the time - no knives - just the same methods our hunter gatherer ancestors used (I suspect). A dog, my hands, and something sharp. It's not hard - dog grabs rabbit, I grab bunny by ears, dog drops rabbit. Snap rabbit neck == dead rabbit. Pinch skin in middle of rabbit's back, tear tiny hole with something sharp (stick, barb of wire), insert fingers, tear and tug - leaving a skinned rabbit. Head pulls off, back leg splits gut rabbit - check for parasites - feed dog (2 minutes, tops). The only difference between that and our ancestor is that my dog get all of it. My point being that our association with dogs is what meant we no longer needed to use of "fangs" and teeth to kill - or all a lot of our hearing and scent abilities. Oh, and to those who propose I'm cruel and disgusting - get a life princesses - and make sure you wash your hands when gardening while you're at it. :-)
Natural, un-natural arguments are pointless - to paraphrase De Sade "if it wasn't natural, we couldn't do it".
Nice sig - sent that troll my love last night, and a quick response this morning. :-D
And where the hell are the posts about the fucking story folks? (sigh)
See my subject-line above. When you can come back, on topic, and technically disprove anything I stated above, then, you'd actually be on topic, like you're supposed to be, and you'd actually have posted something worth reading.
Yep - I see it, though given the (entirely predictable) post it's just a peedie hypocritical. My repudiation of your host file based malware panacea needs no expansion - it's adequately summarizes the points made by others many times before.
Your claims have been been shown as worthless dozens of times by people whose opinions I find worthy of respect.
You vs. Bruce Schneier? I don't think so. Have you ever managed to convince anyone that you're not a raving loon? If so how long did it take before they added you to their personal blacklist of witling fools to be ignored?.
I've previously given you a lot of time by reading, and considering your claims. You wasted my time - I want my money back, but you are factually bankrupt. I guess I'll just have to live with the loss.
Yawn. fin.