I've been a vegetarian for two days.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 16, 2011, 10:45 am

Aslanna wrote:
Spang wrote:Your rationalizations for continuing to contribute to the torture and slaughter of animals are shit. You claim that it's okay to eat meat because people have been doing it for thousands of years. But if that's the case, then we never should have ended slavery or women's suffrage. We probably should have continued the extermination of Native Americans, and not interfered with Hitler's quest to rid the world of Jews. You're participating in a holocaust right now. You'll argue that they're only animals, but you'll be repeating the same argument as Hitler, who, by the way, was not a vegetarian.
Who said I was rationalizing anything? Here's a fucking clue since you obviously can't get one on your own: I don't need to rationalize shit to you or anyone else.

And comparing me to Hitler? What the shit dude? You're off your rocker. You really need to get a grip on reality.

Troll.

What would Bilbo do?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 16, 2011, 11:01 am

it's amusing when the stupid decide to brandish self-rightousness.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 16, 2011, 11:27 am

I'm not sure what it has to do the price of cat crap in Romania but:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... etarianism
http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/killers.html - "Charles Manson - Vegan Animal Rights Activist"

Many vegans are smelly, that's just the likelihood of being a latter day hippy kicking in.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2011, 12:05 pm

thread just got ripe enough to join the Retards section.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » August 16, 2011, 1:10 pm

Spang wrote:
Canelek wrote:Only half? Un petite? Let's see em. Show us your tits you pussy.

Your turn, sweetheart.

And this thread just turned SEXY!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 16, 2011, 1:30 pm

Why are your nipples so hairy, while the central area is bare? Do you purposely shave it that way?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 16, 2011, 1:33 pm

masteen wrote:Why are your nipples so hairy, while the central area is bare? Do you purposely shave it that way?

I only shave my neck.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 16, 2011, 1:44 pm

masteen wrote:Why are your nipples so hairy, while the central area is bare? Do you purposely shave it that way?

Lol "central area." All men are not haired equally.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 17, 2011, 12:00 pm

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 17, 2011, 3:25 pm

You like to keep linking that cancer 'facts' page but have you actually read it? If you do you'd notice that a lot of the cases are based on frequency and not an absolute 'meat or no meat' scenario. There's nothing there to suggest that with moderate meat intake you're not at "optimal health".

To save you some time things to look out for would be phrases such as:

it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk

"possibly".

For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk

"probably" and that comes after the "Processed meat, saturated/animal fat and heavily cooked" part. What about unprocessed lean and not heavily cooked meat? There are alternative ways to prepare meat other than slapping a steak on a grill.

All meats (including fish) are high in creatine, and HCA formation is greatest when cooking meat at high temperatures, as is most common with grilling or frying

Preparation issue rather than meat itself being unhealthy.

952 subjects with rectal cancer and 1205 controls found that men and women with the highest consumption of processed or well-cooked meat had an increased risk

The people with the "highest consumption" had an increased risk. Well there's a shocker.

In Japan, for example, the traditional diet is much lower in fat, especially animal fat, than the typical western diet, and breast cancer rates are low.

However they still ate meat. The difference being their diet didn't center on animal products. But I'm fairly certain they still incorporated them. Who is up for some whale!

Even within Japan, affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat

Again that's a frequency issue. What's your risk if you eat it once a week? Why are the only choices you seem to consider are no meat or meat heavy? Not everything has to be extreme at either end.

the Nurses’ Health Study II and determined that intake of animal fat, especially from red meat and high-fat dairy products, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Fatty red meat bad.. Check.. High-fat dairy bad.. Check. Again those aren't the only two choices that can be made.

Significant relative risks for meat and saturated fat intake also emerged, with high meat intake increasing cancer risk by 17 percent and high saturated fat intake increasing cancer risk by 19 percent

Once again a frequency issue. If you go out to McDonalds daily for a Big Mac and fries yeah you'll probably have an increased risk. I don't think you'd find anyone here that would dispute that.

As a consequence, frequent meat consumption may be a risk factor for breast cancer.

"Frequent meat consumption". Nothing else to say there really!

As with breast cancer, frequent consumption of meat, particularly red meat, is associated with an increased risk of colon cancer.

Starting to sound like a broken record here...

At Harvard University, researchers zeroed in on red meat, finding that individuals eating beef, pork, or lamb daily have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to people who generally avoid these products

Daily! And also they say compared to people who "generally avoid" which doesn't mean none at all

148,610 adults followed since 1982, the group with the highest red meat and processed meat intakes had approximately 30 to 40 percent and 50 percent higher colon cancer risk, respectively, compared to those with lower intakes.

higher vs lower intake. Oh no that can't be.. People can never consume just a moderate amount of meat they must eat 2 pounds of it a day! At least in your world apparently.

