Guns guns guns

[vn_Tanc]

What price do you put on human life?

Depends who it is
In general? Not much. Supply and demand etc.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I stayed away from this topic because I was afraid it would be stupid. Boy was I right. I just don't understand how you could read a story about someone killing 5 other people and find anything amusing about it at all. Guns, Guns, Guns??? Whats your point? Are you anti-guns? Are you pro-murder? Are you a racist and get a kick out of some white hunters getting killed? /shrug

[Fazzar]

Dar, you drink milk from cows? You call hunting barbaric? You ever see a milk farm, vegan boy? Ya, ya..."organic sources", whatever....you really think that cow is giving up her milk peacefully and willingly? You are oppressing those dairy cows...let them live in peace without torturing them by milking them for your sadistic pleasure of drinking their milk that should only be for their offspring. The only possible reason you have to drink their milk must be for your sadistic pleasure since there are many vegetarian sources for the calcium in milk...there is no reason in this modern world to drink milk.
You sick, hypocritical fuck....I sincerely hope that a herd of "organic" dairy cows sit on your ass and crush you slowly to death.
And, ya....what exactly is the difference between some faggot-hating idiot wanting you to get AIDS and die, and you wishing hunters to die? Seems exactly the same to me. Please spell it out for me....educate me, please.
Seriously, what a sick fuck you are.

[Homercles]

I view the spread of vegetarianism as education working well,

Oh, enlightened one. You of vast intellect and absolute morals, I assume would prefer a world of vegetarians. When one day you can lift your head proud and say "Yes, all animals can live in peace and free from mankinds evil hands"

You Kev, and Dar, are what I call Dumbass Vegetarians. Not all vegetarians are dumbasses, but those that want a vegetarian world are dumbasses. Complete and total.

Let me spread some education of my own for you enlightened vegetarians:
A world wide vegetarian population is logistically IMPOSSIBLE. It CAN NOT happen. There is not enough farmland on this planet to feed a 100% vegetarian society.
Maybe if we cut down all the forests and converted them to farmland. Maybe if we removed all Wildlife Preserves and National Parks from protection and converted them to farmland. Maybe if we pumped out 100 times more greenhouse gases to aid global warming, thus creating more farmland and longer growing seasons. The MAYBE, just MAYBE, we'll have enough farmland to feed a complete vegetarian society. But its still highly unlikely. NOT POSSIBLE

Then you can add this problem to the already existing production problems. If we no longer hunt (which seems to be your ultimate goal. Dont need meat, dont need to hunt, dont need to kill animals), then the deer poputlation would overwhelm any possibilities of growing crops. As it stands now, we harvest 10 million deer a year....and theres still an overpopulation problem. In your ideal world not one deer would be killed by mans hands (Its their world too ya know) Imagine the problems we'd have without deer hunters. The deer would strip every possible food source from the wooded area they live in. (assuming there are still wooded areas that havent been converted into farmland). After devouring that food source, they would migrate onto your precious farmland. Say goodbye to your crops. After stripping that resource (because they would. It would be inhumane to kill a deer just because its hungry. Its there world too ya know!) starvation and hunger would start to set in. Disease would also be unavoidable due to the uncontrolled deer population. Theyd eat their food. Theyd eat our food. Theyd spread disease and eventually die of starvation.

The deers natural predator is the human being. It wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is our responsibility to control the deer population. If we dont we are condemning the deer population to disease and starvation. Is that a better solution for you?? To starve a deer to death rather than have it live a healthy, yet shortened life?

[Seebs]

I have the utm,ost respect for Vegans, etc. I can't imagine having tha tstructured of a diet, if I did I would be healthier without a doubt.

I'm puzzled by the amount of overweight vegetarians. Guess its all the french fries

[Aaeamdar]

You all are really bad at this. Let me explain how this should work, in easier terms.

Post A claims "Clearly you must see that 1 + 1 = 2"

Post B responds, "yes, I agree 1+1=2. That's not the point. The point is whether you need to use stone and chisel to work that out or if there might be a better way."

