Bloody Fargin\' Stupid Political Correctness ...

[Mosch]

Vegans. Must not.... have to... can\'t start to.....
While I\'m fighting with myself not to say anything, please do accept those quotes I collected from vegan sites.

If you haven\'t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.´
(Yeah, we Germans had a similar idea some time ago.)

The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.


I would rather see a blank space where I am
Me too.

If an animal researcher said, \"Its a dog or a child,\' a liberator will defend the dog every time
Proving he\'s an idiot.

What we must do is start viewing every cow, pig, chicken, monkey, rabbit, mouse, and pigeon as our family members.
No.

\"To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,\' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.\' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off.\"
No comment needed....

\"Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong.\"
No comment needed...

Audience member: \"If you were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, would you rescue the baby or the dog?\" Tom Regan, \"If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I\'d save the dog.\"
No comment needed....

\"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.\"
Go backto biology class.

\"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn\'t make any difference to me.\"
Probably not, because you\'d get beaten to death by an unruly mob of people with cancer.

\"Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], \'we\'d be against it.\'\"
Of course you would be. No damn animal rights activist ever has the sicknesses that he says we need no cure for through animal tests.

\"If natural healing is not possible, given the energy of the environment, it may be right for that being to change form. Some people call this death.\"
If thinking is not possible, it may be right to play it safe and shut up.

\"Eating meat is primitive, barbaric, and arrogant.\"
Yes. Think of the cute little lambs - with eyes THAAAAT big! Aw.

\"Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer.\"
Fun fact: A vegan eating weed killer equals a non-vegan eating a butcher knife.

\"My dream is that people will come to view eating an animal as cannibalism.\"
My dream is that you shut up.

\"To give a child animal products is a form of child abuse.\"
Malnutrition through Tofu only without letting a child have a choice on the other hand....


I have some German quotes too, but I am not going to translate them and furthermore my blood pressure is too high again.

 

[Hoblit]

Dennis Leary does a great piece on Vegetarianism and eating meat. My best line from it is \"Eating meat is an instinct, not eating meat is a choice.\"

My favourite argument with vegans/vegetarians is to ask them if they waited for whatever plant they are eating to fall off the tree, or if they ripped it off causing great pain and suffering to the being residing in the plant. This one stumps a lot of them.

The last amusing thing that I have seen is the number of vegans/vegetarians who wear leather shoes. This one always cracks me up.

 

[Astonia]

different opinion!

Wow, people are really provoced by vegetarians/vegans....I understand vegans, however, I also understand meat eaters not wanting to be preached to. My main issue is all the meat we throw away each year, ie killing animals for nothing, and also how the animals are treated when they are alive. I don\'t think it\'s wrong to eat met in itself, it\'s the industry that is wrong.
Plus, vegetables would feed so many more humans, but then again, we in the west would never share it with the poor countries anyways...

And yes, I eat meat. From the industry. I\'m a hypocryte ...lol

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Mosch
If you haven\'t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

Just a thought, if they want to get rid of all man kind, what justifies the fact that they\'re still arround ?

They\'re also forgetting that when the sun will turn into a red giant (therefore wiping out all trace of life on Earth), what will be the only technologicaly advanced species able to save all the others? ... yep, you guessed it ... the big mean humans .

Got beef ?

 

[Mosch]

Astonia, I don\'t really have a problem with vegans, it\'s just those radical idiots that piss me off. For example, here is a link: http://lme.agrar.de/20041117-00001/
It is in German, but I hope Babelfish could provide an OK translation. Why did they do this? Is it right to starve your child to death to prove a point (if you have to think to answer this question, get out of here)? So medicin is soooo bad - but the child is dead now! How much worse could medicine have been?
I am not even annoyed by vegans preaching to me, because I always win those arguments

And what do you mean with vegetables could feed more people?


Green stuff: I once talked to them and advised mass suicide, I even gave them a good date and place. However, they didn\'t want to, because they will only die after they have kille.... convinced every last meat eater that eating meat is wrong and that we are Nazis (yes, that was a direct quote. If you eat meat, you are a child abuser and a Nazi on top. Can\'t be arsed to find the argument about that though and it was in German anyway.)

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Mosch
Green stuff: I once talked to them and advised mass suicide, I even gave them a good date and place. However, they didn\'t want to, because they will only die after they have kille.... convinced every last meat eater that eating meat is wrong and that we are Nazis (yes, that was a direct quote. If you eat meat, you are a child abuser and a Nazi on top. Can\'t be arsed to find the argument about that though and it was in German anyway.)

So like they\'re supposed to be the superior beings that decide what\'s right and what\'s not ... they should seriously check their history ... heck they should seriously get checked themselves (I\'m just talking about the wackos, not people who just don\'t want to eat meat because they don\'t like it ).

 

[Astonia]

Originally posted by Mosch

And what do you mean with vegetables could feed more people?

I mean that if we would grow crops on all the land that is now busy feeding cows and the like, we would get much much more food. I don\'t have any numbers but there are plenty of studies showing this, taking into account that you\'d need more vegetables than meat to get the same energy from it, but if you\'d grow the right kind (ie beans and stuff), we could feed many more people. But then again, since we throw so much meat away each year, we would probably do the same with veggies, so it wouldn\'t help. *cynical*

Oh well, back to painitng now...