In addition, earlier studies have also indicated that those consuming white meat, particularly chicken, have approximately a threefold higher colon cancer risk, compared to vegetarians.

That's about the only thing that goes with your 'any amount of meat is bad' theory you seem to have. However I would be interested in how that chicken was prepared.. Grilled, deep dried, etc. And does the same hold true with other types of meat like fish and grubs.

not only was red meat intake positively associated with colon cancer risk, but also pan-frying was the riskiest way to prepare meat due to high HCA formation. Confirmation of the link between frying and colorectal cancer risk was adduced in the review mentioned above, where high frying temperature was found to increase colon cancer risk almost twofold, and rectal cancer risk by 60 percent

As with breast cancer risk, a man’s intake of dietary fat, which is abundant in meat and other animal products, increases testosterone production, which in turn increases prostate cancer risk. One of the largest nested case-control studies, which showed a positive association between prostate cancer incidence and red meat consumption

There is meat that is low in fat. Red meat isn't the only kind you know!

the authors found that men who consumed red meat at least five times per week had a relative risk of 2.5 for developing prostate cancer compared to men who ate red meat less than once per week

Frequency issue.. Who can even eat red meat five or more times a week? Well I am sure a lot can but I don't recommend it when there's so many tasty alternative out there!

These and other study findings suggest that reducing or eliminating meat from the diet reduces the risk of prostate cancer

Oh look you can still eat meat and reduce your risk.. Just don't fucking eat so much of it. That's what's called a 'Science Fact'.

This finding implies that cooking methods, and possibly HCA and PAH formation in cooked meat, might explain the association as well as some of the inconsistencies in data that show a relationship between meat in the diet and pancreatic carcinogenesis.

So meat itself isn't the issue.. But the cooking methods "possibly.. might explain" things.

A few of the research cited by footnotes I wouldn't mind reading further, such as Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-day Adventists, but they don't seem to be generally available to the public other than abstracts such as:

...Compared to Adventists who heavily use meat the vegetarian Adventists have a substantially lower risk of fatal coronary disease, fatal diabetes and death from any cause, especially among men. Among Adventist men who use few animal products (meat, milk, cheese, eggs) the risk of fatal prostate cancer is one third that of Adventist men who heavily use such products.

Sounds a lot like frequency to me. The second group, which while using fewer, still use some animal products and they have a lower risk.

Honestly I don't think health concerns are the primary driver for your anti-meat stance but rather ethical issues are. Which hey is cool and all but not everyone has those same dilemmas. So while your position is right for you that doesn't mean it's the only option. You should be more tolerant of others viewpoints.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 17, 2011, 3:39 pm

Aslanna wrote:. So while your position is right for you that doesn't mean it's the only option. You should be more tolerant of others viewpoints.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 4:11 pm

Aslanna wrote:Honestly I don't think health concerns are the primary driver for your anti-meat stance but rather ethical issues are.

Yes, in addition to the health aspect, there are ethics involved in my decision to go vegan. Mostly, though, it's empathy. I put myself in the "shoes" of the animals and ask myself how I would feel if I lived the life of, say, a dairy cow, being constantly tortured and raped, having my babies and milk taken from me for profit. And then, after my milk is all dried up, I get to be slaughtered for shitty meat used in fast food burgers.

In 2011, it just doesn't make any goddamn sense to unnecessarily torture and slaughter billions upon billions of animals every year for the same nutrients we can get in a vegan diet with no risk of deadly cancers, heart disease or any of those other inconveniences.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 17, 2011, 4:15 pm

So, in order to have empathy, one needs to imagine being a raped cow. You must have a ton of free time.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 17, 2011, 4:16 pm

Anyway, as for "The Cancer Project":

Chaired by a former PETA VP
Funded by PETA
The "physicians group" behind it has basically no physicians\medical people in it
AMA condemns it.

Which isn't to say some of the points made aren't correct, the best lies contain a little truth. It's not arguable that formerly rare cancers have followed the adoption of a "western diet" around the world. Meat isn't necessarily the major culprit though and veganism isn't a fix.

My sister generally avoids telling people she's vegan to avoid being lumped in with the self righteous douche-baggery that's the predominant characteristic of vegans.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 4:26 pm

Canelek wrote:So, in order to have empathy, one needs to imagine being a raped cow.