Post C should NOT read "Clearly 1+1=2".

See, Winnow, when I say that you don't get to claim hunters are conservationists just because the government places a mandatory tax on their license to hunt, you don't get to come back and use hunting liceneses as support for hunters being conservationists. Its a circular argument. Hunters are no more conservationists as a result of their hunting license tax than are lottery players great educators or cigarette smokers great providers of cancer research effeorts.

Likewise, when I concede that killing deer will reduce their population but question whether there might be better way (sterilization and other birth control means), you don't get to come back and rant about how without hunters deer would be overpopulated without at least explaining or addressing why these other means fail.

The interesting thing was that you even brought up an alternative to hunting licenses to handing out licenses to amatuers who want to kill for fun - hiring professional sharpshooters. I am not thrilled with that solution, but it is far far better than giving any hick (and his 15 y.o. son) with a gun, a license to go fumble around and main and kill things. At least with the hired sharp shooters, you can have some reasonable confidence they will minimize the suffering of the animal by striving for a "clean kill" (not sure how it is "clean" - but you hunters and gun enthusiest use the phrase "clean kill" to mean a shot that kills, more or less, instantly). Amatuer hunters, in addition to being responsible for the seasonal reports of accidental shootings that make me chuckle, are also likely to seriously injure the target of their destruction, rather than killing it. Thus leaving it to suffer a painful death. So even your inadvertantly provided hypothetical is far superior in my mind to the hunting license solution.

Let me spread some education of my own for you enlightened vegetarians:
A world wide vegetarian population is logistically IMPOSSIBLE. It CAN NOT happen. There is not enough farmland on this planet to feed a 100% vegetarian society.

So in your magical world, a cow, for example, takes in less food than it provides? I mean, that's the only way what you say can be true, right? The cow, as it grows, and all the food it eats and all the waste it produces, takes up less farmland than the vegetation grown to replace the nuetrition the cow provides as food. Is this really where your arguement is going or did you mean something else by that?

[Lohrno]

The sooner you stop arguing with Winnow, the happier you'll be. You see, he never backs up his claims or makes rebuttals. It seems he's just a troll.

-=Lohrno

[masteen]

Dar simply doesn't understand the logic of hunters as conservationists.

Hunting happens only in mostly wild, outdoor areas. Without these areas, there would not be hunting, and most serious hunters know this very well. They will act to protect their hobby.

But you should certainly believe a guy from NYC over a guy who grew up in the forests of PA meeting and socializing with other hunters.

[Canelek]

I suppose it would have been easier to post offensive anti-PETA pictures than to try and use reason and logic with any extremist...

http://www.peta-sucks.com

[Aaeamdar]

Dar, you drink milk from cows? You call hunting barbaric? You ever see a milk farm, vegan boy? ...there is no reason in this modern world to drink milk.

When it comes to drinking milk (something I rarely do), I drink soy milk. Mostly, I use milk (again soy milk) in liquid form for coffee. When I say I am a vegetartian, not a vegan, its not because of my direct consumption of eggs and milk, its a conciet to the likelihood that the organic breads I buy are probably made, in part, with organic eggs and milk.

That said, there is nothing hypocitical about anyone who is not a vegan. People froma very young age are trained to eat meat. Long time habits develop. My own transformation (which frankly may ultimately lead me to be a vegan) started by not eating mamals. Eventually I gave up birds and then fish and then all seafood. I think many vegitarians (or as those in the fish stage like to call themselves - "fishetarians") go through steps. Its a process that combines education, reason and the shedding of old habits. For some people, the breaking of these old habits is very difficult. For others its not. That someone is at a particular stage on their way to vegetarianism or veganism does not make them a hypocite. The same logic - "Hey, the steak is tasty, but do I really want to involve myself in the abhorant cruelty that brought it to my plate? Are there other choices?" Followed by sufficient education and suffcient access to alternatives, and you will have someone who has given up eating something because they no longer wish to participate in the cruelty it represents.