 

[Ritual]

In rough numbers the meat from one animal contains 1/10 of the energy of the food that has been given to that animal. So, if we would eat the food intended for that animal (or grow other food instead) instead of eating the animal, it would give us about 10 times the energy. Note, that this is only about energy (calories)! Therefore, keeping animals for food could be considered a waste of energy, especially since big multinational companies in the meat industry use land in poor countries (where they could have better use for that land themselves) to grow the food for their animals.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Astonia

Originally posted by Mosch

And what do you mean with vegetables could feed more people?

I mean that if we would grow crops on all the land that is now busy feeding cows and the like, we would get much much more food. I don\'t have any numbers but there are plenty of studies showing this, taking into account that you\'d need more vegetables than meat to get the same energy from it, but if you\'d grow the right kind (ie beans and stuff), we could feed many more people. But then again, since we throw so much meat away each year, we would probably do the same with veggies, so it wouldn\'t help. *cynical*

Oh well, back to painitng now...

If space is a problem, hydroponic technology works nowadays. But as you say, we are already throwing away excess meat so that the markets don\'t crash ...

How about first stopping all wars and then using all that weapons money for developping the countries in need ... forget it, it\'s a naïf thought, and if it was ever applied, then there would really be too many people on Earth ...

 

[Ritual]

Space is really not a problem! The problem is who owns the space. In countries suffering from starvation, the land where farming is possible is generally owned by big (often multinational, i.e. European or American) companies and they don\'t make much money on producing food for the local people.

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von Astonia

Originally posted by Mosch

And what do you mean with vegetables could feed more people?

I mean that if we would grow crops on all the land that is now busy feeding cows and the like, we would get much much more food. I don\'t have any numbers but there are plenty of studies showing this, taking into account that you\'d need more vegetables than meat to get the same energy from it, but if you\'d grow the right kind (ie beans and stuff), we could feed many more people. But then again, since we throw so much meat away each year, we would probably do the same with veggies, so it wouldn\'t help. *cynical*

Oh well, back to painitng now...

Let me throw some numbers around.
35% of the whole land of the earth can be used for agriculture. Of those 35% only one third can be used for vegetables, grains and fruits (the consequences of global warming and erosion). Food grown for animals is a lot different than what we grow for human consumption too (and even the hardest vegan has not yet been seen grazing peacefully on a meadow with happy flowers either).
Nutrition is another aspect. People in the thrid world don\'t die because they don\'t have food, they die because they have food that is not nutritious enough. It\'s all `fine and dandy to live vegan, but you have to take care what you eat. Meat must be substituted by something. You can live completely vegan and stay healthy, but it\'s not as simple as only eating tofu for the rest of your life, or the aforementioned rest will be rather short indeed....
So... it is a nice thing propagated for example by vegan pages, but it just wouldn\'t work like that. And there is no such thing as global sharing either.

 

[Ritual]

@Mosch
The problem is not the combined actual space suitable for agriculture. See my post above! If people in Sudan or Tchad, or other countries where people starve, owned their own land they could grow a large variety of crops and use a part of it to keep cattle. As it is now, basically ALL of their land is owned by big companies using the land for growing fodder. Not because the land is unsuitable for vegetables, but because the land is cheaper than land in Europe or America.

We have enough space for growing both food and keep cattle. It\'s just the ownership balance that\'s twisted beyond all recognition!

 

[Mosch]

Yes and no I posted before I could read your post, Ritual, but essentially I condensed a lot of your post into \"There is no global sharing\"

Still, completely abandoning cattle farming just would not work.

 

[Ritual]

No, you\'re right! African countries need to get their soil back! As it is now, they have so little of it that a single bad crop kills thousands or even millions.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Ritual
No, you\'re right! African countries need to get their soil back! As it is now, they have so little of it that a single bad crop kills thousands or even millions.

If they had less wars and less dictatorships it would help too.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by green stuff

Message original : Ritual
No, you\'re right! African countries need to get their soil back! As it is now, they have so little of it that a single bad crop kills thousands or even millions.

If they had less wars and less dictatorships it would help too.

Yes, of course! But a lot of the damage is already done! Corrupt, war-mongering leaders have sold out their land cheaply in order to buy guns and to put money in their own pockets, and western companies (and governments) have been very helpful in this matter.

As long as the land stays the property of western multinational companies there will be very little difference. The same thing goes for other natural resources, ore, forrests, minerals, oil, etc.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Ritual
As long as the land stays the property of western multinational companies there will be very little difference. The same thing goes for other natural resources, ore, forrests, minerals, oil, etc.

Nationalizing the compagnies has never really worked either.

 

[Ritual]

Not immediately, but in the long run it might! I think it\'s a necessity for making things better. Democratisation and peace are other necessities. Just nationalising companies probably won\'t change much as long as countries are in war, and political leaders embezzles the profits. At the same time, just democratisation won\'t help either if resources are owned by our compaines. As always, there are no easy solutions to serious problems.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Ritual
As always, there are no easy solutions to serious problems.

So true.

However, the \"easy\" route would be to start over again on other planets. If we don\'t want to end up with limitations on the number of children one can have and other demographic considerations, it\'s the only real solution. Plus, man kind would no longer be at risk of extinction. On the other hand, having a planet wouldn\'t be that special anymore and so nuclear bombs might be used a little more often than what they should be (which should be never in my opinion).

Yes, I\'m a big sci-fi freak .

 

[Propaintjob]

So I suppose that in an age of political hyper-correctness we should all now refer to White Dwarf as:


Vertically challenged albino homosapien of non-specific gender or sexual orientation ?????????

Like to see GW fit that on the cover lol