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Another can be a cow in a factory farm, a child in a sweatshop, a woman in the Middle East--any sentient being.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 17, 2011, 4:33 pm

Ain't nothing healthy about rape-fantasy, sparky.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 17, 2011, 4:45 pm

Depends if you make the moral equivalence between a cow and a girl, which you seem to have begun doing. In which case it's a moral choice, "science" as presented by you (and PETA) has nothing to do with that argument.

Post by **pyrella** » August 17, 2011, 5:12 pm

PETA's a great source for giving relief to animals:

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/09/petas ... cs-fuming/

But PETA has a lesser-known claim to fame that has critics fuming: The organization euthanizes over 90 percent of the dogs and cats relinquished to its headquarters in Norfolk, Va. In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats -- 97 percent of those brought in -- and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent.

Don't kill your animals and eat them - let us just kill them for you.

How about you put yourself in the shoes of these 'rescued animals' and empathize with the 'ethical treatment'. You've been rescued, btw you're doomed to death. (Read beyond what's just quoted, it's not just dogs and cats, perfectly viable horses and cows and sheep go down too)

Not to devolve this in to a PETA/Non Peta discussion - but if they took a fraction of their advertising budget and bought land, supplies, and paid wages they'd be able to take care of thousands of animals humanely. Save the animals that need saving, not the ones whose very existence came about from the meat industry.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 17, 2011, 5:34 pm

The only PETA I support would be People for the Ethical Treatment of Automatons. I haven't heard from them since some old Hell.com communications though

Sajko · Post by **Sajko** » August 17, 2011, 5:55 pm

This thread makes me wanna get a job slaughtering animals. Seriously.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 17, 2011, 5:56 pm

Stayed with my friend in DC for the weekend a couple weeks ago.. She lives in the Dupont Circle neighborhood, and there is a big house/building PETA owns nearby her building.. it was kinda dumpy and creepy looking, would fit right in a horror movie. That is all.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 6:03 pm

Canelek wrote:Ain't nothing healthy about rape-fantasy, sparky.

It's not a fantasy, it's reality.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 6:04 pm

I'm not a big fan of PETA, either.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 17, 2011, 6:09 pm

Spang wrote:
Canelek wrote:Ain't nothing healthy about rape-fantasy, sparky.
It's not a fantasy, it's reality.

That's seriously fucked up

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 6:14 pm

Canelek wrote:
Spang wrote:
Canelek wrote:Ain't nothing healthy about rape-fantasy, sparky.
It's not a fantasy, it's reality.
That's seriously fucked up

That's what I've been trying to tell you people. These animals are tortured, raped and slaughtered everyday. It's fucked up.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 17, 2011, 6:49 pm

Nah, not that. What is fucked up is your rape-fantasy-turned-reality.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 6:55 pm

Canelek wrote:Nah, not that. What is fucked up is your rape-fantasy-turned-reality.

I don't think you quite understand the word empathy. It has nothing to do with fantasizing.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 17, 2011, 7:32 pm

Spang wrote:
Canelek wrote:Nah, not that. What is fucked up is your rape-fantasy-turned-reality.
I don't think you quite understand the word empathy. It has nothing to do with fantasizing.

Just like you don't understand the word "reality."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 17, 2011, 7:34 pm

Spang wrote:
Canelek wrote:Ain't nothing healthy about rape-fantasy, sparky.
It's not a fantasy, it's reality.

I've never read about a woman being raped for her milk and to be eaten...I'm sure there's a case or two out there. I'd guess mostly it's for dominance fantasies and sexual pleasure.

Cows aren't raped you idiot. Now...lifting the tail up and fucking the cow would be rape...or sucking on its utters for pleasure...wrapping your cock in some hay and hoping for some twisted blowjob could be cow rape. You need to take the bestiality course at your college to get a handle on beast rape vs chopping something up for grub.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 17, 2011, 7:40 pm

What are your views on insects and microbes? Are they unworthy of your empathy, or do you count them amongst your brethren? Technically, even plants are living things. How do you justify the yearly Holocaust known as harvest day?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 7:42 pm

Winnow wrote:Cows aren't raped you idiot.

Most dairy cows are artificially inseminated over and over and over. Otherwise, they won't pop out babies and produce milk frequently enough to maximize profits.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 7:45 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:How do you justify the yearly Holocaust known as harvest day?

In the United States, 70 to 80 percent of corn, wheat, oats and soy are used to feed the 10 billion land animals that are tortured and slaughtered annually.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 17, 2011, 7:53 pm

I think you should stick with being sympathetic about your cow-rape fantasies as oppossed to "walking in their hoofs" and imagining being raped.