Sadly, this education/information is hard to come by, because, reputable sources are hard to come by. The lie we all live in that lets us eat meat without the guilt is pervasive. This is a lie that, if you are introspective, you can see in many of the post here. Emotional reaction, not reason, is driving most of the responses here. So, for the longest time, politically maligned sources like PETA (if you actually visit their site, you will find it more moderate than I think most of you are expecting), were teh only sources of this information. Organizations of its type are still the only source for some very graphic depictions of the cruelty I am talking about.

But, these days, we do have several, credible, rational and in at least one case - Dominion by Matthew Scully - politically conservative and Christianity based books on the subject. In spite of my signature, by the way, the philosophy of man's duty to the humane treatment of animals (as opposed to the concept of animal rights) is the one most in line with my beliefs, in spite of being formed from and based strongly in Biblical reasoning. For all of you ranting with emotion at the ideas I have presented here, who also happen to be either Christian or Conservative (its really not a requirement, as I said, I connected strongly with the reasoning myself) I strongly recommend you go out and read Dominion for yourself. There are other very good books on the subject, but Scully has done one of the best jobs of documenting the facts and one of the best jobs of having a book based on examples, rather than anecdotes.

[Aaeamdar]

I suppose it would have been easier to post offensive anti-PETA pictures than to try and use reason and logic

Of course it is easier. Especially when stuck trying to defend meat eating and hunting with logic and reason. But you could at least give the latter a try. The excersize might do your mind some good.

[Aslanna]

My stance on eating meat is the same as religion: Do whatever the fuck you want just don't try to convert me to your beliefs. Why does it bother you that someone else eats a cow? It's not hurting you just shut the fuck up about it and eat your soy burger.

And yes I eat Boca burgers on occassion since I don't eat pork or beef. But you wouldn't know that because I'm not getting in everyones face trying to pawn my agenda off on them.

[Canelek]

Actually, hiking through the woods or rambling up and down a river is an excellent source of excercise. And a gutted and quartered 800lb elk is quite a load to carry in 4 trips to your camp.

But in your eyes, you are enlightened and the rest of us are stuck in the dark ages of meat we eat simply out of habit.

Wow Dar, always great talking with a nutjob! Hell, maybe I should stop giving the greenpeace folks downtown an evil stare and discuss good reasons why I should not strangle them for being idealistic windbags.

I salute you sir for changing my way of thinking about idiots like you!

edit: I can't spell, but at least I know how to enjoy a good rare steak....

[Keverian FireCry]

Homercles, where the hell did I say I wanted the entire world to be vegetarians. I'm not fucking forcing my view on everyone. I'm giving you sound reasons to become one and if you choose to do so that's fucking great, if you don't it's perfectly understandable. My entire family loves meat, 95% of all of my friends eat meat, and I don't hold it against them an anyway.

As far as vegetarianism adding to farmland and producing more greenhouse gasses, you are wrong. You must have no clue about how much grazing land is necessary to feed livestock and how much deforestation happens just for cows, so let me enlighten you:

Meat animals all eat plants and they convert them into food very inefficiently. On average, a farmed animal has to eat 10kg of plant protein in order to make 1kg of meat – in other words, if the same land was used to grow crops for people to eat, it would be ten times more productive. That means LESS land would be taken up, a LOT less land.

The deers natural predator is the human being. It wasnt always that way, but it is now.

Those two sententences don't even make sense together. Nice try though. To give deer back their "natural predators" would be to reintroduce wolves, cyote, puma, etc. back into their natural habitat. But wait, what is the biggest group lobbying against introducing natural predators back into the wildlife? HUNTERS! And what group brought wolves to near extinction because they took from deer population in the first place? HUNTERS!

It's amazing how this cycle of ignorance lives on.

[Aaeamdar]

Why does it bother you that someone else eats a cow? It's not hurting you just shut the fuck up about it and eat your soy burger.

1. It hurts the cow.

2. It does hurt me, and you, and everyone else. There is an enormous environmental problem with factory farms (the primary source of meat in the world). You may think it is rediculous on first consideration, but dealing with the amount of waste that all those cows, pigs and chickens produce is a stagering problem.

Aside from that, all I am realy telling you is how I feel about the issue and trying my best to present you with reasons to consider the issue more thoroughly yourself. I really believe any thinking human that has all the facts will choose to be vegetarian. The vast majoirty of my friends are meat eaters. I go out and have dinner with them all the time. They never get a lecture from me (unless they ask). This, however, is a board for dicussing issues like this, so it hardly seams radical of me to present them here.

[masteen]

Kev, that's not exactly true. Cows eat stuff that is not suitable for human consumption, and you will NEVER get the same production of a nutrient intensive grain (for example) from a hay field.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to say that you are one of the most egotistical posters I've ever seen here, Dar. I eat steak because I LOVE IT. Not because I haven't figured out that (OMFG) a cow was killed to bring it to me.

Your attitude is EXACTLY why the Democrats lose ground every election cycle. People can know exactly what you know and still come to a different conclusion.

[Keverian FireCry]

If most cow farms were on natural grasslands you would be right, it would take more energy to create crops for people, because you would have to change the face of the land. However, when you begin cutting forests down to make grassland for cows, it becomes far less efficient. More land area is needed for cows than for crops, so more forests are going to be cut down as well.

[Tenuvil]

THE LARCH

[Tenuvil]

I think I said in another thread here that vegetarianism is a liberal conceit that is supported in times of plenty. If the shit hits the fan and civilization crumbles, the only vegetarians you'll see are dead ones. That's neither here nor there though.

As far as supporting the "cruelty" that is animal harvesting. The reason I pay a premium for my meats is because I don't want to have to deal with the less seemly side of bringing the meat from hoof to table. Few people do. This is part of the cost of production. However like Noel said, if I'm at dinner with my family and somebody wants to get in my face about how cruel and awful and murderous it is to order a steak in a restaurant, I'll deck them with no further words.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and I support your right to believe whatever you want, but please don't go shoving your beliefs in other people's faces to prove a point. Likewise don't slam hunters just because you disagree with what they do, be it sport or harvest.

[Badabidi]

I love eating meat, lots of it

[Aaeamdar]

...but please don't go shoving your beliefs in other people's faces to prove a point.

Second time, same thread. Since when is arguing your point on a politcal message board "shoving your belief's in other people's faces"?

I mean, that is why you read and post here, right? To listen and discuss on various "current events" issues withteh other posters here? I don't see anywhere in this thread when I have advocated going out into places where people are eating meat and beratting them for it. I see myself posting arguements on a message board devoted to political discusion and providing references in that same forum for those that want to read more. This is "shoving it in people's faces"?

[Atokal]

So in your magical world, a cow, for example, takes in less food than it provides? I mean, that's the only way what you say can be true, right? The cow, as it grows, and all the food it eats and all the waste it produces, takes up less farmland than the vegetation grown to replace the nuetrition the cow provides as food. Is this really where your arguement is going or did you mean something else by that?

So now you are saying KILL ALL THE COWS SO I CAN HAVE MY VEGGIE PLANET.

DOH back to the drawing board.

[Zaelath]

So in your magical world, a cow, for example, takes in less food than it provides? I mean, that's the only way what you say can be true, right? The cow, as it grows, and all the food it eats and all the waste it produces, takes up less farmland than the vegetation grown to replace the nuetrition the cow provides as food. Is this really where your arguement is going or did you mean something else by that?

So now you are saying KILL ALL THE COWS SO I CAN HAVE MY VEGGIE PLANET.

DOH back to the drawing board.

You must concentrate harder to achieve enlightenment, Grasshopper.

Why is it the retards come out and completely butcher an argument in a paltry attempt to rewrite it, act like small children when they're called on faulty logic, and claim to be the mature realists... astounding.

[Zaelath]

Let me spread some education of my own for you enlightened vegetarians:
A world wide vegetarian population is logistically IMPOSSIBLE. It CAN NOT happen. There is not enough farmland on this planet to feed a 100% vegetarian society.