Of course, if you were raped by a farmer or dairy employee, you would certainly have empathy there. Whatever floats your boat.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 17, 2011, 8:12 pm

Spang wrote:
Winnow wrote:Cows aren't raped you idiot.
Most dairy cows are artificially inseminated over and over and over. Otherwise, they won't pop out babies and produce milk frequently enough to maximize profits.

Again, that's not rape, it's breeding animals for food.

Human rapists aren't artificially inseminating women in order to eat them. What vegan evangelist is feeding you this cow rape shit?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 17, 2011, 8:26 pm

Spang wrote:
Winnow wrote:Cows aren't raped you idiot.
Most dairy cows are artificially inseminated over and over and over. Otherwise, they won't pop out babies and produce milk frequently enough to maximize profits.

If left to their own devices? You bet they sure would be, them bulls would be raping everybody up there. Ever been on a farm?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 17, 2011, 8:33 pm

Spang wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:How do you justify the yearly Holocaust known as harvest day?
In the United States, 70 to 80 percent of corn, wheat, oats and soy are used to feed the 10 billion land animals that are tortured and slaughtered annually.

And the energy density of those animals exceeds what humans would gain by eating the the plants as most of them are herbivores and can get by on fodder we can't digest (since we haven't evolved for that type of diet).

If we were all vegetarians the harvest & yield would have to increase, along with it's by-kill. The by-kill to support a vegetarian diet exceeds that of an omnivore, assuming you aren't living on a coop\commune, hand harvesting and not using pesticides or fertilizers.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 8:38 pm

Aabidano wrote:If we were all vegetarians the harvest & yield would have to increase, along with it's by-kill. The by-kill to support a vegetarian diet exceeds that of an omnivore, assuming you aren't living on a coop\commune, hand harvesting and not using pesticides or fertilizers.

I'm not familiar with the term "by-kill."

Post by **pyrella** » August 17, 2011, 9:58 pm

Yes you are - we went over it several times earlier in this thread. You know, all the poor rodentia, insects, and other forms of life killed as a by-product of cultivating and harvesting crops.

You know - your murder-veggies. You may not rape the corn..yet, but you'll decapitate field mice so you can enjoy it =/

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 17, 2011, 10:04 pm

pyrella wrote:Yes you are - we went over it several times earlier in this thread. You know, all the poor rodentia, insects, and other forms of life killed as a by-product of cultivating and harvesting crops.

You know - your murder-veggies. You may not rape the corn..yet, but you'll decapitate field mice so you can enjoy it =/

Approximately 10 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for meat consumption. Are you saying that more animals are slaughtered each year as a result of harvesting fruits and vegetables?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 18, 2011, 1:19 am

So you're a vegan because less animals die to get you fed. Where is the clothing you're wearing in the nipple picture manufactured?

(:-|

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 18, 2011, 6:55 am

Spang wrote:
pyrella wrote:Yes you are - we went over it several times earlier in this thread. You know, all the poor rodentia, insects, and other forms of life killed as a by-product of cultivating and harvesting crops.

You know - your murder-veggies. You may not rape the corn..yet, but you'll decapitate field mice so you can enjoy it =/
Approximately 10 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for meat consumption. Are you saying that more animals are slaughtered each year as a result of harvesting fruits and vegetables?

We've been over this before. Fruit and some veg?, for those that are hand harvested and locally consumed the direct kill is limited. Everything else? You bet. Industrial scale farming and processing majorly impacts the entire food chain, air land and water.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 18, 2011, 9:20 am

Aabidano wrote:
Spang wrote:Approximately 10 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for meat consumption. Are you saying that more animals are slaughtered each year as a result of harvesting fruits and vegetables?
We've been over this before. Fruit and some veg?, for those that are hand harvested and locally consumed the direct kill is limited. Everything else? You bet. Industrial scale farming and processing majorly impacts the entire food chain, air land and water.

As I stated previously, in the United States, 70 to 80 percent of all corn, wheat, oats and soy are used to feed the 10 billion land animals that are tortured and slaughtered annually, and the other billions of animals that will be slaughtered in a future year. I find it very hard to believe that a person who doesn't eat animals is a bigger contributor to the slaughter of animals. And we're just talking land animals. If we throw marine animals into the picture, the number of animals slaughtered each year more than doubles.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 18, 2011, 11:40 am

Spang wrote:As I stated previously, in the United States, 70 to 80 percent of all corn, wheat, oats and soy are used to feed...

And as was responded earlier, much of that isn't fir for human consumption.