So in your magical world, a cow, for example, takes in less food than it provides? I mean, that's the only way what you say can be true, right? The cow, as it grows, and all the food it eats and all the waste it produces, takes up less farmland than the vegetation grown to replace the nuetrition the cow provides as food. Is this really where your arguement is going or did you mean something else by that?

Regardless of Toker's moronic Cartalesque swipe at this.. a lot of grazing land isn't suitable for any kind of modern farming; hilly, rocky, poor soil, hell even the desert in Australia is used to graze cattle.. you can't just turn all that into arable land.

[Funkmasterr]

No need to even go as in depth as kilmoll or anything, i will simply say this- if you really think we should pay to give deer birth control (lots of money, btw) instead of the government making money off of hunting to do the good things that are done, you are so far gone from reality there is no hope for return.

[Tyek]

Second time, same thread. Since when is arguing your point on a politcal message board "shoving your belief's in other people's faces"?

I mean, that is why you read and post here, right? To listen and discuss on various "current events" issues withteh other posters here? I don't see anywhere in this thread when I have advocated going out into places where people are eating meat and beratting them for it. I see myself posting arguements on a message board devoted to political discusion and providing references in that same forum for those that want to read more. This is "shoving it in people's faces"?

While I am not a religious person, I seem to recall you railing on all the religious people on the board and in the world for stating their beliefs.

Oh and plants live too, who is going to protect the plants???? You are cruel. Think about it, ripping some innocent plant from the ground, tearing it into shreds and consuming it. SICKO.

[Kylere]

I am not anti hutning because I have a Bamib complex, I am antihunting because it is a moronic hobby.

Cletus says, "I go get some meat fur me family"

Weapon $500 to $2500
Ammo $25-$50
Fuel $50
Clothing, scents, specialized Gear, etc $500

Yep that makes sense to sometimes get a deer that provides 200 bucks of Protein with a gamey taste.

As I said, morons.

I am more impressed with the people that admit they go to get drunk, party with their friends and avoid their family because honesty earns more points than excuses ever will. I have never hunted Bami, before I was a soldier it made no sense, and after being a soldier is is really dumb. The only ones who impress me with their hunting skills are the ones that use noncompound bows, no salt licks, no traps, no baits, and actual foot pursuit. We have a guys in Michigan who use 4 wheel ATV's Gun mounts for christsakes and have people in helicopters spotting for them, it is bloody sad.

[Aaeamdar]

I seem to recall you railing on all the religious people on the board and in the world for stating their beliefs.

You either don't read very carefully or just read into things what you want to. I wouldn't worry about it though, its a fairly common trait.

Also, your plant "arguement" is as poor as it comes. Not atypical though. You feel the need to support your eating of meat but can't address any of the arguements rationally, so you come with some off the wall one-liner. You are better off not bothering and sparing everyone a glimpse at your stupidity. Again, though, don't feel too bad. Its a common enough trait.

[Lynks]

Wow, Dar is starting to show Midnyte's arrogance. Plants may not have feelings though, but they are still life. Is it only wrong to kill something if it has emotions then?

[Aaeamdar]

Firstly, my arrogance goes far beyond any midnyte may possess. This mostly comes from a long history of being right, however, so its not really my fault.

Secondly, please take your (and Tyek's) plant arguement to its logical conclusion. No, never mind, you probably are not able to do it. OK, people have to eat. They have a fairly wide array of choices of what to eat. Grouping things into large catagories so as to make this post readble, we have plants and we have animals. Both groups can give you all you need to sustain yourself. Both groups provide a wide variety of "dishes" that are enjoyable to eat. I have provided you all with several arguments (none of which have been refuted) and information and references to futher material for why you should avoid the "animal" catagory. You would also like to question the "plant" catagory. Fine.

So, you come back here with:

1. any credible evidence that plants have feelings - both for themselves and for others - that they have family units or demonstrate suffering when killed mained or when others of their species are killed or maimed; or

2. a third, non-living reasonably accessable group (that is obviously neither plant nor animal) but which provides everything I need to sustain myself and provides a reasonble variety of "dishes" that are enjoyable to eat

and I will research the possibility of switching to that group for food.

Otherwise all you are saying is "plants are alive." Again, I would have thought something this simple would not need to be spelled out. The most ardent anti-vegetarian posting so far has not bothered to suggest it is inconsistant with a policy of anti-cruelty that peple eat anything. The only reasons to do so is either 1. stupidity, 2. a desire to track an arguement away from any meaningful discussion through an ad absurdum assertion. I'll let you decide which of the two applies to you and Tyek.

[Rekaar.]

It's cruel to kill and eat animals as part of the natural order, but it's no problem to kill babies when the mother chooses to not want them. This is why so many liberals mystify me. Tenuvil is right on - a liberal conceit sustained by times of plenty.

[Fazzar]

This thread has turned from a frightful story of death, which some are taking perverse pleasure in, to a thread on the virtues of vegetarianism. Dar, the posters that are emotionally attacking you are doing so for your lack of respect for human life. I could give a shit if you are a vegetarian. I am simply attacking you for being a hypocritical (despite your attempts to say you are not) religious zealot.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

See Dar when you are a negative cunt, you breed more negativity. When will you simpletons learn?

[Aaeamdar]

Abortion has nothing to do with this. It should not be that confusing.

1. It is sad that animals have to suffer so that people can eat. If, however, people do not have a choice other than to eat animals, then while it is still sad that the animal suffers, we'll put up with the suffering so that humans can sustain themselves. However, in modern society there is simply no need to eat animals any longer. If you are going to continue the cruelty, it is no longer a matter of necessity it is now a matter of desire. Make that choice if you like. Decide that - "yes, the cow suffers tremendously, but I am man. I desire a tastey morsel and if cows must suffer for me to enjoy my steak meal, so be it." All I am trying to do is give you a chance to both understand the choice you are making (many of you with your "man is a omnivore, just look at our teeth!" or "but man survived by hunting" or any other arguement for meat eating found on this thread, are not doing that) and to give you information and references to read more on the issue.

2. Abortion is sad (well, at least once you have a recognizable child - I find it hard to be sad that a zygot has been caused to fail to implant). But we must face the reality of sex, the risk (though very small on an incident basis) of the resulting unwanted pregancy, and the need for women to be free. The existance of a right of abortion does not mean it is a good thing that a child has been aborted. Its sad that it happens, but it is a necessary condition of women's freedom.

If at some point it becomes unneccessary, then I will promise all of you I will be 100% against abortions. Just like I would be 100% in favour of animal creulty if it was neccessary for man to continue.

[Lynks]

See Dar when you are a negative cunt, you breed more negativity. When will you simpletons learn?

LOL, when I was walking to my PC to come check this, I said this exact same thing in my head knowing that if you would post in this thread, this is what you would say. God damn you're a fucking parrot.

[Lynks]

Dar, what do you want us to say? You're right about eating no meat, you can get what you need from plants. And? I seem to recall all of this started by pretty much saying that these hunters got what they deserved. I have yet to see any justification for what you did other than you being a sick fuck.

2. You justify not eating meat because killing animals that have emotions is cruel. Thats what I wanted to know. I wanted you to say that there was a difference between taking a life with emotions vs taking a life that is without emotions. Thank you.

3. I have yet to see you argue that it would be impossible to feed an entire world population that are vegetarians. As far as I know, it would be, there isn't enough space on Earth to provide such a ting.

[Aaeamdar]

Dar, what do you want us to say? You're right about eating no meat, you can get what you need from plants. And? I seem to recall all of this started by pretty much saying that these hunters got what they deserved. I have yet to see any justification for what you did other than you being a sick fuck.

Do you get all teary-eyed when you read a story of some criminal that gets killed in the course of committing a crime (let's assume the crime is serious but would not be life-threatening)? Do you feel sad for the drunk that does something stupid while drunk and dies? Do you find the "Darwin Awards" posts ammusing?

That's how I feel about hunters. They are out there tourturing and killing animals for their own amusement, so yes, I find it ironic and amusing when their hobby gets them killed or injured. Would I rather they wake up to the barbarism they are committing and stop? Certainly. But until they do, I won't be sheding any tears over their graves.