So you believe it's morally superior to unintentionally kill (as a ratio, I don't claim real numbers) 4 million quail, field mice, rabbits, possums, racoons, etc... who are out minding their own business in a farmers field and either leave them to rot or grind them up into your 100% natural vegan stone ground (more mice & rats killed) whole wheat bread. Not to mention the impacts of increased fertilizer and pesticide use.

Or you can slaughter 1 million cows, pigs, sheep, etc.. who largely eat things humans can't or wouldn't and chow down on them instead?

Not to mention the cowpocolypse if we stop eating them, no one's going to pay to keep then around for no reason after all. Maybe a PETA director will take a cut in his bonus for the extra euthanization costs that year.

I guess we could just feed them to Sally Struthers.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 18, 2011, 11:51 am

Canelek wrote:Ain't nothing healthy about rape-fantasy, sparky.

Now this kid is raping cows? I agree, this born again vegetarian's a fucking sicko. Everyone knows a ripe tomato makes for better fucking.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » August 18, 2011, 12:02 pm

Aabidano wrote:So you believe it's morally superior to unintentionally kill (as a ratio, I don't claim real numbers)...

Without real numbers, you don't have a real argument. Look, there's no way, even if every human being on the planet went vegan, to completely end the slaughter of animals. Automobiles, power lines and windows, for example, slaughter up to 1 billion birds every year. But if every human did go vegan, the slaughter of animals would be greatly reduced, because every year, approximately 10 billion land animals and 18 billion marine animals wouldn't be needlessly slaughtered for a species that isn't even designed to eat meat in the first place. And, everyone's carbon footprint would be reduced by two tons.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 18, 2011, 12:21 pm

without real numbers, just like how you post without real facts

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 18, 2011, 12:35 pm

I'm not "going vegan" so fuck off already. Nobody gives a shit about your "facts" which are anything but.

I'm sure anyone who wants to reduce their meat consumption without bullshit preaching and vegan propaganda from the likes of you will come to the conslusion on their own terms.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 18, 2011, 12:59 pm

Spang wrote:
Aabidano wrote:So you believe it's morally superior to unintentionally kill (as a ratio, I don't claim real numbers)...
Without real numbers, you don't have a real argument. Look, there's no way, even if every human being on the planet went vegan, to completely end the slaughter of animals. Automobiles, power lines and windows

The ratio is a reasonable guess plus I'm not using made up numbers from sources with an agenda as you are.

And, everyone's carbon footprint would be reduced by two tons.

That's a new one, and probably correct in a tea party-ish fashion. Meaning as long as you don't examine it too closely.

Your stance is fine, but the propaganda you're infatuated with to promote and justify it doesn't follow through for anyone living in a modern society.

To sum up - the ends don't justify the means.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 18, 2011, 1:12 pm

A great comment from one of the links that douchebag posted.

being an extremist and using negativity/guilt to get people to change the way they eat/live is never ever going to work. i've been a vegan for six years, vegetarian for three years prior to that, and i've influenced at least a dozen people to switch, and do you know how? by not PREACHING to them. that just fucking pisses people off. its a hard change for a lot of people who are hesitant anyway. you're turning them off from the idea. you need to be promoting it with positivity. if they need a transitional vegetarian time, then so be it. you dont get to tell people that it isnt good enough when dropping meat is a really big deal to some people. chill the fuck out. you make us all look bad.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 18, 2011, 1:13 pm

Spang wrote:In 2011, it just doesn't make any goddamn sense to unnecessarily torture and slaughter billions upon billions of animals every year for the same nutrients we can get in a vegan diet with no risk of deadly cancers, heart disease or any of those other inconveniences.

Bullshit alert!

The lesson you still aren't learning is that it is THOUGHT that the diets of the MOST FREQUENT consumers of the SHITTIEST parts and preparations of red meat MIGHT give you an INCREASED risk of the diseases you mention.

I'm sorry to inform you that you are still at risk for deadly cancers, heart diseases and other inconveniences.

Let's assume that all of your proselytizing works, and the entire world switches to being vegan tomorrow. What do you think happens to the billions of cows in the world? Left to enjoy themselves in the pasture? Horrific bloodbath/starvation scenario worse than anything you've ever seen in a movie? Then, moving down the timeline from there a while, think of all the billions, nay trillions, of future generations of ruminants that would never even be born. You would deprive all of them from feeling the sunshine on their backs, chewing their cud and enjoying a life of blissful ignorance until their number is up? I've got news for you, pal, all of our numbers will be up someday. The best we can hope for is to be allowed to chew our cud in peace until that happens.

You're worse than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. You don't even want the poor, innocent, ~~delicious veal~~ baby cows to have a chance at life.