2. You justify not eating meat because killing animals that have emotions is cruel. Thats what I wanted to know. I wanted you to say that there was a difference between taking a life with emotions vs taking a life that is without emotions. Thank you.

Well its far more complicated than that, which my posts I think have made fairly clear. If it were a simple matter of "killing animals that have emotions is cruel" then these posts would be a lot shorter. But I am looking forward to where you are going with it.

3. I have yet to see you argue that it would be impossible to feed an entire world population that are vegetarians. As far as I know, it would be, there isn't enough space on Earth to provide such a ting.

Are you talking about Homercle's "magic cow" theorem? Its non-sense. A cow takes far more "space" to raise for the amount of food it produces than does any grain or even lower denisity veatables like tubers or leafy plants. You have to feed the cow. What do you feed it? In the US, mostly its fed corn if its a high-efficiency feedlot cow. This corn is grown more compactly than corn grown for human consumption, but not anywhere close to the ratio of inefficency of the cow's conversion of that corn. So even merely growning vegatables in place of all the places corn if grown for food-animal consumption would provide more food than the food-animals themselves. Add to that the area for the cows themselves and add to that again places to process the truely unreal amount of natural waste the cow produces over its short lifetime. Its not even close (to finish the formula you would need to add again the difference in space required to process meats as opposed to processing grains and then subtract out the land used that cannot be made suitable for human consuable vegetable crops - either way its not even close). This is just one of many many myths stated (but not supported) by the meat industry. It makes no snse. Has no factual backing, but enough people (a really really really high percentage of our population) want to eat meat, have some inkling of what that means, and are willing to accept any reasonble (even if unsupportable) assertion that will allow them to believe meat is neccessary. Its not.

[Sargeras]

However, in modern society there is simply no need to eat animals any longer.

What modern society do you live in?

[Aaeamdar]

The US. But this statement applies to far more than the US. Any industrialized nation has no need to eat meat, and hasn't for a very long time.

[Drinsic Darkwood]

Awesome. But I'm still going to buy $.99 Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers at Wendy's and order steaks at sit-down restaurants. I would go so far as to classify my addiction to meat products as a personal "need".

[Aslanna]

Humans (and animals) have eaten meat for hundreds... thousands of years. It's human nature. And I doubt that will change anytime soon.

My father hunts. He doesn't do it for 'amusement'. He eats what he kills. I don't share his views but hey, I don't have a problem with him doing it. You're so twisted you think that people are out there just shooting animals and leaving them laying on the ground. I'm sure some are. But it's not the majority.

Get off your high horse already

[Lynks]

Do you get all teary-eyed when you read a story of some criminal that gets killed in the course of committing a crime (let's assume the crime is serious but would not be life-threatening)? Do you feel sad for the drunk that does something stupid while drunk and dies? Do you find the "Darwin Awards" posts ammusing?

A better analogy would be, if a drunk was acting all retarded, then some other drunk comes up and shoots him, in which case, I would feel bad for him.

[Tyek]

Dar,

If you would like I will dig up the research that shows that plants have exhibited wide responses to different emotional climates. I also put on YOU to prove they don't have feelings, family units etc. You are the one trying to prove a point so the burden of proof falls on you.

I know we have to eat, I don't care what you eat. You could live on your dogs crap and think you are helping recycle for all I care, I was pointing out your hypocrisy.

I know, I know, you are Dar, the only intelligent person on this board. Only you can absolutely question the values of others or better yet try and force your opinions on others. I eat meat, how in any way shape or form does this affect you or your life.

Your statements of proof are mostly just regurgitated facts and opinions of people with the same beliefs as you have. You are doing the exact same thing you say everyone else is doing. If you left it with, "I am sorry people died, but I think what they do is barbaric," then fine. Instead you chose to attack a bunch of people for doing something they enjoy. This not 2 months after you yelled at Christians trying to force their views.

I bow to you all mighty Dar the only truely brilliant person in the world. I feel honored to have even been acknowledged in your brilliant posts and I can now say my life is complete. Thank you Dar, Thank you for opening my mind and making me realize that only your opinion can be correct.

[Tyek]

Oh yeah, I also find it funny that you think we should not tell someone if they can or cannot have a kid (Which I agree with you on) but you will happily make that decision for all the animals you are so keen on protecting.

[Arsecn]

This thread has made me hungry. Monster burgers round the horn!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

nm

[Dexail]

sometimes late at night, you can still hear the rutabaga's screaming, can't you Clarice?

[Spang]

http://www.inq7.net/lif/2003/jun/24/lif_22-1.htm

Experiments prove
plants have feelings
Posted: 5:10 PM (Manila Time) | Jun. 23, 2003
Inquirer News Service

THE CURRENT controversy over the removal by the Metro Manila Development Authority of old trees along Katipunan Street in Quezon City to ease traffic congestion has focused public attention on the importance of trees to human life on earth.

It is now common knowledge that plants and trees serve living creatures in multifarious ways. They prevent floods and soil erosion, give off oxygen, provide food and shelter for both animals and man and a source of medicine to fight all kinds of diseases.But neither the environmentalists nor the average modern individual is aware of the hidden life of plants or of their extra sensory powers.


It was the American polygraph expert, Cleve Backster, who first brought up the incredible idea that plants are aware of their environment and have rudimentary emotions or feelings. Subsequently, he proved that hypothesis beyond doubt. He discovered that plants reacted to the death of other living creatures even though the doomed victims were not in the same room.

His original experiment consisted of attaching polygraph electrodes on the leaves of philodendron plants. In another room, Backster set up a machine that would dump live brine shrimp at random into boiling water. As a control the machine occasionally would dump water without shrimp to see if the plants in the other room simply reacted to the mechanical process rather than to the death of the shrimp.

To ensure that there is no human intervention, the experiment was conducted without any researcher in the laboratory. Everything was done automatically. One polygraph was not attached to any plant as a control to see if its readings would be different from the three polygraphs attached to the plants. Once the machines began to operate, experimenters left the building, only to return later to verify the results.

And what were these results? "The plants in separate rooms connected to separate polygraphs," reported John Whitman in "The Psychic Power of Plants" (published by new American Library, New York, 1974), "responded to the death of the brine shrimp by showing acute stress curves similar to those shown by humans under intense pressure-either mental or physical."

Furthermore, according to Backster, "The plants gave no response to the dumping of water which contained no shrimp at all." It shows the shrimp somehow was able to communicate to the plants in the other room its "death signals," much like a person involved in a fatal accident is able to communicate telepathically his death to loved one miles away from the scene of the accident.

Plant identifies killer

In another fascinating and rather incredible experiment, Backster was able to identify a plant killer through his polygraph machine. The plants pointed to the real killer by reacting wildly to him.

Here is how Whitman described that classic experiment in the book mentioned earlier: "One of six students was chosen to kill a plant in a room with only one plant present. Neither Backster nor the five other students knew who the killer would be. The chosen student sneaked into the room with two plants and destroyed one of them. Backster later asked the students to come into the room one at a time.

"Each of the innocent students came into the room and the plant showed no reaction to any of them. But when the guilty student came into the room, the plant seemed to go into a frenzy which showed up as wild activity on the polygraph tracings."

Other experiments conducted by different researchers showed that plants responded positively to classical music and very badly to rock or heavy metal music. They also responded well to words of encouragement and positive emotions from people around them. Maybe that's why the fig tree withered and died when Christ cursed it for not bearing fruits, as related in the New Testament.

City dwellers have not given much importance to plants. Maybe it's because they are not aware of their importance and sensitivity. As the above scientific experiments have shown, plants and trees have emotions and even psychic powers. Maybe we should tell MMDA Chair Bayani Fernando and his over-enthusiastic agents that plants are "human," too!

[noel]

I can't believe there's three threads of 'Meat is Murder' because people are still responding to Dar's trolling. Ignore him... more meat for the rest of us!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

MEAT LOVERS HEAVEN !